Many, if not most, celebrities pretend they are a law unto themselves. Including, it seems, Mel Gibson. Two nights ago, he was pulled over on suspicion of DUI. What followed next was, according to reports, a furious and lengthy anti-Jewish tirade.
Earlier tonight, Gibson admitted he's had a long time drinking problem and admitted making the alleged remarks -- and offered a public apology to try to repair the damage. If he thinks that will do the trick, it is unfortunately not that simple.
There are two problems. Neither has anything to do with his drinking problem.
One is the fact that his father, Hutton Gibson, is a very well known anti-Semite, denying the Holocaust ever happened. He's also a schismatic Catholic to boot, claiming that every Pope since John XXIII (aka Angelo Roncalli) has been illegally elected. Why does he believe this? I'm not sure, but I suppose Roncalli's revision of the Good Friday Prayers in 1960 which among other things repudiated anti-Semitism must have rankled old Hutton. No real Pope would do that, after all, according to the anti-Vatican II camp. Despite Mel's repeated denials he is himself not against the Jewish people, he also refuses to disassociate himself from Hutton by citing the commandment to "Honour thy father and thy mother."
We're not born hating, we acquire hatred. Anyone who can honestly say they have never looked at someone, anyone, "different" from themselves with a suspicious eye -- other than Jesus himself -- is a liar. Plain and simple. Even I'm guilty of that, pre-adolescence. There is nothing inconsistent with denouncing a parent's beliefs while not denouncing the parent himself or herself. One must hate the sin, but love the sinner.
Two is the fact Mel Gibson is not technically a member of the Catholic Church or any of the Eastern Churches which submit to the authority of Rome. He and his family attend a so-called Independent "Catholic" Church where only the Latin Tridentine Mass is used -- even the Novus Ordum Latin is heresy for him. He has financed the construction of several such chapels. Furthermore, even though his marriage to his wife Robyn Moore is probably as strong as any in Hollywood, a rarity in Tinseltown (or any district in Los Angeles for that matter), she remains defiantly Episcopalian; and as such Mel believes she's going to hell, subscribing to the traditional doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Even though as recently as 2000, the Vatican modified the doctrine slightly and conceded non-Catholics could achieve salvation. (See Dominus Iesius, drafted by no less than Joseph Ratzinger, aka Benedict XVI)
Set aside what church he attends -- that's his business, as long as he doesn't call himself Roman Catholic. What kind of spouse is Mel if he thinks she's hellbound? If she is in fact going there, why did he marry her in the first place?
One can't help but wonder if by isolating himself from even his wife in this fashion, his entreatments of both the Evangelical Christian community (especially the "pro-Israel" camp) as well as the US Jewish leadership in the run-up to his film The Passion of the Christ were for show. If that's the case, all he succeeded in doing was making one of the most popular independent films, if not the most popular one, in history -- while stabbing his supporters in the back. In one fell swoop, he probably destroyed all that goodwill he built up.
And probably made his career in Hollywood -- pardon the expression, Apocalypto. With the situation in the Middle East continuing to escalate, Mel Gibson chose a pretty bad time to get into trouble; even if it is (one would hope) a lapse in judgment. To put it mildly, Mel needs sensitivity training as much as a sojourn at the Betty Ford Center.
FOOTNOTE (11:46 PM EDT, 0346 GMT Sunday): Some will argue that Vatican II went way too far in trying to bring the Roman Catholic Church out of the Dark Ages. I think it is more accurate to say that, even 41 years later, it hasn't fulfilled its original promise. The fact that it caused division among the laity may be as much as a problem of a miscommunication of the rulings of Vatican II as the public's interpretation of them. Still, that's no excuse for making the kinds of remarks that Mel Gibson did ... and as Nikki Fenke of Deadline Hollywood Daily points out, while he expressed regret for his remarks he only apologized for his behaviour -- not his anti-Semitic slurs specifically.
Let me make it clear: I'm not against Mel Gibson. I'm against DUI. Whether the police decide to tack on a hate crimes charge (which would double whatever penalty he might get) is their decision to make ... but it's one they might consider to act as a deterrent.
FOOTNOTE #2 (2:53 AM EDT Sunday, 0653 GMT): This story has got conservatives buzzing. One of the best comments comes from Ron Dreher at Beliefnet. Another comes from no less than Powerline -- which confirms my suspicion that the battle in 2004 between Passion and Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 wasn't exclusively Red versus Blue.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Would you believe: National Post joins tree huggers
Who'd have thunk it? The National Post actually comes out on the side of the environment on at least one issue: The Alberta Oil Sands.
An excerpt:
When one of the most right-wing publications on the planet comes to the defence of nature, you know something's rotten at the Alberta Legislature. Not to mention it's big trouble for Stephen Harper, who's dedicated to destroying the Kyoto Accord and for whom the NP is his official organ in everything but name.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
An excerpt:
Oilsands companies currently use 20 billion litres of groundwater a year to get the bitumen out of the ground and process it. They are licensed to use 75 billion litres a year, and as more projects come onstream, groundwater use will escalate.
Yet the Alberta government doesn't have a good inventory of the province's groundwater. Surely it's reckless to proceed with commitments to oilsands companies without having a clear understanding of the precious water resource we're giving to them.
When one of the most right-wing publications on the planet comes to the defence of nature, you know something's rotten at the Alberta Legislature. Not to mention it's big trouble for Stephen Harper, who's dedicated to destroying the Kyoto Accord and for whom the NP is his official organ in everything but name.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Mel Gibson: From bad to really, really bad
Things just get bad to worse for Mel Gibson. Now we learn from TMZ -- whoever they are -- that before last week's altercation with police, he got pulled over twice in the last two years for reckless driving and speeding on the Pacific Coast Highway. Both times he only got a warning. Why? Celebrity Justice, of course.
