What do these three pictures have in common?

Three election ads ... three different MPPs ... not one mention of their party. If you didn't already know, you might not know these MPPs are Liberals (okay, the red is a clue, but I've never seen election advertising without a party logo etc.)

Hmmm . . . scared of their own brand maybe? If the provincial Liberals were at all certain of their own record, the national party's crash in May wouldn't affect their advertising (that is if the national disaster is their reasoning for the conspicuous absence of the Liberal name and logo).

Also of note, all of the supporting data for the *good news* they're touting, is from the Ministries involved in providing those services. No independent sources available?

Not to mention Andy's mom is selling him short --- if he's only one in a million to her, there's gotta be 11 just like him in Ontario alone. Just sayin'.

The ads are kinda cute, kinda clever, but absent the party name, they're telling us more than what they intended.

canadianna

btw -- Sorry for the poor quality of the first photo -- my passenger took it with my cell phone. I haven't the name of that MP, it isn't clear enough and I can't be bothered looking it up, but it was taken at McCowan and Sandhurst Circle in Scarborough.

The Margaret Atwood Community Library

Or how about *The Warren Kinsella Library* ?

Now, there's an idea . . . the buildings are built already, the computers in place, they're fully staffed . . . our existing libraries simply need concerned citizens of considerable means to stump up and help with the operating costs.

Warren's latest column in the SUN about populism got me thinking. He's quick to point out how many concerned community members who voiced their opposition to library closures at City Hall last week. Funnily enough, I heard what libraries meant to them, their families, their communities -- yet I heard no ideas on how to keep them viable while costs go up for everything from hydro for the computers and air conditioning, to the gas that transports the books from Scarborough to Etobicoke, North York to East York or Downtown . . . not to mention the cost of city paid union library workers in an economy where everyone is having to pinch pennies. The mean-spirited, but populist Mayor was interested enough in regular folk's input to hold the meeting and listen (did David Miller ever do that?) but if he can't find a way to fulfill the hopes of these community members he will be vilified as dismissive of the concerns of regular people (what a poor excuse for a populist).

No one says that we don't need libraries, but books are fast becoming redundant and libraries are actually filling the dual role of Internet cafe and community centre -- both of which are necessary and laudable in a city with the diverse population of Toronto. People need a safe place to congregate where they can learn, read, converse etc. They need a place where they can access the larger world online if they haven't a computer or Internet at home. I don't think even the Fords are denying this . . . but when libraries have become more than just a book-lender and when there are more buildings and more union scale, publicly paid employees than are reasonable during times of austerity --- doesn't it make sense that the community at large begin to think of new ways to provide the same services?

Donations to support your local library, spearheaded and maybe started-off by some altruistic, activist, local celebrities who have a keen interest in books might be an idea.

Atwood is worried almost as worried about privatization of the library system as she is about closures. I guess it's too easy to whine rather than be part of the solution.

You don't have to be elected to make a positive difference in the community. Margaret? Warren? Any better ideas?

canadianna

Anyone out there over 40 and unemployed?

Last week my husband and I watched The Company Men. Good movie, except for the ending. Throughout, GK (my guy) and I would turn to each other and shake our heads. It was like watching his life played out on screen . . . well, except for the Porsche and the mansion. GK had a good career, not great, and we have a simple life, not grand --- but beyond those small differences in status, the experience of the job-hunting character of Ben Affleck was so sadly similar to GK's that we suddenly realized how very universal this situation is today.

GK was laid off in 2009 when his division was moved to Quebec and the jobs went with it. Since then he's had dozens of interviews. He obtained occasional work through temp agencies taking jobs way below his capabilities and pay scale, just to be *contributing to the household*. Over that period, he's exhausted our pool of friends and neighbours for whom he can paint, do landscaping or other handiwork. Then, for eight months he worked a minimum wage job where he, along with the other workers, was yelled at, mocked, and put in dangerous situations without protection. When he finally pointed out safety violations within the company, he was fired. He couldn't file a wrongful dismissal claim because he'd been there under a year but he challenged his dismissal to EI and because they found in his favour, he's now receiving benefits. That was February.

