The lawyers for the plaintiffs in the class-action suit against OLG are proposing a 'free' lottery with a jackpot worth up to $1 billion, to make up for the corruption that's been alleged.
There's a lot wrong with the OLG, beyond even the current scandal. Things like spending millions of dollars to drop the 'C' from their logo and advertising --- millions of dollars -- all those light up store signs -- everything had to be changed in order to remove that word from the name. Who got the advertising contracts? the contracts to make the new signs etc.? With that kind of stupidity going on at the top, is it any wonder that there was also nonsense all the way down the ranks.
This class action suit might seem like a great idea, but in the end, all of us will pay -- even those of us who never play. How fair is that when there can be no actual evidence that anyone who joins the suit is actually a victim of OLG fraud.
There are things that could be done to prevent this sort of corruption. Maybe a law that would disallow vendors and their families from participating in the lottery, just like when the SUN or the Toronto Star hold a contest, employees and family members and people associated with the sponsors of the contest are not allowed to play.
Using tax dollars (a billion of them) to compensate people who might not even have been affected, or to encourage people to buy more lottery tickets in order to receive these 'free' ones, is not a solution.
Much as I sympathize with those who feel they were cheated out of winnings, there has always been a way to ensure you'd be the guy to receive the money if your ticket won -- you write your name on the back.
canadianna
Friday, March 30, 2007
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Garth wants Dion's job
Why does the Toronto Sun persist in giving yet another venue to that tiresome bore, Garth Turner?
Garth always seems to have so much time on his hands. He spends much of it thinking up clever barbs he must believe will pierce the heart of his arch-nemesis, Stephen Harper.
Sometimes I think Garth should pilfer the CityTV tag line: EVERYWHERE because you just can't get away from the guy.
The time-wasting exercise showcased by the Toronto Sun, both yesterday and today, is Garth's recent post: 'Sixty-ways-to-dis-Steve-Harper' or '60 proofs Harper is a mean guy, na-na-na-na-na' or some such other silliness.
Garth Turner already gets more attention than he deserves and here a newspaper gives him yet another forum to vent his bitter bile. His list seems to be the product of an obsessive mind. It's like he's a spurned boyfriend or something, unable to let go of his unreciprocated love. Creepy. The list must have taken him a while and one can just sense the pinching resentment that has Garth's shorts all bunched.
He's included things that haven't even happened yet (an election in 2007) and he's taken the liberty of predicting that the GST won't be cut by another cent while Harper is in office by already calling it a 'broken promise'.
At least a couple of his points are repeated, but reworded or augmented so the list will fill out the full 60 (one point for each week of Conservative governance). For example, he mentions income trusts at least three times, with a different take on why Harper's handling of them was wrong.
Many of the points on his list are either untrue, twisted or out of context, like point 41 where he says Harper vowed to dismantle the gun registry 'after (a) fatal shooting in Montreal with registered weapons.' As though Harper's plan to scrap the registry was in response to that tragedy.
Some of the points are unsubstantiated and others are simply unfair -- pointing out how much Jim Flaherty spent on skates? What business is that of Garth's, or mine? Is Garth going to give us a listing of his personal family expenditures?
Other points are correct, and are reasons to applaud Harper -- such as number 44 -- Garth being kicked out of the Tory caucus. And if Garth is still lamenting that, then perhaps he should re-think his Liberal credentials.
The real interesting post from Garth's blog is from today. I ventured over there, spurred on by this gory curiosity that happens whenever he's been overwhelmingly Garthly, and I found this rumination:
Garth, surely you jest -- but Stephane Dion might want to start checking over his shoulder and making sure Garth feels loved in caucus, or else the Liberal leader might regret the day he yanked the thorn from this lion's paw and invited him to the table.
Number 44 on that list looks better every day.
canadianna
Garth always seems to have so much time on his hands. He spends much of it thinking up clever barbs he must believe will pierce the heart of his arch-nemesis, Stephen Harper.
Sometimes I think Garth should pilfer the CityTV tag line: EVERYWHERE because you just can't get away from the guy.
The time-wasting exercise showcased by the Toronto Sun, both yesterday and today, is Garth's recent post: 'Sixty-ways-to-dis-Steve-Harper' or '60 proofs Harper is a mean guy, na-na-na-na-na' or some such other silliness.
Garth Turner already gets more attention than he deserves and here a newspaper gives him yet another forum to vent his bitter bile. His list seems to be the product of an obsessive mind. It's like he's a spurned boyfriend or something, unable to let go of his unreciprocated love. Creepy. The list must have taken him a while and one can just sense the pinching resentment that has Garth's shorts all bunched.
He's included things that haven't even happened yet (an election in 2007) and he's taken the liberty of predicting that the GST won't be cut by another cent while Harper is in office by already calling it a 'broken promise'.
At least a couple of his points are repeated, but reworded or augmented so the list will fill out the full 60 (one point for each week of Conservative governance). For example, he mentions income trusts at least three times, with a different take on why Harper's handling of them was wrong.
Many of the points on his list are either untrue, twisted or out of context, like point 41 where he says Harper vowed to dismantle the gun registry 'after (a) fatal shooting in Montreal with registered weapons.' As though Harper's plan to scrap the registry was in response to that tragedy.
Some of the points are unsubstantiated and others are simply unfair -- pointing out how much Jim Flaherty spent on skates? What business is that of Garth's, or mine? Is Garth going to give us a listing of his personal family expenditures?
Other points are correct, and are reasons to applaud Harper -- such as number 44 -- Garth being kicked out of the Tory caucus. And if Garth is still lamenting that, then perhaps he should re-think his Liberal credentials.
The real interesting post from Garth's blog is from today. I ventured over there, spurred on by this gory curiosity that happens whenever he's been overwhelmingly Garthly, and I found this rumination:
We may be entering the age of romantic notions. Voters, at least a lot of them I’d say, are hungry for a none-of-the-above alternative to politics as usual. It may manifest itself as it did Monday night in Quebec, or last November in the London by-election. It may take form as a new kind of leadership, practiced by a new kind of leader – who consults with people using today’s technologies and opens the doors and windows of Parliament as never before. It could be one of the parties willing to forego the mushy, centrist policies of something for everything, and launches a crusade. (. . .) The man or woman who can stride outside of the establishment one day, talk directly to the people and move them to consider achieving the improbable, the noble and the slightly untamed, may find the time is precisely right.Gosh now, who would that striding, talking, improbable, noble and slightly untamed beast be?
Garth, surely you jest -- but Stephane Dion might want to start checking over his shoulder and making sure Garth feels loved in caucus, or else the Liberal leader might regret the day he yanked the thorn from this lion's paw and invited him to the table.
Number 44 on that list looks better every day.
canadianna
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Threat? Interference? Blackmail?