Meanwhile, via Kathy Shaidle, a right-wing film promoter says the blowup over Mel's bad behaviour could cast a pall on the release of Apocalypto if for no other reason than it was optioned by the Disney Company. The same Disney that also bought the rights to, then tried to bury, Michael Moore's F 9/11 -- and which was going to, then backed out on, a 60th anniversary release this fall of the artistically perfect but racially incendiary Song of the South.
There's no business like show business. Really. I'd love to see how Mel -- and Disney -- gets out of this pickle.
UPDATE (4:20 PM EDT, 2020 GMT: Fixed a bad link. Sorry folks.)
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Meanwhile, via Kathy Shaidle, a right-wing film promoter says the blowup over Mel's bad behaviour could cast a pall on the release of Apocalypto if for no other reason than it was optioned by the Disney Company. The same Disney that also bought the rights to, then tried to bury, Michael Moore's F 9/11 -- and which was going to, then backed out on, a 60th anniversary release this fall of the artistically perfect but racially incendiary Song of the South.
There's no business like show business. Really. I'd love to see how Mel -- and Disney -- gets out of this pickle.
UPDATE (4:20 PM EDT, 2020 GMT: Fixed a bad link. Sorry folks.)
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Reforming Canada's tax system: Seniors
After a couple of weeks putting my thoughts about the Canadian tax regime on the side burner, I am going to try to finish this up. After talking about personal and corporate taxes and the GST, as well as how we might consider taxing native Canadians, I want to now talk about seniors.
Rich or poor, it's our forefathers and foremothers that have built this country. They paid the taxes that helped start our social safety net, so it is only fair they get special consideration in their "golden years." There are certain aspects of the system, however, that need a rethink.
The first is the seniors' tax credit. Once a universal credit, it is currently clawed back at fifteen cents on the dollar once net income (and that includes tax-free benefits such as workers' compensation and the Guaranteed Income Supplement) reaches $30,270. That's stupid. It means once a senior's income reaches $57,377 the credit is totally phased out. There is simply no rhyme or reason for double taxing a person's income in that manner -- it's discriminatory, plain and simple. What's more, every province and territory has a similar clawback. It may have been necessary as a temporary measure to fight the deficit, but now that we're in surplus (at least federally) it's stupid.
So, quite simply, I'd restore universality.
Second, the Harper Government recently increased the tax-free amount on private pensions, available to seniors from $1000 to $2000. All well and good, except many people only get the government pensions. It's only fair that the Guaranteed Income Supplement, paid to the lowest income seniors, be increased by an equivalent amount. With an average marginal rate of 25%, that would work out to $750 a year, $62.50 per month, on top of the maximum supplement. This would allow more seniors to qualify and give them a little bit more dignity.
Third, while it is entirely appropriate that a senior should reapply each year to continue getting the supplement (if he or she is entitled to it), doing what is currently done and eliminating it entirely if one doesn't file an income tax return before April 30th is punitive. There should be some leniency there, perhaps giving seniors with little or no income until June or even July to file, so they aren't shocked and screaming on the phone at helpless bureaucrats who are only trying to do their job.
As for the Old Age Security clawback: It's currently imposed at net income above $62,144, also at a rate of 15% until it phases out at $102,031. Some seniors wind up paying an effective rate of 100%. It may be true that OAS was meant to protect poorer seniors, but that definition went out the window with the introduction of the supplement. Besides, it's also a deficit fighting tax that is no longer needed. So for this one, I'd phase out the clawback over five years, three percent at a time. Over time, consideration should also be given to making it completely tax free, as the supplement is -- in other words, making OAS a negative income tax; as the Child Tax Benefit used to be until Harper screwed it up earlier this year to make sure parents got less money and not more. (I've discussed that before, but I'll expound on it when I do a later post about taxing families and children.)
Finally, only a limited number of seniors are entitled to use a simplified version of the tax form -- everyone else must use the General. More large print forms should be published. Also, services such as filing by phone should be made available to the maximum number of seniors that are entitled to it. It saves resources, and ensures they get both the supplement and the GST credit they're entitled to.
Once again, just a little imagination is needed to make things smarter. The tax system should be structured so benefits trickle from the bottom up, not the top down. There is no such imagination from any of the major parties at present on this one.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Rich or poor, it's our forefathers and foremothers that have built this country. They paid the taxes that helped start our social safety net, so it is only fair they get special consideration in their "golden years." There are certain aspects of the system, however, that need a rethink.
The first is the seniors' tax credit. Once a universal credit, it is currently clawed back at fifteen cents on the dollar once net income (and that includes tax-free benefits such as workers' compensation and the Guaranteed Income Supplement) reaches $30,270. That's stupid. It means once a senior's income reaches $57,377 the credit is totally phased out. There is simply no rhyme or reason for double taxing a person's income in that manner -- it's discriminatory, plain and simple. What's more, every province and territory has a similar clawback. It may have been necessary as a temporary measure to fight the deficit, but now that we're in surplus (at least federally) it's stupid.
So, quite simply, I'd restore universality.
Second, the Harper Government recently increased the tax-free amount on private pensions, available to seniors from $1000 to $2000. All well and good, except many people only get the government pensions. It's only fair that the Guaranteed Income Supplement, paid to the lowest income seniors, be increased by an equivalent amount. With an average marginal rate of 25%, that would work out to $750 a year, $62.50 per month, on top of the maximum supplement. This would allow more seniors to qualify and give them a little bit more dignity.