I can't tell you how many jobs he's applied for since then. Five interviews. Two seemed promising. At one, the Director showed him around the place, where he'd be working, introduced him to some people . . . told him they'd call him early the next week. When GK called them at the end of the following week, he was told that the Director was busy, and oh yeah, the position was filled. This wasn't the first time he'd faced that kind of treatment by a potential employer -- enthusiasm and then silence -- that first year, 2009 when he was first laid off . . . interview after interview went that way. You almost wonder is HR people are trained to let everyone think they've got the job so that no one will leave the place ready to explode, but it's a really, really deceptive and cruel tactic. Having asked around, I've started to realize it's pretty typical.

Some people have suggested it's time he change tactics. He's revamped his resume, stuck in all the right keywords, but there's been no magic and still no job so he even thought about switching careers -- they advertise it still -- retraining through EI if you can get it . . . or if you can get your head around it is one of those *looks good on paper* sort of options.

As I watch GK deal with the emotional rollercoaster that comes with losing your life's work in a heartbeat, I know that for the 28 years he worked in his former industry (albeit for several different companies) he came to identify with the job. . . and now . . . he just doesn't know. Retraining sounds good . . . is good . . . for some people. It's great that there are those avenues available, often with financial support of government, but there are many people out there who don't have whatever it is that allows some people to reinvent themselves in later life. In our day, you could leave high school and work yourself into a career. They trained you and you got first hand learning on the job, not in the classroom. GK is creative, energetic, innovative, smart, but school was never his thing.The rules have changed, but for GK and many of our generation, the idea of going back to school now is simply one more pressure that he isn't prepared for and even if he could reconcile himself to it, he would retrain ... as what? A chef? A photographer? A mechanic? GK worked at learning his position for nearly three decades. His real-life experience is invaluable because of the complexity of the role . . . and yet despite his credentials and his willingness to take lesser pay than his position would normally garner, he can't find a job in his field . . . why would some other industry hire this 48 year old, grey haired, white male when there are fresh, young kids coming out of the same training centres who would be just as capable?

GK doesn't say so, but lately, I see that he's wondering if he'll ever get another job. If there's anyone out there facing the same sort of frustration, I'd like to hear from you. Tell me your story.

canadianna (write to me at canadianna@live.ca)

Does Warren Kinsella even read what he's written?

In Sunday's column, he writes about the *Not a Leader* ad about Dion that played during the Superbowl. He says:

Nowhere in the ad does Harper’s campaign team declare they were hoping to persuade one million Liberal voters to stay home. But that in fact was their objective and they achieved it.

Extensive focus group and polling research had told the Tories that while many Grits despised Harper, they also had serious misgivings about Dion’s “image” as a leader and his ability to communicate.

If they couldn’t persuade those million Liberal voters to come over to the blue team, the Conservatives concluded, they would persuade them to stay home on election day.

Note that he says *Liberal voters*were the target of the ads, and they were the people swayed by those ads. He continues in the same column, with his focus on Liberal/Liberal-leaning voters:

Their research had shown many card-carrying Liberals, or Liberal-leaning voters, had serious misgivings about the fact Michael Ignatieff had spent almost 30 years of his life abroad.

That was Sunday. In his follow-up column, he gives a brief re-cap of what he'd said:

In that column, I suggested some of those left and centre-left Canadians who stayed at home had been "vote suppressed."

So now, it wasn't Liberal voters being suppressed, instead it was all lefties.

Then, on his website, a commenter posted a question about the legitimacy of attack ads. Here is the exchange:

south america says: July 10, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Warren,
I’m a little confused. Are you saying the criticisms directed at Dion (“not a leader”) and Ignatieff (“left Canada for 30 years and only returned to try and be PM”) are illegitimate?

Reply

Warren says:

Nope. I’m saying they were aimed at motivating non-Libs to stay home – not motivating Cons to vote Con.
My point is that no political party should be doing anything to discourage participation in democracy, in an era when fewer folks are voting.

So on Sunday he was concerned because the Conservatives thwarted democracy by targeting Liberal voters and getting them to stay home. Then on Tuesday he was defending his concern because Conservatives targeted left-leaning voters and manipulated them into staying home. But now, on his website, he's worried that the Conservatives managed to target non-Liberals, who were also apparently not Conservatives --- and persude them to stay home.