These are some of the words being used to describe Harper's statement prior to the Quebec election that it is: "necessary to have a federalist government in Quebec" in order to proceed with promised reforms, such as dealing with the fiscal imbalance.
Should he have said it during the election campaign?
Why not?
Why pretend that if Quebec had elected a separatist party provincially, that the federal government should or would deal with that party in the same manner as with a federalist party?
Much of the problem around Quebec is the way we skirt around the issues. I don't like that Harper threw so much money at Quebec (and Ontario) at the expense of others -- but how does one take offense at honesty? The timing? Like Quebeckers aren't smart enough to realize that a strong vote for the Bloc in a federal election can be construed as a 'protest' and not an endorsement of separatism, whereas a strong PQ provincial vote is less likely to seem that way to the feds.
Harper stated a fact. Was he trying to 'influence' voters? Maybe, but I doubt it. Harper is aware that most Quebeckers are far more savvy about their politics than most people in the rest of the country. He wasn't telling them anything that they didn't already know.
canadianna
Should he have said it during the election campaign?
Why not?
Why pretend that if Quebec had elected a separatist party provincially, that the federal government should or would deal with that party in the same manner as with a federalist party?
Much of the problem around Quebec is the way we skirt around the issues. I don't like that Harper threw so much money at Quebec (and Ontario) at the expense of others -- but how does one take offense at honesty? The timing? Like Quebeckers aren't smart enough to realize that a strong vote for the Bloc in a federal election can be construed as a 'protest' and not an endorsement of separatism, whereas a strong PQ provincial vote is less likely to seem that way to the feds.
Harper stated a fact. Was he trying to 'influence' voters? Maybe, but I doubt it. Harper is aware that most Quebeckers are far more savvy about their politics than most people in the rest of the country. He wasn't telling them anything that they didn't already know.
canadianna
Don't complain
I don't know why some things rile me so much. It isn't that I don't expect to be challenged, but sometimes I'm struck by a statement so annoying, I have to respond.
A commenter on my YTV profanity post said:
Words like 'pimp' might be part Anonymous' everyday life -- but not mine. Yet somehow he believes that I must let YTV make it part of my kids' daily lives, or tune out.
Why is questioning the emerging status quo against the sensibilities of so many people? Whether it's using bad language on television or changing the meaning of the word marriage, or questioning the morality of abortion on demand, I always feel like liberals in this society are not simply telling me that they disagree with me, but that I should shut up.
If CTV had used the word 'pimp' in its advertising, I wouldn't have complained. When the Toronto Star ran that 'Pimp Your Kitchen' contest, I rolled my eyes and though 'yuck' -- but Anonymous is not telling me to ignore a word being used on a mainstream station intended for adult audiences, but rather YTV, a station that promotes itself as child-centred with programming directed at, geared to, prepared exclusively for -- children.
Maybe Anonymous thinks its okay that the lines between the ages are blurring, but I think kids should be kids.
Change the channel? Why, because some people are too lazy to think? Because hip young programmers and apparently Anonymous think that the word 'pimp' sounds okay coming out of the mouths of toddlers?
No -- this is not a censorship issue where programming is suitable for the age level and a viewer is being overly sensitive -- this is a case of a television stations pushing the boundaries of good taste. We're not talking about the word 'fart' or some other such childish word -- we're talking about a word that doesn't belong in the realm of childhood.
It strikes me funny that Anonymous took the time to stop and disagree with my position when he could have simply left the page -- odd that. Given his advice to me to 'change the channel', you'd wonder why he bothered to comment when he could simply have moved on.
The hypocrisy of some people is astounding.
canadianna
A commenter on my YTV profanity post said:
Anonymous said...It's a harmless statement all in all, and typical of those with a laissez-faire attitude towards life and child-rearing.
Come on, please get a grip. We live in world where this is a part of everyday life. If you don't like it change the channel.
Words like 'pimp' might be part Anonymous' everyday life -- but not mine. Yet somehow he believes that I must let YTV make it part of my kids' daily lives, or tune out.
Why is questioning the emerging status quo against the sensibilities of so many people? Whether it's using bad language on television or changing the meaning of the word marriage, or questioning the morality of abortion on demand, I always feel like liberals in this society are not simply telling me that they disagree with me, but that I should shut up.
If CTV had used the word 'pimp' in its advertising, I wouldn't have complained. When the Toronto Star ran that 'Pimp Your Kitchen' contest, I rolled my eyes and though 'yuck' -- but Anonymous is not telling me to ignore a word being used on a mainstream station intended for adult audiences, but rather YTV, a station that promotes itself as child-centred with programming directed at, geared to, prepared exclusively for -- children.
Maybe Anonymous thinks its okay that the lines between the ages are blurring, but I think kids should be kids.
Change the channel? Why, because some people are too lazy to think? Because hip young programmers and apparently Anonymous think that the word 'pimp' sounds okay coming out of the mouths of toddlers?
No -- this is not a censorship issue where programming is suitable for the age level and a viewer is being overly sensitive -- this is a case of a television stations pushing the boundaries of good taste. We're not talking about the word 'fart' or some other such childish word -- we're talking about a word that doesn't belong in the realm of childhood.
It strikes me funny that Anonymous took the time to stop and disagree with my position when he could have simply left the page -- odd that. Given his advice to me to 'change the channel', you'd wonder why he bothered to comment when he could simply have moved on.
The hypocrisy of some people is astounding.
canadianna
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Update on YTV 'profanity'
On February 27, I wrote about an ad for a new YTV - affiliated website. The ad in question used the words "Pimp up your crib" to describe some of the activities available on the site.
The same day, I wrote to Corus Entertainment about my concern that this phrase was being used to promote a children's website and being aired during programs geared towards younger kids. Here is the reply I received today:
The same day, I wrote to Corus Entertainment about my concern that this phrase was being used to promote a children's website and being aired during programs geared towards younger kids. Here is the reply I received today:
Thank you for taking the time to share your opinion with us. We are always interested in hearing from our viewers and all feedback is important to us.
We are sorry to hear that some of the dialogue in a current promotion for The Big Rip is disappointing for you. We can assure you that we take our responsibility as a broadcaster very seriously and regularly make internal judgments regarding appropriate content. As primarily as children’s network, we are acutely aware of our obligation to use appropriate language while staying relevant and appealing to our audience. In this context, the phrase in question is intended as slang for ‘decorate’ or ‘upgrade’ and has slipped into common usage without being considered profane or irreverent.
That being said, we have shared your concerns with the appropriate departments for their consideration during the on-going planning of our network. It is through such communication that we are able to provide quality programming for Canadian youth and their families.
Regards,
YTV Viewer Relations Department
Although I am ambivalent as to the message, I am pleased that they had the courtesy to reply and to forward my concern to the appropriate department.