Third, while it is entirely appropriate that a senior should reapply each year to continue getting the supplement (if he or she is entitled to it), doing what is currently done and eliminating it entirely if one doesn't file an income tax return before April 30th is punitive. There should be some leniency there, perhaps giving seniors with little or no income until June or even July to file, so they aren't shocked and screaming on the phone at helpless bureaucrats who are only trying to do their job.
As for the Old Age Security clawback: It's currently imposed at net income above $62,144, also at a rate of 15% until it phases out at $102,031. Some seniors wind up paying an effective rate of 100%. It may be true that OAS was meant to protect poorer seniors, but that definition went out the window with the introduction of the supplement. Besides, it's also a deficit fighting tax that is no longer needed. So for this one, I'd phase out the clawback over five years, three percent at a time. Over time, consideration should also be given to making it completely tax free, as the supplement is -- in other words, making OAS a negative income tax; as the Child Tax Benefit used to be until Harper screwed it up earlier this year to make sure parents got less money and not more. (I've discussed that before, but I'll expound on it when I do a later post about taxing families and children.)
Finally, only a limited number of seniors are entitled to use a simplified version of the tax form -- everyone else must use the General. More large print forms should be published. Also, services such as filing by phone should be made available to the maximum number of seniors that are entitled to it. It saves resources, and ensures they get both the supplement and the GST credit they're entitled to.
Once again, just a little imagination is needed to make things smarter. The tax system should be structured so benefits trickle from the bottom up, not the top down. There is no such imagination from any of the major parties at present on this one.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Ti-Cats get shut own: How much worse can it get?
During my weekly "verification" shift (checking up on large orders and unauthorized credit cards) last night, I noticed there were an oddly low number of calls coming from the Hamilton region (which covers most of Southwestern Ontario, and a couple of small towns in the GTA). When my shift ended, I also noted the streets were mostly deserted, rather odd for game night when the Hamilton Tiger-Cats play at home.
No wonder. They were shut-out by the Winnipeg Blue Bombers, 29-0, the first time they have been wiped out since 1951. Unbelieveable. The stupid Tabbies couldn't even set up a single, and are now 1-6. As pointed out last night on the radio show "The Fifth Quarter," if Hamilton wants even a fighting change to make the playoffs they'd have to go 9-2 in their last 11 games -- and most of those games are on the road. Judging by all the calls coming in after the game, from places as far away as London and Stratford, people were really pissed by what they saw last night.
I didn't even bother to watch the late-night replay on TV. It would have been too embarrassing.
Two points:
This is the last year of a three-year season ticket special that owner Bob Young -- the software billionaire who built Red Hat -- put in to get people to go back to Ivor Wynne Stadium. After showing so much promise in 2004, the Cats tanked in 2005 and are flailing this year. Anyone want to speculate how many of those multi-year holders will put down deposits for even one season in 2007? Not many, I guess.
It's not a coaching problem. Greg Marshall was having problems, and so is Ron Lancaster. And firing receiver Craig Yeast won't do much either, because he's just a sympton of a much wider problem. The team sucks, period. They don't play as a team, but as all-for-myself yahoos. How many times do we need to say this: There is no "I" or "me" in team.
To get people into the seats, the HSR -- the local transit authority -- now even offers free rides to and from the game for ticket holders; a bonus for people who don't want to pay extortion parking fees in private driveways to get to the only stadium in the CFL without access to a real parking lot. But why would I want to ride the buses only to see a bunch of first-class losers who think of nothing of cashing a paycheck to play like jerks?
I've got better ways to spend my cash. Like the theatre. I'd rather stimulate my mind, then get it fried by the current group of weirdos who dare to wear the Black and Gold.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
No wonder. They were shut-out by the Winnipeg Blue Bombers, 29-0, the first time they have been wiped out since 1951. Unbelieveable. The stupid Tabbies couldn't even set up a single, and are now 1-6. As pointed out last night on the radio show "The Fifth Quarter," if Hamilton wants even a fighting change to make the playoffs they'd have to go 9-2 in their last 11 games -- and most of those games are on the road. Judging by all the calls coming in after the game, from places as far away as London and Stratford, people were really pissed by what they saw last night.
I didn't even bother to watch the late-night replay on TV. It would have been too embarrassing.
Two points:
This is the last year of a three-year season ticket special that owner Bob Young -- the software billionaire who built Red Hat -- put in to get people to go back to Ivor Wynne Stadium. After showing so much promise in 2004, the Cats tanked in 2005 and are flailing this year. Anyone want to speculate how many of those multi-year holders will put down deposits for even one season in 2007? Not many, I guess.
It's not a coaching problem. Greg Marshall was having problems, and so is Ron Lancaster. And firing receiver Craig Yeast won't do much either, because he's just a sympton of a much wider problem. The team sucks, period. They don't play as a team, but as all-for-myself yahoos. How many times do we need to say this: There is no "I" or "me" in team.
To get people into the seats, the HSR -- the local transit authority -- now even offers free rides to and from the game for ticket holders; a bonus for people who don't want to pay extortion parking fees in private driveways to get to the only stadium in the CFL without access to a real parking lot. But why would I want to ride the buses only to see a bunch of first-class losers who think of nothing of cashing a paycheck to play like jerks?
I've got better ways to spend my cash. Like the theatre. I'd rather stimulate my mind, then get it fried by the current group of weirdos who dare to wear the Black and Gold.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Wrong Psalm: It's 84, not 83
The recent discovery of an almost 1200 year old section of the Psalter in a bog in Ireland has had the doomsday crowd absolutely gleeful, as it is allegedly turned to Psalm 83 -- which, they claim, speaks of the world turning against Israel. Given current events in Lebanon, so sez the apocalyse now gang, this is proof the end is nigh.