In 2006, Dion managed to turn off his own people. Even Warren says it. The fact that even Liberals couldn't bring themselves to vote for him is hardly due to nefarious Conservative tactics. And in 2011, rather than persuading Liberals, left-leaners or anyone else to stay home, SOMEONE managed to persuade a whole bunch of left and centre-left people to vote NDP. Jack Layton performed well. His rise along with Ignatieff's epic failure, created the perfect storm for an NDP surge. Much as Conservatives might like to take credit for the crumbling Liberal fortunes, I'm afraid this one is on the Liberals themselves.

Don't worry Warren, no one who wanted to vote Liberal attained their apathy by virtue of Conservative ads or disappearing polling stations --- their attitude came directly from source.

And yeah, I know y'all say don't indulge Warren, but he's like a mosquito in the dark that keeps buzzing and I'm restless until I swat it. Besides, it's hard to let such falseness and contradiction stand without comment.

canadianna

Kinsella: Liberal voters even stupider than you thought

Imagine a million Liberal voters standing out in this heat, waiting to vote. Poor guys. Turns out it wasn't the Conservative ads that made them stay home from the polls--- Kinsella fired off another column -- it was nasty conservative tricksters placing late-night harassing phone calls from across the border to tell those Liberal voters that their polling stations had changed. I'm guessing they must still be standing at those wrong polling stations if those phone calls affected their ability to cast their ballot.

Warren, your first column suggested you lost because of nasty ads. Now you're saying you lost because of widespread, Conservative sanctioned, criminal activity. Pick one. Stick with it. Or --- face facts: Anyone who didn't bother going to the polls, didn't feel that passionate about ANY party.

I'm not saying voter suppression doesn't happen, but voter apathy is more prevalent and I'm guessing it's pretty prevalent amongst former Liberals who watched dozens of Chretien scandals, a lot of internal party bickering, endured Martin's ensuing scandals and then shook their heads at Dion's utter ineptitude but finally faced with Ignatieff pushing himself into the leadership role, they bailed.

You lost them by the numbers, election after election. Who to blame? Well, maybe the out of touch Liberal strategists. Warren?

You lost. Get over it. Move on.

canadianna

Liberal voters too stupid to think: Warren Kinsella

Kinsella is picking scabs again and we've been warned: when the Liberals lose again in 2015 -- don't blame them -- it'll be the fault of the anti-democratic, mind controlling, subliminal suggesting of Stephen Harper and his pesky Conservative ad campaign. Trust Warren. He knows. He remembers.

Back in 2006, when Conservative ads confirmed what Canadians already knew, that Stephane Dion was NOT a leader --- did you know those Conservative ads suppressed the compelling urge of almost a million Liberal voters to go to the polls? Damn those Conservatives. How dare they point out the obvious and use it as part of their advertising message?

The Liberals of course would never stoop to the level of negative ads. But then again, maybe they didn't have to. Everyone knew that Stephen Harper had a secret agenda, and that a fundamental Christian leader like Stockwell Day must be an idiot, but not because of any ad campaign. While the Conservatives paid real money to put across their ideas to the voters, the Liberals had the media. Kinsella was being interviewed on CTV's morning show when he famously said:

'Mr. Day has said . . . that dinosaurs walked the Earth with humans.' As he produced a Barney the dinosaur plush toy, Kinsella went on . . . 'I just want to say to Mr. Day that the Flintstones were not a documentary -- and the only dinosaur that walked with human beings recently was this one.'

And in 2005 when prominent Liberals were still scrambling to keep Paul Martin on top of the Liberal heap, they started the *Stephen Harper secret agenda* game. All they had to do was say those words and the media (which Kinsella has recently suggested is heavily conservative) picked up the Liberal accusations and sneers and ran with them.

Yes Warren, those two clever strategies should have you in the Spinner's Hall of Fame, but you know what? You can't live on past glory. Well, maybe YOU can because the SUN keeps giving you a voice, but face facts Warren, if the Liberals lose again in 2015, it'll be because people like you have nothing fresh to talk about. Where's your vision? Where are your ideas? So long as your mind is preoccupied, blaming everyone else for your own miserable failures, you'll never be able to kick off the dust and move on.