I haven't noticed the ads playing lately, but I hope they will reconsider their position that 'pimp' is no longer considered profane.
Regardless of what they might think, using the word pimp in its 'new' context is indeed 'irreverent' - as it is deficient in respectfulness. Whether a person is 8 or 80, 'pimp' is certainly not a term one would use when speaking in polite company or if one hoped to be seen as courteous and well-mannered. And while it is not profane in the literal sense, it is a vulgar term used by those who are crass, or who want to be perceived as unconventional and daring.
Language evolves, but that doesn't mean we must always bring things down to the basest level, especially when kids are involved. When instructing children, we should be attempting to elevate their minds, rather than corrupt. An ugly word like 'pimp' doesn't deserve to be part of the childhood lexicon. Although it has slipped into common usage to mean 'redecorate', it retains its repulsive edge. While it might be acceptable for teens, and fully suitable for adults in whatever context they might want to use it, its traditional meaning is unfortunate enough that it should be kept out of programming and advertising directed toward children.
Children might use 'pimp' in the schoolyard with their friends, or they might even hear it if they are allowed to watch MTV, but when children's programmers start to use that kind of language in an attempt to 'speak on their level' they are teaching kids that kind of language is acceptable in the family room. Call me old fashioned, but 'pimp' in any of its meanings is not a word I want used at my dinner table. Maybe YTV should use a thesaurus:
jazz up, deck out, tune, dude out, dog up, retool etc.
. . . all words/phrases that mean redecorate and are outside of the conventional meanings of the actual words. Each is more modern and more fun than the simple 'redecorate' and none could be construed as offensive by anyone.
Creative people in children's television should be able to think above the banality of the MTVesque shock-value idioms being created and used to allow teens to feel more savvy and clever than their parents. At least, one would hope.
canadianna
Monday, March 05, 2007
Soccer and the headscarf
What difference does it make if an eleven year old girl plays soccer wearing a headscarf?
Those who suggest it has something to do with 'safety' are blowing smoke. It doesn't.
This whole incident has to do with conformity. Those who've come down against the headscarf in this case are expecting this kid and her family to conform to 'Canadian' norms. They aren't interested in whether the headscarf interferes with the girl's play or if by some weird fluke it could become part of some entangled mess that could strangle her or limit her vision -- because neither is a reasonable concern. The game is being supervised and watched by dozens of adults. A yank on the headscarf is no more likely to injure or kill this girl than a tug to the hair, and one would have to have an expansive imagination to concoct a scenario where a headscarf could hurt someone other than the wearer. Where is the risk?
Rules are rules. Nonsense.
Rules are bent and changed all the time to fit in with the reasonable expectations of participants. Prior to this incident there was no rule about headscarves. There was a rule about jewelry, which makes sense. Jewelry is optional and decorative. It is not generally part of a religious tradition or custom. It could be ripped off during play causing harm to the wearer or it could cut another player coming in contact. Injuries are unlikely, but because there is a certain potential for harm when a person wears a ring, bracelet, earrings or a necklace while playing sports, the rule is not unreasonable. This non-rule regarding headscarves has only become an issue because the ref decided to make it one. Yes, I am aware he is Muslim, but that doesn't preclude him from being a jerk on a power trip.
I do wonder if the headscarf is so important to this girl for religious reasons, is she wearing long pants or something to cover her legs, but either way, I still believe a ban on headscarves is unfair.
I also wonder if Sikh boys or men have faced this problem? Anyone know?
canadianna
Those who suggest it has something to do with 'safety' are blowing smoke. It doesn't.
This whole incident has to do with conformity. Those who've come down against the headscarf in this case are expecting this kid and her family to conform to 'Canadian' norms. They aren't interested in whether the headscarf interferes with the girl's play or if by some weird fluke it could become part of some entangled mess that could strangle her or limit her vision -- because neither is a reasonable concern. The game is being supervised and watched by dozens of adults. A yank on the headscarf is no more likely to injure or kill this girl than a tug to the hair, and one would have to have an expansive imagination to concoct a scenario where a headscarf could hurt someone other than the wearer. Where is the risk?
Rules are rules. Nonsense.
Rules are bent and changed all the time to fit in with the reasonable expectations of participants. Prior to this incident there was no rule about headscarves. There was a rule about jewelry, which makes sense. Jewelry is optional and decorative. It is not generally part of a religious tradition or custom. It could be ripped off during play causing harm to the wearer or it could cut another player coming in contact. Injuries are unlikely, but because there is a certain potential for harm when a person wears a ring, bracelet, earrings or a necklace while playing sports, the rule is not unreasonable. This non-rule regarding headscarves has only become an issue because the ref decided to make it one. Yes, I am aware he is Muslim, but that doesn't preclude him from being a jerk on a power trip.
I do wonder if the headscarf is so important to this girl for religious reasons, is she wearing long pants or something to cover her legs, but either way, I still believe a ban on headscarves is unfair.
I also wonder if Sikh boys or men have faced this problem? Anyone know?
canadianna
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Bragging Moment -- Canada Games 2007
My 17 year-old niece Lisa will be playing hockey in Whitehorse next week. Lisa is a goalie for Team Ontario and is competing at the Canada Games.The Canada Games, you ask?
You'd be forgiven if you didn't know that Canada's elite young athletes are up North representing their provinces in speed skating, skiing, hockey etc. If it weren't for my niece, I wouldn't even know the Canada Games exist, which makes me wonder why the government of Canada and the provincial governments aren't doing more to promote this showcase of young talent.
This would be a perfect opportunity to show how 'ParticipAction' can pay off -- or they could just promote the Canada Games because these kids have worked so hard to get where they are in the sports they love. The provinces these young people represent would do well to show their pride before and during the competitions -- not just in the case of a win.
I've often wondered where our Olympic competitors come from -- what route did they take to make it to the top of their sport? Here is one of the stepping stones to the Olympic dream and how many Canadians will know about it, let alone watch? Why is there so little in the news about these high achievers?
A lot of these kids are like my niece. They have dedicated their lives to pursuing their dream and yet they also excel academically and personally. Lisa, for example has an average above 90% in her final year of high school and is heading to the US on a full hockey scholarship next year. We hear so much about the bad kids -- I'd like to hear someone in the media or government talking a bit about these good ones.
Tune in if you can. The Games started on the 23rd and go right through until March 10th. TSN is showing some of the events and so is APTN.
Lisa and Team Ontario play Newfoundland on Monday, and PEI on Wednesday. I can't see that either game will be televised in the Toronto area (I've checked both TSN and APTN listings for next week and they're showing other games, but not Ontario). If anyone notices listings for Ontario Women's Hockey, please post in the comment section.