Just two problems. First, something was definitely lost in translation -- the original text spoke of the vale of tears, not Israel. Second, the manuscript uses the ancient Hebrew numbering -- not the Greek which most of the Churches use, which would make it Psalm 84. And that particular Psalm is a song of praise and a prayer for godliness.
Let's see, all these events were supposed to signify the end of the world:
The creation of the state of Israel.
The taking of the Holy Sites of Jerusalem in 1967.
The Yom Kippur War.
The Camp David Accords.
The 1982 campaign against Lebanon.
The First Gulf War.
9/11.
The Second Gulf War.
Sorry, bub, but I'll take my Bible as is, thank you very much. And I listen to the words of the Man from Galilee who said, "Such things must come to pass, but the end is not yet."
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Comments:
Just two problems. First, something was definitely lost in translation -- the original text spoke of the vale of tears, not Israel. Second, the manuscript uses the ancient Hebrew numbering -- not the Greek which most of the Churches use, which would make it Psalm 84. And that particular Psalm is a song of praise and a prayer for godliness.
Let's see, all these events were supposed to signify the end of the world:
The creation of the state of Israel.
The taking of the Holy Sites of Jerusalem in 1967.
The Yom Kippur War.
The Camp David Accords.
The 1982 campaign against Lebanon.
The First Gulf War.
9/11.
The Second Gulf War.
Sorry, bub, but I'll take my Bible as is, thank you very much. And I listen to the words of the Man from Galilee who said, "Such things must come to pass, but the end is not yet."
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Comments:
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Ann Coulter: "Most of the time, I'm an extraordinarily good Christian"
So is Benny Hinn.
A huge HT to fellow Catholic Amy Welborn for this one. Also see Kathy Shaidle: While they agree on a number of issues, Shaidle has some choice words for Coulter on this one
Read the interview over at Beliefnet and judge for yourself.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
A huge HT to fellow Catholic Amy Welborn for this one. Also see Kathy Shaidle: While they agree on a number of issues, Shaidle has some choice words for Coulter on this one
Read the interview over at Beliefnet and judge for yourself.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Testing positive at the Tour de France
Lance Armstrong was under a cloud of suspicion all those years he won one Tour de France after another -- after all, how could a cancer survivor pull off all those victories? While he has been repeatedly exonerated of any wrongdoing, the questions have remained; if for no other reason than he has consistently refused to compete in the real world championship -- a one day road race held in a different city every year -- preferring endurance marathons like the French competition and the Tour of America.
The suspicions persist because it's fairly easy to take performance enhancing drugs very early in a multi-day competition or just before it starts; so that by the end of the race, when nearly everyone is tested, the barbituates flush out of one's system making them almost impossible to trace.
The Americans have had a way of taking the high road, saying this is something other countries' atheletes do -- not Americans. After all, nine other contestants were kicked out of the tourney before it started and they weren't from the States. But this morning, this year's Tour winner, the US's Floyd Landis, tested positive for very high levels of testosterone in the preliminary "A" test. The "B" test is to follow to see if the hormone occurred "naturally" or was injected. This is causing quite a storm as I write these words; just days ago people in Paris were impressed by and even jubilant over Landis' come from behind win. He had been trailing by seven minutes a week ago today, then suddenly made a huge power surge.
And coming as it does on the tenth anniversary of Donovan Bailey's 100 m win at the Atlanta Summer Olympics, this is very bad news for sports in general. One would have hoped that we had finally turned the page, that drug use was no longer acceptable in professional and amateur sports and that even the pro leagues -- which had long considered drugs a matter for collective bargaining agreements -- were finally starting to clamp down on rogues.
If Landis winds up disqualified, it means an automatic two year suspension for him and certainly ridicule from his fellow Americans. But the broader repercussions could be huge. After a winter and spring of scandals including hockey players betting on other sports, a very controversial World Cup, game rigging in the Italian soccer league and continued questions about the authenticity of Barry Bond's slugging, I wonder how many more hits the athletic world can muster.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
The suspicions persist because it's fairly easy to take performance enhancing drugs very early in a multi-day competition or just before it starts; so that by the end of the race, when nearly everyone is tested, the barbituates flush out of one's system making them almost impossible to trace.
The Americans have had a way of taking the high road, saying this is something other countries' atheletes do -- not Americans. After all, nine other contestants were kicked out of the tourney before it started and they weren't from the States. But this morning, this year's Tour winner, the US's Floyd Landis, tested positive for very high levels of testosterone in the preliminary "A" test. The "B" test is to follow to see if the hormone occurred "naturally" or was injected. This is causing quite a storm as I write these words; just days ago people in Paris were impressed by and even jubilant over Landis' come from behind win. He had been trailing by seven minutes a week ago today, then suddenly made a huge power surge.
And coming as it does on the tenth anniversary of Donovan Bailey's 100 m win at the Atlanta Summer Olympics, this is very bad news for sports in general. One would have hoped that we had finally turned the page, that drug use was no longer acceptable in professional and amateur sports and that even the pro leagues -- which had long considered drugs a matter for collective bargaining agreements -- were finally starting to clamp down on rogues.