If Liberal voters choose not to come to the polls, it isn't because the Conservatives have suppressed their voting urge, it's because you Liberals have failed to motivate them.

canadianna

The page affair

Yes, the girl was wrong to do what she did. It was disrespectful, immature and just plain stupid. I said as much in a comment I made over at BC Blue.

My comment was less about her actions, than Dean's belief that she should never have been hired in the first place because of her *obvious biases*. Our exchange in the comment section is as follows:

canadianna Says:
June 4, 2011 at 12:18 PM

Her ideas and her biases are no reason to have kept her from working as a page. It isn’t bizarre to assume that adults can have strong opinions and not act on them in such an embarrassing way. The failure is not with the hiring process, but with a woman who has no sense of duty and responsibility upon having been hired. In my reading of her history, her writing, performances and opinions might have been a little out there, but her prior actions gave no indication that she would be unable to fulfill the oath she swore.

Reply

• BC Blue Says:
  June 4, 2011 at 12:33 PM

  That’s why resumes and background checks are kinda important dontcha think? Were either of these done and if they were, you’re saying that with her obvious biases, which should have made her automatically unsuitable for a non-partisan position, are acceptable to you? Please tell me you don’t do any hiring in real life.

  Reply
  • canadianna Says:
    June 5, 2011 at 6:20 AM

    Automatically unsuitable? Are you telling me that people with biases should never be given a non-partisan job? That’s pretty narrow. People always have biases, and should behave themselves. Being passionate about her politics should not have prevented her from being a page. She should have *behaved* differently, not *thought* differently. There is nothing in her past behaviour that could have predicted that she would be so disrespectful of the position she took. And yes, I have hired people — some of whom disagreed with me. Life is full of divergent opinions but we have to judge people on their actions, not their biases.

    Reply
    • BC Blue Says:
      June 5, 2011 at 7:41 AM

      That’s right, if the person who hired her had done their job, she would have never been hired based on her activism and bias.

Are we really in a place that we should be vetting people, not based on their credentials and their qualifications, but rather, on their beliefs and value systems? Sure, the job she held is non-partisan, but most people working even on the periphery of the political realm, do so because there is a level of interest. That this girl's interest (bias) would translate into misbehaviour and the disrespect of the institution where she held her position was absolutely unpredictable. I am unabashedly biased in favour of conservatism but if I took a job where I was meant to remain non-partisan while in uniform, I would do so . . . despite the fact that I blog and am politically active in other ways.

Adults can separate their job from their politics when need be. This person has displayed great immaturity, but that immaturity was in no way predictable by her *biases*. There must be many others of her generation, working as pages, who believe heavily in socialism or other non-Conservative ideals who did not pull similar stunts. Should they be removed from their jobs based on their politics because their disagreement with the current government could potentially assert itself in the same stupid manner as this girl?

This girl knows it's a celebrity driven culture. She has a name now and likely, a new job very soon. This was not about politics, but about selfishness --- and there are many, many people with similarly strong opinions who would not put their own notoriety above their self-respect and the respect for the institutions they serve. That doesn't always show up on a resume or in the university papers one writes.

canadianna

Get to work, jackass

Toronto city councillor, John Filion, has quit the committee he was appointed to back in December -- having never attended one of its meetings.

Let me remind you Mr. Filion --- you have a JOB as a city councillor. With all jobs, there are obligations to the employer. You do have an employer. US. You serve us by sitting on whichever committee you're assigned to because if you don't --- you aren't EARNING the paycheque you're getting - FROM US. You do your job and THEN you get paid. That's called working for a living.

Unlike many of us, John, you have a healthy salary, plenty of perqs and a sizeable pension to look forward to, so . . . if you don't get to pick and choose which group you get to belong to, SUCKS FOR YOU -- but remember who you work for.

If I don't show up to work, I don't get paid. If I *quit* a portion of my job, my boss would make sure I wasn't allowed to do any of the rest of it . . . because I'd be fired.

You'd think politicians would pay more attention to current events and realize that although it's a couple of years away, we can always find someone just as annoying as you to fill your role on council (which is apparently to NOT sit on a committee because you're a suck). You are expendable Mr. Filion, just ask any Liberal.