These kids deserve the glory these couple of weeks will bring. They represent our hope for Canada's future. They are ambitious, talented and committed young people, and you shouldn't have to be a family member to know that they're out there, working hard and representing their home provinces. Canada should be watching.
Go Ontario!
canadianna
2nd EDIT: See Sheila Copps in today's SUN.
EDIT: candace has pointed out that I had missed some coverage -- and apparently the government was well represented at the games (apologies).
I guess the fact is that the coverage is there, but it's one of those things you don't see unless you're looking for it. I've only been flipping through the papers lately, and often I have only one ear on the TV during the news -- assuming most people are like me, they might not be aware.
Glad to see that it isn't as buried as I thought. Thanks Candace for the heads up.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
"Pimp up your crib"
Does that kind of language offend you? It really bothers me.
My ten year old is off school with a cold. Last week he told me about an ad he'd seen where they used those words. I told him that he must have misheard. This morning when it came on, he called me in and I heard it myself.
Those words were being used to advertise a new website for kids called "The Big Rip". I've been to the site and it seems harmless enough. Kids play games, post videos and chat. What bothers me is that this was being advertised using those words 'pimp your crib' during Jacob Two-Two on YTV. He was watching YTVWest between 9:30 and 10 a.m. EST, which means the show aired between 6:30 and 7 a.m. here on YTVEast .
That show and the website are geared toward kids 8 to 12, but no doubt younger kids are watching too. Am I alone in thinking that this kind of language is vulgar and inappropriate, despite its recent emergence in popular culture and media?
When we blur the lines that delineate child and teen or between teen and adult, we are saying that what is acceptable for one group is acceptable for all.
Language matters. Words can elevate or corrupt. They can inspire or degrade. That's why the way we speak to and around children is so important. Perhaps ripping a foul word and modifying its meaning in order to make use of it commonly, serves a purpose amongst the younger generation -- maybe it makes them feel edgy and shocking. Maybe they need that to validate their feelings or some other such angst-ridden thing. Or maybe it's an juvenile form of rebellion. In most societies when the young rebel, the older generation looks at them and thinks 'they'll learn' but our boomer TV execs and media seem to get swept up in the excitement of saying dirty words and actually expand their usage -- the Toronto Star recently had a contest 'Pimp My Kitchen'.
"Pimp" might have a dual meaning these days, but most dictionaries I can find maintain the commonly understood definition. Either way, it doesn't belong on a TV station geared to kids. Let the teens and twenty somethings have those ugly words and keep them on their MTV -- but when it comes to YTV and young kids, they should keep it clean.
email YTV via Corus Entertainment.
canadianna
My ten year old is off school with a cold. Last week he told me about an ad he'd seen where they used those words. I told him that he must have misheard. This morning when it came on, he called me in and I heard it myself.
Those words were being used to advertise a new website for kids called "The Big Rip". I've been to the site and it seems harmless enough. Kids play games, post videos and chat. What bothers me is that this was being advertised using those words 'pimp your crib' during Jacob Two-Two on YTV. He was watching YTVWest between 9:30 and 10 a.m. EST, which means the show aired between 6:30 and 7 a.m. here on YTVEast .
That show and the website are geared toward kids 8 to 12, but no doubt younger kids are watching too. Am I alone in thinking that this kind of language is vulgar and inappropriate, despite its recent emergence in popular culture and media?
When we blur the lines that delineate child and teen or between teen and adult, we are saying that what is acceptable for one group is acceptable for all.
Language matters. Words can elevate or corrupt. They can inspire or degrade. That's why the way we speak to and around children is so important. Perhaps ripping a foul word and modifying its meaning in order to make use of it commonly, serves a purpose amongst the younger generation -- maybe it makes them feel edgy and shocking. Maybe they need that to validate their feelings or some other such angst-ridden thing. Or maybe it's an juvenile form of rebellion. In most societies when the young rebel, the older generation looks at them and thinks 'they'll learn' but our boomer TV execs and media seem to get swept up in the excitement of saying dirty words and actually expand their usage -- the Toronto Star recently had a contest 'Pimp My Kitchen'.
"Pimp" might have a dual meaning these days, but most dictionaries I can find maintain the commonly understood definition. Either way, it doesn't belong on a TV station geared to kids. Let the teens and twenty somethings have those ugly words and keep them on their MTV -- but when it comes to YTV and young kids, they should keep it clean.
email YTV via Corus Entertainment.
canadianna
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Throwing good money . . .
Prior to the vote on Kyoto, the Liberals issued a call to action to thwart Stephen Harper and the nefarious Global Warming Deniers (GWD):
I don't deny global warming. It might be happening; I just don't know -- but I do know that even if the world is heating up, that Kyoto is not the answer.
The left has managed to link Kyoto with a cure for global warming. Rather than debate the science, critics are more and more apt to point out that if mankind is contributing to the problem through industry, then with or without this bizarre treaty, the world's temperature will continue to rise because the treaty doesn't address global warming, but rather the global economy.
But of course, that inconvenient truth is lost on those who use buzzwords and sound-bites to advance a flawed agenda. Rather than taking a step back and ascertaining realistic fixes for the environment, they bleat on about conservatives not 'caring' about the environment. They pretend that if we would obey the unrealistic and ruinous targets imposed by this piece of paper, that countries like China, India and Pakistan would suddenly jump on the CO2 reduction bandwagon.
What incentive does Kyoto provide for any of the developing nations to curb their CO2 emissions? None. In fact, there is a financial incentive to ignore any growth in their own CO2 production. Should we fail to reach our targets, we must pay them -- and yet there are no guarantees that the money we use to buy these credits will be spent on a developing nation's environmental action plan. There are no enforceable strings on this bonus cash -- so, not only can developed nations continue to pollute so long as they buy credits, no environmental demands are made on developing nations. Exactly how does this equate to a reduction in CO2?
Of course, the environment isn't really the issue:
canadianna
Our goal with this vote is to force the Conservative party − a group of long-standing global warming deniers in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence − to recognize that this is a global crisis that requires a global response – with Canada taking the lead. This is the vision Stéphane Dion has worked hard to promote.It would seem that Dion has worked harder at promoting the vision than he ever did taking action.
I don't deny global warming. It might be happening; I just don't know -- but I do know that even if the world is heating up, that Kyoto is not the answer.
The left has managed to link Kyoto with a cure for global warming. Rather than debate the science, critics are more and more apt to point out that if mankind is contributing to the problem through industry, then with or without this bizarre treaty, the world's temperature will continue to rise because the treaty doesn't address global warming, but rather the global economy.