If Landis winds up disqualified, it means an automatic two year suspension for him and certainly ridicule from his fellow Americans. But the broader repercussions could be huge. After a winter and spring of scandals including hockey players betting on other sports, a very controversial World Cup, game rigging in the Italian soccer league and continued questions about the authenticity of Barry Bond's slugging, I wonder how many more hits the athletic world can muster.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
We refuse the right to refuse service to anyone
Lance Armstrong was under a cloud of suspicion all those years he won one Tour de France after another -- after all, how could a cancer survivor pull off all those victories? While he has been repeatedly exonerated of any wrongdoing, the questions have remained; if for no other reason than he has consistently refused to compete in the real world championship -- a one day road race held in a different city every year -- preferring endurance marathons like the French competition and the Tour of America.
The suspicions persist because it's fairly easy to take performance enhancing drugs very early in a multi-day competition or just before it starts; so that by the end of the race, when nearly everyone is tested, the barbituates flush out of one's system making them almost impossible to trace.
The Americans have had a way of taking the high road, saying this is something other countries' atheletes do -- not Americans. After all, nine other contestants were kicked out of the tourney before it started and they weren't from the States. But this morning, this year's Tour winner, the US's Floyd Landis, tested positive for very high levels of testosterone in the preliminary "A" test. The "B" test is to follow to see if the hormone occurred "naturally" or was injected. This is causing quite a storm as I write these words; just days ago people in Paris were impressed by and even jubilant over Landis' come from behind win. He had been trailing by seven minutes a week ago today, then suddenly made a huge power surge.
And coming as it does on the tenth anniversary of Donovan Bailey's 100 m win at the Atlanta Summer Olympics, this is very bad news for sports in general. One would have hoped that we had finally turned the page, that drug use was no longer acceptable in professional and amateur sports and that even the pro leagues -- which had long considered drugs a matter for collective bargaining agreements -- were finally starting to clamp down on rogues.
If Landis winds up disqualified, it means an automatic two year suspension for him and certainly ridicule from his fellow Americans. But the broader repercussions could be huge. After a winter and spring of scandals including hockey players betting on other sports, a very controversial World Cup, game rigging in the Italian soccer league and continued questions about the authenticity of Barry Bond's slugging, I wonder how many more hits the athletic world can muster.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
The suspicions persist because it's fairly easy to take performance enhancing drugs very early in a multi-day competition or just before it starts; so that by the end of the race, when nearly everyone is tested, the barbituates flush out of one's system making them almost impossible to trace.
The Americans have had a way of taking the high road, saying this is something other countries' atheletes do -- not Americans. After all, nine other contestants were kicked out of the tourney before it started and they weren't from the States. But this morning, this year's Tour winner, the US's Floyd Landis, tested positive for very high levels of testosterone in the preliminary "A" test. The "B" test is to follow to see if the hormone occurred "naturally" or was injected. This is causing quite a storm as I write these words; just days ago people in Paris were impressed by and even jubilant over Landis' come from behind win. He had been trailing by seven minutes a week ago today, then suddenly made a huge power surge.
And coming as it does on the tenth anniversary of Donovan Bailey's 100 m win at the Atlanta Summer Olympics, this is very bad news for sports in general. One would have hoped that we had finally turned the page, that drug use was no longer acceptable in professional and amateur sports and that even the pro leagues -- which had long considered drugs a matter for collective bargaining agreements -- were finally starting to clamp down on rogues.
If Landis winds up disqualified, it means an automatic two year suspension for him and certainly ridicule from his fellow Americans. But the broader repercussions could be huge. After a winter and spring of scandals including hockey players betting on other sports, a very controversial World Cup, game rigging in the Italian soccer league and continued questions about the authenticity of Barry Bond's slugging, I wonder how many more hits the athletic world can muster.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Briefing notes (2007-07-26)
Before quitting time last night, I was held up on the phone for nearly six minutes by someone who was obviously trying to place a fake order for about $1500 worth of food to a store that could not possibly handle it in a short time frame. What was the tipoff was that I offered to cater the order that would have given them bigger pizzas for less money plus offered a substantial discount; but they kept refusing, then added, "If you can get it here in an hour, I'll give the driver a thousand dollar tip."
Folks, we like most other major pizza chains have a catering department that's open during regular business hours. If you're going to do something that huge, you should be giving us at least a day or two's notice to give the store plenty of time to prepare or to be able to split the order between two, three, even four stores. In a case like this one where the store is fairly isolated (Woodstock) and the nearest location at least a half hour away (Stratford), lead time is even more essential.
To the person who's out there and tried to pull this stunt: You tried to pull this two nights in a row, according to the store when I spoke to them. I hope you have at least some kind of a conscious, because reckless orders like that cost stores money and if there's nothing to show for it there's no compensation. Make no mistake, we will trace the call to the real phone number and you will be blacklisted from making future orders, even for a nine dollar pickup.
On to today's news. Three items that merit comment:
Folks, we like most other major pizza chains have a catering department that's open during regular business hours. If you're going to do something that huge, you should be giving us at least a day or two's notice to give the store plenty of time to prepare or to be able to split the order between two, three, even four stores. In a case like this one where the store is fairly isolated (Woodstock) and the nearest location at least a half hour away (Stratford), lead time is even more essential.
To the person who's out there and tried to pull this stunt: You tried to pull this two nights in a row, according to the store when I spoke to them. I hope you have at least some kind of a conscious, because reckless orders like that cost stores money and if there's nothing to show for it there's no compensation. Make no mistake, we will trace the call to the real phone number and you will be blacklisted from making future orders, even for a nine dollar pickup.