Funny you say:

“I’ve never been too good at being a sheep.”

You obviously don't mind being a jackass.

canadianna

Like something out of Mean Girls

... only a pair of Vice Principals are pulling the dirty trick.

*** Again, this is personal, not political*** This is an update for anyone who read about my daughter not being allowed to go to her class's prom.

Mia is normally complacent. She doesn't like confrontation and after my conversation with the female vice-principal, I thought she was ready to take *no* for an answer. Then she came to me on Tuesday night and said she was thinking about going to the school in the morning to talk with the VP who was in charge of the prom, the man who'd originally said no. She'd never actually had a conversation with him, she had been told by a secretary that he had said no. I thought it would be a good idea for her to have the conversation with the man in charge. So, yesterday she went.

Late in the day she called me at work, quietly excited. She told me, it wasn't for sure, but Mr. L had listened to everything she had to say and seemed to understand. He told her that because he didn't know her very well, he'd rather people who knew her better make the decision. He asked who her guidance councillor was and which VP she'd been assigned to. He told her to talk with them tomorrow (today) and if they said she could go, he would allow it.

Last night she was cautiously optimistic. We already knew that her guidance counsellor, Miss B. was okay with her going to prom, and her VP Ms D. had told me on the phone that her *no* was based on Mr. L's opinion. Given that Mr. L. seemed to have relented, it seemed fairly sure that Ms D. would have a similar change of heart.

Today Mia went to the school and waited in the guidance office for Miss B. who told her that Mr. L. wanted to see her. Miss B. told Mia she believed the answer must be yes.

Nope. Mr. L. had made an about face. His reason . . . prom is a celebration for the graduating class. You aren't graduating. It's an excuse. Anyone who knows anyone in high school over the past few years, knows that there are dozens of kids who take a fifth year and won't graduate with their year. They still go to prom.

You might say she shouldn't have bothered or that she's no worse off that she was Tuesday night when she was already *not allowed*. But it's worse now. Yesterday Mr. L. could have said: look, we've given you the reasons, no. Instead, he gave her hope and then pulled out the rug . . . that's cruel. That's what you might expect from immature people . . . like teenagers . . . not two, educated people who are supposed to understand how to deal effectively with teenagers and to help them to learn and grow into better people. Epic failure. Fortunately, my daughter is emotionally stable despite the depression she's been dealing with . . . they mightn't be so lucky the next time they pull a stunt like this on an emotionally fragile teen.

canadianna

Ugly TO

If you're in Toronto, or the GTA, where abouts?

Are you finding what I find, that the weeds everywhere are just obnoxiously horrible?

I know, I know . . . the environment. While I'm all for not killing ourselves with chemicals, I wonder if there isn't some way to rid ourselves of the weeds for both aesthetics and for the health benefits of those of us who suffer from allergies.

Seasonal allergies are always going to be a part of life, but since the ban on chemical controls, those of us who suffer, suffer much more. Imagine having a perpetual cold/flu. Dripping nose, itchy eyes, sore throat . . . and it just never goes away. Sure, you can take allergy medication --- EVERY DAY. More expensive than gas and the non-drowsy never works as well and if you take the other stuff, might just as well stay in bed. The whole point of letting the weeds run amok is to avoid putting chemicals into our bodies, I guess it's just some of us can't avoid it if we can afford it.

It's funny, fields of dandelions are lovely, but boulevards and lawns, cemeteries and plaza grass patches, highway dividers and seams of land that are vacant . . . they just look scruffy.

No, I'm not advocating a full-scale return to chemical weed elimination . . . but, hey, is your part of TO looking really shabby too?

Just wondering.

Can anyone tell me . . .

. . . did any of Justin Bieber, Jim Carrey, Anne Murray, Shania Twain, Lucy Maud Montgomery, Michael J. Fox, Robert Bateman, Paul Brandt, Sarah Chalke, Emily Carr, Lorne Michaels, Norman Jewison, Chantal Kreviazuk or Stompin' Tom Connors . . . receive any arts funding? Just wondering.

I believe that it's a good idea to encourage new artists, but hey . . . let's face it . . . Canada is a small market. No matter how good, how popular, how talented any artist is, the money is south of the border and only a few will stay ... and not because they aren't receiving financial support from the government.