But of course, that inconvenient truth is lost on those who use buzzwords and sound-bites to advance a flawed agenda. Rather than taking a step back and ascertaining realistic fixes for the environment, they bleat on about conservatives not 'caring' about the environment. They pretend that if we would obey the unrealistic and ruinous targets imposed by this piece of paper, that countries like China, India and Pakistan would suddenly jump on the CO2 reduction bandwagon.
What incentive does Kyoto provide for any of the developing nations to curb their CO2 emissions? None. In fact, there is a financial incentive to ignore any growth in their own CO2 production. Should we fail to reach our targets, we must pay them -- and yet there are no guarantees that the money we use to buy these credits will be spent on a developing nation's environmental action plan. There are no enforceable strings on this bonus cash -- so, not only can developed nations continue to pollute so long as they buy credits, no environmental demands are made on developing nations. Exactly how does this equate to a reduction in CO2?
Of course, the environment isn't really the issue:
The Conservatives have amassed a multi-million dollar war chest which they intend to use to twist and distort the truth. Please consider a donation of $100 today and help our Liberal Team speak up for all Canadians on issues like the environment, and also ensure we are able to take our positive message door-to-door in the next election campaign.So while twisting and distorting the truth to suit their own ends, the Liberals beg their faithful to reward their party's long-standing inertia on this file. Good stewards don't throw money at a failing endeavour. Maybe that's why the Liberals are broke.
canadianna
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Reading In
Today Andrew Coyne gives us a history lesson. His purpose seems to be to defend the Charter against critics who see it as not rooted in Canadian history. Most of what he says I wouldn't challenge because I'm not a historian or a scholar. But when he comes to the end of his piece, he says:
'Person' is a word that has always encompassed both genders. The court recognized a historic injustice when it noted that women had always been ‘persons in matters of pains and penalties, but not in matters of rights and privileges’. It rewrote no definition; it simply acknowledged the full reality of the existing definition.
The section of the BNA Act that summarizes the qualifications of a Senator uses the word 'Person' and uses the (until recently) non-gender-specific pronoun 'he'. None of the other criteria specifically excludes women, as women were allowed to be landowners, they could be residents of a province and they could accumulate money. Since women were already 'persons' for the purpose of punishment, no justification could be made for excluding them for purpose of privilege. Women were not added to the existing definition of 'person' in the 'Persons Case' -- it was simply established that they were always there and no one up until then had acknowledged it.
The inclusion of women might not have been on the minds of the authors of the BNA Act, but their exclusion could have been assured by the simple addition of the word 'male' in front of 'persons'.
Section 15 of the Charter is not so vague. Not only does it specifically list criteria under the equality provisions, the framers debated the inclusion of sexual orientation and intentionally left it out. (That was Trudeau and the gang for all you liberals).
Coyne questions those who criticize the Charter by invoking the Magna Carta and other historic documents:
Coyne suggests that the Charter is in the tradition of Canada's historic freeness. He points to recent accusations of judicial activism by the Supremes:
No harm of course, because no one has to believe anything they don't want to -- that is, until they do.
The Charter pits the rights of individuals to freedom of speech, conscience and religion against the equality rights groups listed or read-in to Section 15. With regard to same-sex marriage:
You have the right to believe what you want, so long as you don't act on it.
You have the right to say what you want, but not in public.
You have the right to express yourself, but not if it hurts someone's feelings.
The 'Persons Case' might have challenged the ideas held about a woman's place in society, but it didn't prevent anyone from expressing their opinion. It didn't stifle debate. The role of women in government and in society grew from there, but not because people were afraid to challenge the prevailing laws -- but because women proved themselves capable and deserving.
The rulings regarding marriage, as vague as they were, were not intended to open a closed door for marginalized people, but to create a new door which would make the old one obsolete. You can argue that it's a good thing, but please don't pretend that it won't eventually infringe on the rights and freedoms of those who choose to disagree with the change to marriage.
canadianna
Has that expanded the powers of the courts?(. . . ) A happier example was the "persons case," an important advance for women's rights achieved by the simple expedient of redefining who was included in the category of "persons" eligible for Senate appointments under section 24 of the BNA Act. Today we would call that "reading in."Coyne is arguing that a decision to recognize women as persons for the purpose of Section 24 of the BNA Act, is analogous to the Supreme Court's decision add a new category of subgroup in need of protections listed in Section 15 of the Charter. But I don't think the argument holds up.
'Person' is a word that has always encompassed both genders. The court recognized a historic injustice when it noted that women had always been ‘persons in matters of pains and penalties, but not in matters of rights and privileges’. It rewrote no definition; it simply acknowledged the full reality of the existing definition.
The section of the BNA Act that summarizes the qualifications of a Senator uses the word 'Person' and uses the (until recently) non-gender-specific pronoun 'he'. None of the other criteria specifically excludes women, as women were allowed to be landowners, they could be residents of a province and they could accumulate money. Since women were already 'persons' for the purpose of punishment, no justification could be made for excluding them for purpose of privilege. Women were not added to the existing definition of 'person' in the 'Persons Case' -- it was simply established that they were always there and no one up until then had acknowledged it.
The inclusion of women might not have been on the minds of the authors of the BNA Act, but their exclusion could have been assured by the simple addition of the word 'male' in front of 'persons'.
Section 15 of the Charter is not so vague. Not only does it specifically list criteria under the equality provisions, the framers debated the inclusion of sexual orientation and intentionally left it out. (That was Trudeau and the gang for all you liberals).
Coyne questions those who criticize the Charter by invoking the Magna Carta and other historic documents:
If it's really important legal innovations you want, you have to go back to the advent of the written law, and the rise of an independent judiciary to interpret it. Much criticism of the Charter, and the constraints it places upon the discretion of policy makers, seems in fact to be a complaint about the written law in general. Fair enough: It is a radical idea that those who govern us should not be allowed to govern by fiat, but should have to put it in writing. Or at least, it was radical, circa 1215, though I rather thought Magna Carta had settled the question -- a written document, if memory serves, as was the Bill of Rights of 1688, the Act of Settlement, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and all the other legal documents that are a part of our constitutional heritage.By adding sexual orientation to Section 15, the Supreme Court was not simply remedying an historic injustice, or correcting a misinterpretation, or correcting the misapplication of a statute. It was governing by fiat. Apparently Coyne finds that okay since they are neither elected nor policy makers. I don't get it.