On to today's news. Three items that merit comment:
- The IDF "accidentally" bombed a UN position in Southern Lebanon, killing at least three observers, including one Canadian, even though Canada is technically not part of the mission. There's no doubt UNIFIL has been a total joke and their mandate should have been changed to peacemaking instead of just peacekeeping. There's a strong argument that NATO should be taking over the job, just as they did in the former Yugoslavia when the UN also fucked it up. They couldn't do any worse -- and given that Hezbollah and the rebel Taliban (in Afghanistan) are of the same terrorist, anti-Semitic and misogynist ilk, one might find in a force with teeth someone who could at least have a fighting chance of finishing off at least one of them.
- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki made some rather bizarre comments that labelled Israel's attacks on Lebanon "aggression" and also seemed to support Hezbollah. In response, several Democratic officials, including House Leader Nancy Pelosi, are saying they'll boycott Maliki's address to Congress today. An argument can be made that the current Israeli campaign is anything but measured; but it was Hezbollah that fired the first shot when they kidnapped two soldiers. If the purpose of getting democracy in Iraq was to have created another state dedicated to the destruction of Israel, then there should be trade sanctions against Iraq -- and its leader is certainly not entitled to address any foreign legislature.
- Finally, the Dalai Lama will formally receive an honourary Canadian citizenship today, something which Parliament granted in a resolution last month and that has been granted to only two other people -- Nelson Mandela and Raoul Wallenberg. Long overdue, in my opinion; and any time we actually get to spit in the faces of the Butchers of Tiannamen Square, it's a good thing.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Pakistan had a nuclear plant and Dubya said nothing
Maybe it's the kind of non-Christian dictator -- or more specifically, the kind of Muslim -- that determines whether the White House thinks a country is entitled to have weapons of mass destruction. Or perhaps it's about the fact some Muslim majority countries have oil but others don't that's the determining factor. Apparently, Dubya believes it's not okay for Iran or Iraq to have WMD. But Pakistan is another story.
WaPo reports this morning that the Executive failed to disclose to Congress that Pakistan's nuclear program is running hot, straight and normal -- until yesterday, when Tony Snow finally made the admission. The West Wing found out Pervez Musharraf had built a plutonium plant in Khushab, Punjab, capable of providing enough fuel to fifty nuclear bombs every year -- but never reported this fact to Congress as they're required to do. By contrast Pakistan's major nuclear rival, India has built only thirty bombs since 1974.
Tensions have always run high between the two countries, especially over the disputed Kashmir region. But it's not just the fact the battle could go nuclear that's worrysome. The world's most wanted man, OBL, is currently thought to be hiding in Pakistan; and Musharraf has been rightly criticized for not doing enough to hunt Public Enemy #1 for fear of a fundamenalist Islamic revolt which would be all too happy to get those bombs and completely annihilate Hinduism.
The bigger issue is that the program has gone on since 2000, the last full year of the Clinton Administration. So even Slick Willy knew about it, and probably so informed Dubya during the transition.
I'm more convinced that the neo-conservative agenda revolves around cheap access to oil when the key to domestic and foreign security is getting away from the addiction to crude. Nuclear power is a necessary evil, but it must be kept under strict international supervision and the spread of weapons must be stopped. The last thing we need is for AlQaeda to raid the Khushab facility and fire one of those weapons on Kandahar, where NATO is fighting AQ on a daily basis.
This is yet more proof the neo-cons have their priorities backwards. Rather than looking for bombs where none existed, they should have eliminated them where they already were known to exist -- and they should have started the process by offering an act of good will and dramatically further decreasing the American arsenal.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
WaPo reports this morning that the Executive failed to disclose to Congress that Pakistan's nuclear program is running hot, straight and normal -- until yesterday, when Tony Snow finally made the admission. The West Wing found out Pervez Musharraf had built a plutonium plant in Khushab, Punjab, capable of providing enough fuel to fifty nuclear bombs every year -- but never reported this fact to Congress as they're required to do. By contrast Pakistan's major nuclear rival, India has built only thirty bombs since 1974.
Tensions have always run high between the two countries, especially over the disputed Kashmir region. But it's not just the fact the battle could go nuclear that's worrysome. The world's most wanted man, OBL, is currently thought to be hiding in Pakistan; and Musharraf has been rightly criticized for not doing enough to hunt Public Enemy #1 for fear of a fundamenalist Islamic revolt which would be all too happy to get those bombs and completely annihilate Hinduism.
The bigger issue is that the program has gone on since 2000, the last full year of the Clinton Administration. So even Slick Willy knew about it, and probably so informed Dubya during the transition.
I'm more convinced that the neo-conservative agenda revolves around cheap access to oil when the key to domestic and foreign security is getting away from the addiction to crude. Nuclear power is a necessary evil, but it must be kept under strict international supervision and the spread of weapons must be stopped. The last thing we need is for AlQaeda to raid the Khushab facility and fire one of those weapons on Kandahar, where NATO is fighting AQ on a daily basis.
This is yet more proof the neo-cons have their priorities backwards. Rather than looking for bombs where none existed, they should have eliminated them where they already were known to exist -- and they should have started the process by offering an act of good will and dramatically further decreasing the American arsenal.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Sign of the End Times: Bolton smacks down O'Reilly
Via Media Matters. When someone like John Bolton who was appointed by Dubya specifically to destroy the United Nations winds up defending it from the attacks of someone like Bill O'Reilly, it's just a matter of time before the first horseman of the apocalpyse turns the corner. (Oh wait, according to the Word of Faith televangeists, he's been around for thirty years: King Juan Carlos of Spain!)
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Update on Voting Rights passage
An update to a post I wrote the other day: The US House of Reps last week overwhelmingly reauthorized the Voting Rights Act for another twenty-five years; but not before defeating four amendments from some of the more radical members of the elephants that would have significantly weakened the law. It was only the intervention of the GOP leadership that torpedoed the following four items:
- Making certain provisions of the law apply to all the states, not just the South;
- Stripping the Department of Justice of their signing off rights on redistricting plans;
- Ending multilingual ballots; and
- Extending the law for only 10 years, not 25.