And truly, no government gives grants to just anyone ... you have to be published, have credits, credentials. It isn't enough to make pretty pictures, you have to prove that you have a market . . . that someone has actually bought into your talent. Emerging artists should be encouraged, but realistically, there is no credible or fair way for the government to dole out money just because someone perceives themselves to be an artist . . . so it doesn't.

If talent is our #1 export as Charlie Angus says, it isn't because Justin Bieber didn't get an arts grant. Nothing the government can do is going to stop our best and brightest artists from seeking fame and fortune across the border or around the globe when that's where the real money is.

From the above link:

Short on specific numbers, the four MPs talked instead about the need for income averaging to help starving artists, whose average income is $13,000 a year – well below the poverty line.

Income averaging? I support my family by working a crappy job, for a crappy wage, but still pay my share of taxes . . . and the NDP thinks some of my tax dollars should go to *top up* the income of someone who fancies themselves an artist? Thanks NDP. I suppose a case can be made for a government bureaucrat to hand you cash to support you as you struggle with your craft, but realistically, the market decides if it will support you while you create. It's a drag, but if you can't draw the crowds, the fans, the readers, the buyers, then maybe you should get a day job.

canadianna

Teaching moments

*** This is not a political post. It's about a personal matter. Just so you know. **

Personal responsibility is an important issue to me. Cause and effect ... everything you do has consequences.

My 17 year old daughter won't be going to her prom in two weeks. It's a decision made by her school administration this week. They say that she is the author of her own misfortune and that she has to pay for the errors of her ways. I say she is a kid, learning her way in this world and their withholding this privilege is more about control than correction. I believe there was a teaching moment available, but that maybe, if they cared to think about it, the administration should be taking a lesson from my daughter, rather than the other way around.

You be the judge:

During grades 9 & 10 Mia (not her real name) was a typical highschooler. She was average B+ student, had a lot of friends, did her homework regularly, went to class regularly and generally, had a positive attitude.

Things started to change near the end of Grade 10. She had an uncharacteristic clash with a teacher. She ended up not turning in a key assignment, and despite having had 80s in that course in the first two terms, she failed the class by a couple of marks. I had some health issues and was unable to advocate for her. She was devastated. Other circumstances exacerbated things. My health got worse for a nearly a year before it got better and money became tight because I had to be off work. It caused stress for all of my kids.

At the beginning of Grade 11, Mia wanted to change schools because things didn't feel right. She wasn't happy, but she didn't know why. She didn't see it, but I knew the signs. Depression. She had started to withdraw from her friends, deactivating Facebook, appearing offline on MSN to all but a few people. We talked about it, but although she was sad, she didn't see it as a big deal. She started skipping school, not individual classes, but missing whole days just staying at home.

Over the next few months, my dad, who lived with us throughout her whole lifetime, died. He had been like a father to her. Shortly after, Mia left school altogether and tried one of those alternative schools so she wouldn't be losing credits. The kids were all *troubled*. Drugs, alcohol, etc. She didn't fit in that kind of environment but she managed to get a credit there and then moved to a semester school out of the area. She couldn't get out of bed in the morning. She tried for a little while, and got good grades on the assignments she did, but she missed a lot. When it became apparent that she wouldn't get the credits, she stopped going altogether.

She spent the summer mostly alone or with my other kids and my mother. I'd gone back to work, but I knew she spent most of her days in bed. She refused to go to a doctor or admit that there was anything wrong. She just thought she was down because she'd messed up her previous school year. She tried focusing on getting into another school, but because of her Grade 11 year, no other school would take her.

Last September, on the second day of school, she called her old high school and spoke with a Vice Principal who told her that she could go back, and to call Guidance the next day to make an appointment. When she called the next day, the Guidance secretary told her that no, she could NOT come back, that she had officially changed high schools the previous year and that this was no longer her home school.

Mia was devastated and she held onto that conversation for a few days before she told me. In the meantime, she missed the first week and a half of school. When things were finally straightened out and it was determined she COULD go back, it took well over a week to work out a schedule, and then, the administration refused to allow her to take Grade 12 courses, even when no Grade 11 prerequisite was required. I called. I went in. I tried to explain how emotionally fragile she was without Oprahfying things. Mia hates drawing attention to herself and she only shares her feelings with a select few.