Coyne suggests that the Charter is in the tradition of Canada's historic freeness. He points to recent accusations of judicial activism by the Supremes:
To be sure, the common law is as much a part of the British inheritance. But if it's "judge-made law" you're on about, it's an odd point to raise. The series of legal rulings in recent years upholding gay marriage, in particular, sometimes held up as the height of judical impudence, overturned no statutory definition of marriage, but rather another judge's ruling dating from before Confederation (and from another country to boot).Marriage was a word like mother. It required no 'legal' definition. It required no statute. Historic tradition and centuries of precident gave us our understanding of the word. Perhaps, given time, it might have evolved to include forms beyond the one man/one woman version we held here, but the courts of the land were impatient. They imposed a new meaning of the institution and in doing so, they have restricted the freedoms of those unready to embrace this expanded version. Unlike 'person' which both in law and in practice has meant to include both genders, the only universal element of marriage has always been the opposite gender requirement. Other elements vary culture to culture -- number of people, age, familial relation, even consent -- but the opposite gender requirement held firm until the 21st century. So, although no statute was overturned, let's not pretend same-sex marriage was as simple as filling in a blank.
No harm of course, because no one has to believe anything they don't want to -- that is, until they do.
The Charter pits the rights of individuals to freedom of speech, conscience and religion against the equality rights groups listed or read-in to Section 15. With regard to same-sex marriage:
You have the right to believe what you want, so long as you don't act on it.
You have the right to say what you want, but not in public.
You have the right to express yourself, but not if it hurts someone's feelings.
The 'Persons Case' might have challenged the ideas held about a woman's place in society, but it didn't prevent anyone from expressing their opinion. It didn't stifle debate. The role of women in government and in society grew from there, but not because people were afraid to challenge the prevailing laws -- but because women proved themselves capable and deserving.
The rulings regarding marriage, as vague as they were, were not intended to open a closed door for marginalized people, but to create a new door which would make the old one obsolete. You can argue that it's a good thing, but please don't pretend that it won't eventually infringe on the rights and freedoms of those who choose to disagree with the change to marriage.
canadianna
Friday, February 09, 2007
World to Garth: stop gossipping and grow up
I confess that I don't read Garth Turner's blog regularly. When he's doing something particularly foolish, I'll drop by to check out his spin.
Today I was stopped in my tracks by Garth quoting Garth on John Baird. He's writing a piece on how unsuitable Baird is for Minister of the Environment, and quotes a post he made when Baird was first appointed:
Turner would probably say he meant nothing by it. He would likely say that it was irrelevant to the point he was trying to get across. Why then, did he include it? What exactly is he trying to say about Laureen Harper?
The mention of Laureen might just have been name-dropping back in January when it was first written-- a way to show he was aware of who was in the good-books while he was shunted off to the dog house. But Garth has reiterated an irrelevant statement made by Garth, and is using it to support his opinion that Baird is ineffective as Environment Minister and Garth Turner knew he would be . . . It does nothing to advance his argument or to validate his premise. There can be no reason for its inclusion except that it's a bit of gossipy insinuation.
To those who would suggest I'm making a big deal out of nothing . . . my guess is that John Baird hangs out with a lot of people on the Hill, probably a lot of Conservative MPs. Everyone knows that Lurleen needs an escort to official functions when Stephen Harper is away, and John Baird has filled that role. Why not say 'I don't hang out at the pub with the guy like (Clement, Moore, Ambrose . . . anyone) . . . why Laureen?
When the only function of the statement at is to show his own distance from Baird, why did Turner make special mention of the Prime Minister's wife -- twice?
What a tiny, little shade of a man that guy is.
canadianna
Today I was stopped in my tracks by Garth quoting Garth on John Baird. He's writing a piece on how unsuitable Baird is for Minister of the Environment, and quotes a post he made when Baird was first appointed:
I probably know John Baird better than you do. I don’t traipse around official Ottawa on his arm, the way Laureen Harper does . . .I don't know what the rest of today's post says. I just stopped reading. I couldn't get past this statement, first made on January 8th and repeated today.
Turner would probably say he meant nothing by it. He would likely say that it was irrelevant to the point he was trying to get across. Why then, did he include it? What exactly is he trying to say about Laureen Harper?
The mention of Laureen might just have been name-dropping back in January when it was first written-- a way to show he was aware of who was in the good-books while he was shunted off to the dog house. But Garth has reiterated an irrelevant statement made by Garth, and is using it to support his opinion that Baird is ineffective as Environment Minister and Garth Turner knew he would be . . . It does nothing to advance his argument or to validate his premise. There can be no reason for its inclusion except that it's a bit of gossipy insinuation.
To those who would suggest I'm making a big deal out of nothing . . . my guess is that John Baird hangs out with a lot of people on the Hill, probably a lot of Conservative MPs. Everyone knows that Lurleen needs an escort to official functions when Stephen Harper is away, and John Baird has filled that role. Why not say 'I don't hang out at the pub with the guy like (Clement, Moore, Ambrose . . . anyone) . . . why Laureen?
When the only function of the statement at is to show his own distance from Baird, why did Turner make special mention of the Prime Minister's wife -- twice?
What a tiny, little shade of a man that guy is.
canadianna
No Men Need Apply
Liberals plan to increase the number of women running for the party in the next election. To reach their self-imposed quota of 33% female candidates, it seems they believe the 'fairest' option is to simply bar men from running in certain ridings.
Apparently it doesn't matter that a man might be more qualified, better the right gender than the right candidate.
The most galling thing here is that Liberals appear to believe that women can't possibly be expected to win if they are competing against a man -- so their answer is to simply remove the competition.
Progressive thinkers might believe that this is necessary to increase the number of women running for and elected to parliament, but there are two bizarre principles being floated here. First, that there must be more women in parliament, and secondly, that the only way to get that done exclude men from the process.
For fifty years or more, dozens of women of all parties have proved their mettle by following the nomination process that's been in place and winning. Does the Liberal Party dismiss their successes as anomaly? Do they think this new generation of young women is frightened of politics? Or do they just think that women are too fragile to compete?
Women are not helpless and needy. We don't need to be led by the hand -- those who want to run, find their way. To suggest otherwise is to say that we need to be treated like children who don't know what's good for them or worse, like morons who haven't enough sense to see opportunities and seek them out.
Voters want competence from their candidates and parliamentarians. In the rush to push more women onto the political stage, Liberals seem willing to ignore quality in the name of number parity.
If they impose the selection of 80 more women candidates to meet their target, there's no question that some quality male candidates will be shoved aside simply because of their gender. And the Liberals think this is both fair and correct.
If they're going to force the numbers to fit the goal of 33% women candidates, why not go the extra step and in any remaining ridings, bar whites from running? If they truly want to reflect the diversity of the nation, impose quotas for all races.
Liberals pretend they believe in gender equality, but by not allowing the natural outcomes of the nominations process, they are telling women that they don't believe they are good enough to compete with men and win. Or maybe the ruling elites believe that the local Liberal riding associations are made up of misogynists who would choose a man over a women regardless of qualifications.
Call it parity, equality, or balance -- it smacks of paternalism and implies that without special assistance, most women couldn't cut it in politics. If that's the case, if females who are potential Liberal candidates require the manipulation of the selection process to ensure somethings as basic as their nomination, how suited are they for the job?