However symbolic, the VRA is what gives people in the States the right to vote. There is actually nothing in the Constitution that says Americans have the right to vote -- it only says the vote can't be denied based on one's race, sex, inability to pay taxes or having reached the age of eighteen. However, it is well known that states in both the north and the south have used every trick in the book over the decades to deny blacks and other visible minorities, as well as the poor, the privilege of voting. In the modern age, where it's very easy to rig voting machines to ensure a perpetual Republican majority, it's an even more serious issue.
At least for once, however, both parties got it right and told the extremists to stuff it. The VRA is still a necessary safeguard and still very much needed.
Here in Canada, where ballots are counted by hand, it may not mean much; except for the fact that there's been an effort for the last few election cycles to reach out to homeless people, seniors in nursing homes and even prisoners to get them to vote. If Stephen Harper is thinking about denying the vote to any of those groups -- and you can be sure those in the so-called "religious" right would love to give the vote only to the wealthy and property owners and only men too; and putting pressure on him to do so behind closed doors -- he's going to have a revolution on his hands.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Adventures in speed dating
Last night, I went to what was being billed as the "World Record Speed Dating Event" at the Hamilton Convention Centre, sponsored by the Plenty of Fish website. This was a total lark for me, as I haven't dated in a few years and wanted to get a jump start. I was in the 25 to 40 section, and I must have spoken to 80 women of almost every personality type one could imagine in the course of three hours.
It's hard to say where this is going to lead. I'm supposed to find out in the next two or three days if any women on my shortlist made theirs as well. But there are a few observations from where I stand.
It's hard to say where this is going to lead. I'm supposed to find out in the next two or three days if any women on my shortlist made theirs as well. But there are a few observations from where I stand.
- One, the venue kept changing as more and more people signed up. There was a real nice facility in Burlington that got an upgrade, but then the fire department there said they couldn't handle the crowd control. So it was moved to where it was last night with little more than a week to deadline time (a bit suprising, since convention space is often booked months in advance); but I do have to wonder about the final choice. Maybe it's the way it was set up, but it seemed awfully loud in there.
- Two, it's often said that someone at a speed dating event knows if the opposite number is dateable material within the first three to five seconds. For some in my rotation, that was definitely true. But others, I found I didn't check yes or no until I had sat with two more women -- while the rest, I made my pick at about the midway point.
- Three, there was a bit of an afterparty, but after doing some walkarounds I found some of the women who had sparked my interest had already left and some of the rest were perhaps looking the other way. Don't know what to read of it one way or the other, but I was out the door by about 10 pm.
Would I do this again? Yes, I would. But I would prefer a much more controlled environment rather than the rather raucous affair from last night. And three minutes just isn't enough time. I would go with five minutes; and maybe 30 women at most.
Have any of you tried speed dating? Did it lead to any dates -- good or bad? And what advice would you give a guy who's essentially meeting someone on a blind date; presuming some dates do come out of this? I'd appreciate your feedback.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
SCC gives Mafia carte blance
The Supreme Court of Canada has thrown a huge wrench into one of the government's most power tools, that of extradition; in considering four cases -- three from the United States and one from Mexico . While upholding 8-0 the current rules for kicking someone out of Canada to face trial elsewhere (which were enacted seven years ago and which repealed a previous law which dated back to Victorian times) Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin also added a new twist; that someone may only be expelled if that person could face trial in Canada under this country's rules of evidence; not that of the country that wants the suspect back.
On the one hand, that may not be such a bad thing -- for example, there is no criminal provision regarding blasphemy in Canada; although there is in many other countries, including even England. It may also help women fleeing prosecution from some countries where it's a crime just to be a woman who wants to be free.
But how far could it lead? Does that mean that if someone repeatedly abuses the US Do Not Call list then flees to Canada to flee prosecution, we can't send them back because we only have a voluntary system? Or if someone is facing indictment elsewhere for corporate fraud even if the evidence -- as strong as it is -- is merely hearsay, they get to stay too?
The biggest impact could be on organized crime. While there is no statute of limitations on murder, there is on racketeering and the time limit is much shorter in Canada than it is in the States, potentially giving some Mafia bosses in the US safe haven in Canada. Even progressives need to say this is simply not acceptable. This is one area where I think sentences and forfeitures should be more in line with the provisions in the US RICO law; and one of the provisions of the 2001 anti-terrorism statute that should definitely be renewed.
Two of the Musitano brothers are being released later this year after serving 10 years for murder two; and with this ruling we'd all better start looking over our shoulders again once they get out. With all due respect to the Chief Justice, she and her colleagues just gave a free ride to the Musitanos and all the other disgraces to the Canadian landscape.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
On the one hand, that may not be such a bad thing -- for example, there is no criminal provision regarding blasphemy in Canada; although there is in many other countries, including even England. It may also help women fleeing prosecution from some countries where it's a crime just to be a woman who wants to be free.
But how far could it lead? Does that mean that if someone repeatedly abuses the US Do Not Call list then flees to Canada to flee prosecution, we can't send them back because we only have a voluntary system? Or if someone is facing indictment elsewhere for corporate fraud even if the evidence -- as strong as it is -- is merely hearsay, they get to stay too?