They made a couple of accommodations, but very late. She'd already missed several classes because of their delays in changing her schedule. She still had trouble getting out of bed. She had trouble catching up on the work she'd missed those first few weeks and some of the teachers were downright snarky and would embarrass her in class. She started missing again, sleeping all day. She scarcely talked with anyone outside the house. The school knows this. By December, she'd pretty much determined she'd blown the year again. She knew she should care but she felt hopeless.

In February, something changed. She started smiling again. It was such a change, that you couldn't help but notice. I'd almost forgotten that smile. She bought a ticket for her school's semi-formal, and actually went. She started talking to more people and she started showing up at school -- not to go to class --that was futile, but during lunch or spares she'd see kids she'd kept in touch with while she'd been at home, and when no one had free time, she'd just go to the library and read. It got her out of the house. Sometimes the adult hall monitors would send her home, but she was still registered at the school, so she wasn't trespassing. Sometimes, they'd tell her to go to class, but she knew that would just frustrate teachers who knew she wasn't actually there for their class. Every once in a while the school would send home attendance reports, but we'd talked and they knew her situation.

In April, she reactivated Facebook. Many of the kids in her grade didn't even realize that she wasn't actually attending class, they just thought they didn't have any in common. The adult hall monitors began harassing her every time she went to the school, despite the fact that none of her friends ever skipped class to be with her and she never went anywhere besides the library, the cafeteria or the guidance office. She continued to go, but less often and when she saw them, she'd just leave before they could tell her to.

Prom tickets went on sale in early May. She bought her ticket and then came home and asked what I thought about her inviting her friend Emily as her guest. Emily used to go to the high school too, but she got pregnant and had a baby in January. Mia knew what it felt like to be on the outside and she wanted to give Emily the same brief night of normal that she was going to have. I thought it was a great idea. Ironically, her desire to give someone else a prom is what led to Mia being denied the privilege.

Turns out, guests have to be approved. Mia had her ticket, but she had to fill out a form for the administration to check out non-students before they were allowed to buy a ticket. It was really just a formality. Mia handed in the form and was told she could pick it up and buy the extra ticket in a couple of days, but when she went back to get it, a school secretary told her that she couldn't have a guest because she couldn't go to prom. Mia explained that she'd already bought her own ticket. The secretary said that since Mia didn't go to class, she couldn't go to prom. This conversation happened in front of a crowded office. Mia left the office, uncertain as to whether the woman was correct but angry that her personal circumstances were being voiced loudly in public. Anyway, turns out, the secretary was right. By asking a guest, Mia had drawn attention to herself and the VP in charge of the prom decided to disallow her participation because of her absences.

I called the school, left a message for the VP, but he never called me back. I was advised to try a different VP, which I was loath to do because I didn't want to seem sneaky like I was trying to skip him and get Mia in without him noticing. Finally, I gave up and tried the other VP. At the beginning of the school year when scheduling was the issue, she had helped. Not this time. She blasted me. Her attitude was hard and cold. She resented that I asked that she have compassion for a girl who was painfully aware of the difficult path she had ahead of her. She said she'd exhausted her compassion and that she'd been more than accomodating.

This is prom, not a trip to the museum. There won't be another one. Once it's over, that's it. The VP suggested that this would *teach her a lesson*. I asked, what lesson exactly, given that the girl wasn't truant, but depressed . . . apparently, without a doctor's note, that's impossible. Mia will learn that there are consequences.

Hmmm . . . she's 17 with a grade 10 education. She's no dummy. I think she knows. There will be many years of facing consequences. All Mia was asking for is one night of normal.

Anyway, when I got home from work and shared my conversation with her, Mia shrugged and thanked me for trying. Later, I was still stewing about it and I messaged her on MSN. I asked her if she thought she had learned anything.

She said:

"Jokes on me. They can’t teach me that there are consequences for my actions if i already knew that. Instead they’ve taught me that i'm still a kid. i was naive enough to believe that people do things for reasons other than to help themselves. i really thought someone would help, for the simple reason they are able to."