When equality is forced, quality is bound to suffer. The playing-field is already level. Women today are aware of their career options and should they choose the political arena, they should be playing the same game with the same rules as everyone else. And if Liberals think they can't -- it's the Liberals who are questioning the value of women.
We don't need more women in politics -- we just need fewer idiots.
canadianna
Apparently it doesn't matter that a man might be more qualified, better the right gender than the right candidate.
The most galling thing here is that Liberals appear to believe that women can't possibly be expected to win if they are competing against a man -- so their answer is to simply remove the competition.
Progressive thinkers might believe that this is necessary to increase the number of women running for and elected to parliament, but there are two bizarre principles being floated here. First, that there must be more women in parliament, and secondly, that the only way to get that done exclude men from the process.
For fifty years or more, dozens of women of all parties have proved their mettle by following the nomination process that's been in place and winning. Does the Liberal Party dismiss their successes as anomaly? Do they think this new generation of young women is frightened of politics? Or do they just think that women are too fragile to compete?
Women are not helpless and needy. We don't need to be led by the hand -- those who want to run, find their way. To suggest otherwise is to say that we need to be treated like children who don't know what's good for them or worse, like morons who haven't enough sense to see opportunities and seek them out.
Voters want competence from their candidates and parliamentarians. In the rush to push more women onto the political stage, Liberals seem willing to ignore quality in the name of number parity.
If they impose the selection of 80 more women candidates to meet their target, there's no question that some quality male candidates will be shoved aside simply because of their gender. And the Liberals think this is both fair and correct.
If they're going to force the numbers to fit the goal of 33% women candidates, why not go the extra step and in any remaining ridings, bar whites from running? If they truly want to reflect the diversity of the nation, impose quotas for all races.
Liberals pretend they believe in gender equality, but by not allowing the natural outcomes of the nominations process, they are telling women that they don't believe they are good enough to compete with men and win. Or maybe the ruling elites believe that the local Liberal riding associations are made up of misogynists who would choose a man over a women regardless of qualifications.
Call it parity, equality, or balance -- it smacks of paternalism and implies that without special assistance, most women couldn't cut it in politics. If that's the case, if females who are potential Liberal candidates require the manipulation of the selection process to ensure somethings as basic as their nomination, how suited are they for the job?
When equality is forced, quality is bound to suffer. The playing-field is already level. Women today are aware of their career options and should they choose the political arena, they should be playing the same game with the same rules as everyone else. And if Liberals think they can't -- it's the Liberals who are questioning the value of women.
We don't need more women in politics -- we just need fewer idiots.
canadianna
Thursday, February 08, 2007
RESIGN
Smug as usual, Garth Turner is blaming everyone else for his lack of conviction. He won't resign until Stephen Harper calls a by-election. Nothing is ever Garth's fault, he wouldn't be where he is today if other people would just do what's right.
While I maintain that a party-swapping MP is not obligated to go to the people until the next general election, Garth Turner does not. He believes an MP should serve under his party's banner, and, should he choose a new party, that the MP must go to the people and be elected in his new party of choice.
To that end, Garth has issued a challenge to the Prime Minister (from Garth's blog):
Two things -- first, the other members are under no obligation to resign their seats simply because the great and pious Garth Turner thinks it should be so. Like it or not, members of parliament must be allowed the freedom to follow their conscience on matters of party affiliation. Imposing party loyalty under threat of removal from parliament would be a severe blow to the freedom of members to be true to their principles. Regardless of the cynical and mercenary reasons that some MPs switch parties, MPs must have the freedom to govern their own political destinies, and because eventually all of them must face the electorate, their motives and movements will eventually be judged.
Second, and more importantly -- according to Elections Canada, a by-election can only be called when a parliamentary seat is VACANT. Until Garth chooses to resign, the Halton seat remains occupied. Only when a seat is vacant:
canadianna
While I maintain that a party-swapping MP is not obligated to go to the people until the next general election, Garth Turner does not. He believes an MP should serve under his party's banner, and, should he choose a new party, that the MP must go to the people and be elected in his new party of choice.
To that end, Garth has issued a challenge to the Prime Minister (from Garth's blog):
Today in Question Period I asked the prime minister two questions:
Turner is playing a game here, pretending that because he doesn't "trust" the Prime Minister to ensure Halton's constituents maintain federal representation, he is stuck in a limbo of Harper's making -- a situation he implies can be alleviated 'if only' Stephen Harper would call a by-election.(1) Will he immediately work towards calling by-elections in Halton, Vancouver-Kingsway (Emerson) and Mississauga-Streetsville (Khan), so we three members can be accountable to the people?
Stephen Harper did not answer. Instead he had House Leader Peter van Loan stand up and say I could resign if I want. So, I said,
(2) If the prime minister calls a by-election in Halton today, I will resign my seat today, so the people of the riding are without an MP only for a few weeks before the vote. Will he do that, yes or no? And if I quit, will he ensure Wajid Khan also resigns, for a by-election for that floor-crosser?
Two things -- first, the other members are under no obligation to resign their seats simply because the great and pious Garth Turner thinks it should be so. Like it or not, members of parliament must be allowed the freedom to follow their conscience on matters of party affiliation. Imposing party loyalty under threat of removal from parliament would be a severe blow to the freedom of members to be true to their principles. Regardless of the cynical and mercenary reasons that some MPs switch parties, MPs must have the freedom to govern their own political destinies, and because eventually all of them must face the electorate, their motives and movements will eventually be judged.
Second, and more importantly -- according to Elections Canada, a by-election can only be called when a parliamentary seat is VACANT. Until Garth chooses to resign, the Halton seat remains occupied. Only when a seat is vacant:
. . . the Speaker of the House of Commons informs the Chief Electoral Officer by means of a Speaker's warrant. If the Speaker is absent, or if it is the Speaker's seat that is vacant, two members of the House of Commons may address the warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer.So Garth, if you're so desperate to go to the people, and you're so sure that you're right, take a risk like the maverick you pretend to be --- stop blaming Stephen Harper -- do what's right and get your ass out of that chair.
canadianna
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Who's holding Halton hostage?
In the world according to Garth, when Emerson switched parties, it was wrong -- no, not just wrong -- but "unprincipled" and "unethical". Everyone involved was deemed unscrupulous and Emerson was being "disloyal" to his constituents. But that was then and it was someone else . . . how different things appear when the shoe is on the other foot.
Garth doesn't believe loyalty is an issue in his act of opportunism, because he's doing this for his constituents. He knows that a lot of them don't understand that right now, but he thought about it long and hard for them. He feels assured that although they elected Garth the Conservative, and put up with Garth the Independent, that surely they will embrace GARTH the LIBERAL.
An Independent's voice is often unheard. Now, as a Liberal, Garth will have status again -- and that should make his constituents happy. He can be a lone voice of reason within the Liberal Party, the same way he was a lone voice of reason in the Conservative Party. The team doesn't matter -- just as long Garth is there to show it the one true way.
His cynical offer to run in a by-election is typical bravado. With full confidence that Harper is not going to suddenly change his stand on party swapping, the hollow gesture cost Turner nothing and gives the odour of sincerity to this latest stink. Garth pretends he received no inducement for turning in his Independent tag, and yet in one fell-swoop he has gone from impotent and unelectable outsider, to a member of the 'party-in-waiting'.
My position on floor-crossing hasn't changed -- but his has. He can pretend that his grand challenge to Harper to hold a by-election means something, but it only means that Garth is a savvy enough politician to know a good sound-bite.
Garth says:
He calls Harper untrustworthy, and accuses him of potentially holding Halton voters 'hostage' had he resigned his seat altogether to force a by-election. He writes this without any hint of irony. The voters of Halton elected Garth Turner. As a Conservative or an Independent, Garth could live up to, and speak up for, the principles that got him elected, but whether it's income splitting, the military or child care -- Garth Turner has just signed over his principles to a Liberal Party that shares none of his ideals or political values. Who's holding Halton hostage?
That's okay, I guess. What difference does it make if the party doesn't reflect his beliefs --- Garth can make it over in his image and ruminate about it on his blog. So what if the Liberals are notoriously more rigid in their demand for caucus secrecy, and caucus solidarity than the Conservatives --- Garth has an unshakable record on those fronts. And if it doesn't work out, that's okay. Someone else will be to blame.
Poor Stephane Dion. Stephen Harper's gotta be smirking.
canadianna
Garth doesn't believe loyalty is an issue in his act of opportunism, because he's doing this for his constituents. He knows that a lot of them don't understand that right now, but he thought about it long and hard for them. He feels assured that although they elected Garth the Conservative, and put up with Garth the Independent, that surely they will embrace GARTH the LIBERAL.
An Independent's voice is often unheard. Now, as a Liberal, Garth will have status again -- and that should make his constituents happy. He can be a lone voice of reason within the Liberal Party, the same way he was a lone voice of reason in the Conservative Party. The team doesn't matter -- just as long Garth is there to show it the one true way.
His cynical offer to run in a by-election is typical bravado. With full confidence that Harper is not going to suddenly change his stand on party swapping, the hollow gesture cost Turner nothing and gives the odour of sincerity to this latest stink. Garth pretends he received no inducement for turning in his Independent tag, and yet in one fell-swoop he has gone from impotent and unelectable outsider, to a member of the 'party-in-waiting'.
My position on floor-crossing hasn't changed -- but his has. He can pretend that his grand challenge to Harper to hold a by-election means something, but it only means that Garth is a savvy enough politician to know a good sound-bite.
Garth says:
If I resign immediately, the prime minister can leave my voters held hostage for up to six months without a by-election and without an MP, which could well mean they’re not represented at all until after the next election. Excuse me if I do not trust Stephen Harper, but I don’t.Apparently Garth didn't trust his constituents enough to remain an Independent for the duration of this parliament, and join the Liberals when the next general election is called. Maybe he didn't trust the Liberals enough to believe that they'd keep that seat open for him to run when election time comes.
He calls Harper untrustworthy, and accuses him of potentially holding Halton voters 'hostage' had he resigned his seat altogether to force a by-election. He writes this without any hint of irony. The voters of Halton elected Garth Turner. As a Conservative or an Independent, Garth could live up to, and speak up for, the principles that got him elected, but whether it's income splitting, the military or child care -- Garth Turner has just signed over his principles to a Liberal Party that shares none of his ideals or political values. Who's holding Halton hostage?
That's okay, I guess. What difference does it make if the party doesn't reflect his beliefs --- Garth can make it over in his image and ruminate about it on his blog. So what if the Liberals are notoriously more rigid in their demand for caucus secrecy, and caucus solidarity than the Conservatives --- Garth has an unshakable record on those fronts. And if it doesn't work out, that's okay. Someone else will be to blame.
Poor Stephane Dion. Stephen Harper's gotta be smirking.
canadianna
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
How will we cope without daddy's money?
One would think that a broad-based coalition of more than 700 member groups, fighting for women's equality for nearly 30 years, would have a strong enough base to support itself financially instead of whinging to government for sustenance.
Member groups of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women can afford to make pins, posters and postcards to protest the government about their funding, but are apparently unable think up ways to finance their continued administration without government assistance.
The proceeds from their button sales will not go to help women and their fight for equality, but to fund continued protests against funding cuts. Clever use of resources, eh?
The biggest problem with Status of Women groups is that they believe they are the one true way with the divine right to determine women's interests, when in reality, they neither reflect nor represent the vast majority of women. Their vision of choice for women is never about real choice, but about quieting the voices of those who disagree with them.
I'm always suspicious of people who want to talk about 'women's issues' as though childcare and violence are the exclusive concern of women, and as though there is a Communal Women's Mind that advises us on all matters 'feminine'. And, it dismisses all the men who share our concerns, whatever they might be.
The NAC and its member groups claim to want equality, but their representatives hold themselves out as less than equal by being incapable of meeting challenges with creative ideas rather than silly slogans and protests.
If they are as 'needed' as they believe, then private and corporate funding is as accessible to them as to any other group in need of donations. Why do they find it so difficult to prove their worth and solicit and obtain funds from outside government?
When they can do that, then they deserve to be taken seriously.
canadianna
Member groups of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women can afford to make pins, posters and postcards to protest the government about their funding, but are apparently unable think up ways to finance their continued administration without government assistance.
The proceeds from their button sales will not go to help women and their fight for equality, but to fund continued protests against funding cuts. Clever use of resources, eh?
The biggest problem with Status of Women groups is that they believe they are the one true way with the divine right to determine women's interests, when in reality, they neither reflect nor represent the vast majority of women. Their vision of choice for women is never about real choice, but about quieting the voices of those who disagree with them.
I'm always suspicious of people who want to talk about 'women's issues' as though childcare and violence are the exclusive concern of women, and as though there is a Communal Women's Mind that advises us on all matters 'feminine'. And, it dismisses all the men who share our concerns, whatever they might be.
The NAC and its member groups claim to want equality, but their representatives hold themselves out as less than equal by being incapable of meeting challenges with creative ideas rather than silly slogans and protests.
If they are as 'needed' as they believe, then private and corporate funding is as accessible to them as to any other group in need of donations. Why do they find it so difficult to prove their worth and solicit and obtain funds from outside government?
When they can do that, then they deserve to be taken seriously.
canadianna
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)