I asked her if she was okay, and she said:

"i talked to Cate and asked if she would make emily HER guest. She did, so at least emily still gets to go. i was so worried she wouldn't get to. lol."

I asked her if it bothered her. Her answer taught me something:

no it's okay. i don't really mind.

Whenever bad things like this happen to me. I figure that at least it happened to me, because I know I can deal with these sorts of things. Other people might not be able to.

i'm at least happy emily gets to go.

she needed it more.
i'd do it the same way again.

Compassion. Empathy. Sharing. Altruism. Friendship. Selflessness. She didn't learn those things at school.

canadianna

Give the girl a break

Ruth Ellen Brosseau admits she put her name forward so the NDP could field a candidate in a riding where they hadn't one. While I believe the NDP should be taken to task for allowing someone to *fill a slot* as it were, Brosseau herself should be cut some slack.

Voters don't always look at the literature. We don't read the pamphlets that are dropped in our mailboxes. We don't open our doors to people with clipboards. We don't bother to investigate our local candidate on the Internet. We trust the party has vetted people . . . gone through a nomination process and that a local riding association has nominated and/or voted for this person to fill the spot on the ballot -- obviously that was not the case here -- and apparently a lot of ridings in Quebec. But that's on the party. The candidates, even Brosseau, did what they thought was the right thing.

There's enough pressure on the new MPs without this kind of media scrutiny. I know it's slow news on the Hill, but the media is focusing on the wrong story -- not where was she, but why? Quebec voters trusted the NDP to field qualified, dedicated candidates and Brosseau may well prove to be both of those things --- but the NDP didn't know that either way. They just needed a name to fill the spot on the ballot. That's the news. Start questioning the process that allows someone to put their name forward because they aren't expected to win and no one else can be bothered.

The new MPs from all parties have a lot to digest. Putting so much heat on this one seems a tad unfair. Yes, I can read and I know her circumstances -- not much French, never been in the riding, away during the election. None of that means as much to me as will she do her job diligently and take it seriously -- and I don't plan on basing that opinion on how she handled an election in which she obviously didn't take her chances of winning seriously.

Press Jack for answers about all of his novice MPs, but leave Brosseau to adjust to her new life. Seriously.

canadianna

The most interesting thing to come out of this election?

You no longer need Quebec for a majority.

Makes you wonder, now that Quebec has chosen the federalist, socialist option, instead of the separatist one, do the rest of us still wag?

Don't get me wrong. I believe Quebec is a distinct society -- that's one of those truths that is self-evident. Its present colour compared to the rest of the nation is enough to prove its more European flavour. That said, I don't believe its language laws should be extended federally -- nor do I believe its distinct language should be imposed on people who chose a life in public service. I believe that's what interpreters are for.

Anyway . . . my point started out being . . . hey, you don't need Quebec to achieve a majority anymore. Cool.

canadianna

Ignatieff: Allow me to slag them . . .

. . . whilst I make my graceful exit.

No sour grapes for our humble prophet Michael Ignatieff. Naw, he's a loser, but not a sore loser:

“This is a Prime Minister found in contempt of Parliament. This was a Prime Minister where the accumulations of what we believed to be abuses of power led to a point at which it seemed to me absolutely my responsibility as the leader of the opposition to stand up for the sovereignty of Parliament,” he said (when asked if he miscalculated by forcing an election.)

Ignatieff went on to say that the *just visiting* ads were:

“absolutely unscrupulous campaign of personal attack.” and “I had a very large square put around my neck for a number of years.”

Sniffle.

But, not one to make a fuss, Michael said:

"The only thing Canadians like less than a loser is a sore loser” and he is “leaving politics with “(his) head held high.”

No, Mike what we like less than a sore loser, is a sore loser who takes his parting shots but pretends his still travelling the high road. Today, and throughout the campaign, you accused Harper of contempt for Canadians, abuse of power, corruption, lies, secrets plans to . . . (fill in the blank with any number of scary scenarios) But you have my sympathy because you've endured being called a political tourist. That must've been painful. Why do you suppose that is. My guess? Truth hurts.

Michael, I think you stubbed your toe on the way out.

canadianna