The biggest impact could be on organized crime. While there is no statute of limitations on murder, there is on racketeering and the time limit is much shorter in Canada than it is in the States, potentially giving some Mafia bosses in the US safe haven in Canada. Even progressives need to say this is simply not acceptable. This is one area where I think sentences and forfeitures should be more in line with the provisions in the US RICO law; and one of the provisions of the 2001 anti-terrorism statute that should definitely be renewed.
Two of the Musitano brothers are being released later this year after serving 10 years for murder two; and with this ruling we'd all better start looking over our shoulders again once they get out. With all due respect to the Chief Justice, she and her colleagues just gave a free ride to the Musitanos and all the other disgraces to the Canadian landscape.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
SCC gives Mafia carte blance
The Supreme Court of Canada has thrown a huge wrench into one of the government's most power tools, that of extradition; in considering four cases -- three from the United States and one from Mexico . While upholding 8-0 the current rules for kicking someone out of Canada to face trial elsewhere (which were enacted seven years ago and which repealed a previous law which dated back to Victorian times) Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin also added a new twist; that someone may only be expelled if that person could face trial in Canada under this country's rules of evidence; not that of the country that wants the suspect back.
On the one hand, that may not be such a bad thing -- for example, there is no criminal provision regarding blasphemy in Canada; although there is in many other countries, including even England. It may also help women fleeing prosecution from some countries where it's a crime just to be a woman who wants to be free.
But how far could it lead? Does that mean that if someone repeatedly abuses the US Do Not Call list then flees to Canada to flee prosecution, we can't send them back because we only have a voluntary system? Or if someone is facing indictment elsewhere for corporate fraud even if the evidence -- as strong as it is -- is merely hearsay, they get to stay too?
The biggest impact could be on organized crime. While there is no statute of limitations on murder, there is on racketeering and the time limit is much shorter in Canada than it is in the States, potentially giving some Mafia bosses in the US safe haven in Canada. Even progressives need to say this is simply not acceptable. This is one area where I think sentences and forfeitures should be more in line with the provisions in the US RICO law; and one of the provisions of the 2001 anti-terrorism statute that should definitely be renewed.
Two of the Musitano brothers are being released later this year after serving 10 years for murder two; and with this ruling we'd all better start looking over our shoulders again once they get out. With all due respect to the Chief Justice, she and her colleagues just gave a free ride to the Musitanos and all the other disgraces to the Canadian landscape.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
On the one hand, that may not be such a bad thing -- for example, there is no criminal provision regarding blasphemy in Canada; although there is in many other countries, including even England. It may also help women fleeing prosecution from some countries where it's a crime just to be a woman who wants to be free.
But how far could it lead? Does that mean that if someone repeatedly abuses the US Do Not Call list then flees to Canada to flee prosecution, we can't send them back because we only have a voluntary system? Or if someone is facing indictment elsewhere for corporate fraud even if the evidence -- as strong as it is -- is merely hearsay, they get to stay too?
The biggest impact could be on organized crime. While there is no statute of limitations on murder, there is on racketeering and the time limit is much shorter in Canada than it is in the States, potentially giving some Mafia bosses in the US safe haven in Canada. Even progressives need to say this is simply not acceptable. This is one area where I think sentences and forfeitures should be more in line with the provisions in the US RICO law; and one of the provisions of the 2001 anti-terrorism statute that should definitely be renewed.
Two of the Musitano brothers are being released later this year after serving 10 years for murder two; and with this ruling we'd all better start looking over our shoulders again once they get out. With all due respect to the Chief Justice, she and her colleagues just gave a free ride to the Musitanos and all the other disgraces to the Canadian landscape.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Local paper raises false hopes about Hamilton NHL team -- again
What is it with the Hamilton Spectator and their never-ending obsession with getting an NHL team in Hamilton, thinking it's going to be the city's salvation -- as was supposed to be Jackson Square (a joke of an inner-city shopping centre), the Century 21 Tower (now little more than an out-of-place apartment and office building), Munro Airport (only a tenth of the passengers it was supposed to bring), and the Commonwealth Games (spurned by New Delhi the first go-around, Halifax the next)?
The paper reported this morning that a local group that was trying to buy the Pittsburgh Penguins is apparently out of the running (as the NHL would rather have a new stadium built in the "other" Steel City), but still is trying to persuade the Governors to put a team in Hamilton.
Long story short: Bad idea. If no one's interesting in minor hockey (which is usually the proving ground for a big league team), then why would the NHL want to locate one of the big clubs here? Forget the indemnity issues with Toronto and Buffalo. Even if they could be waived -- and that's a big if -- there simply isn't the fan base here to support it on a long term basis. Besides, there's more to Canada than just hockey. We should be promoting the arts, culture, tourism; bringing small and mid-size businesses to town as well as large ones; offering a corporate friendly tax structure without penalizing residential owners at the same time.
Compared to the competition that wants a team, too, should Pittsburgh not get its act together -- well, Winnipeg wants a team again (after suffering the indignity of losing its storied Jets to Phoenix, Arizona, where they became the Coyotes) so it'll probably be at the front of the line. But there's also Kansas City, Oklahoma City and Las Vegas. All larger markets than Hamilton. Guess who Gary Bettman would prefer?
Not Hamilton. It's time for The Spec to stop dreaming.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Comments:
Tonywrote:
I think a team in Hamilton is long overdue.
The paper reported this morning that a local group that was trying to buy the Pittsburgh Penguins is apparently out of the running (as the NHL would rather have a new stadium built in the "other" Steel City), but still is trying to persuade the Governors to put a team in Hamilton.
Long story short: Bad idea. If no one's interesting in minor hockey (which is usually the proving ground for a big league team), then why would the NHL want to locate one of the big clubs here? Forget the indemnity issues with Toronto and Buffalo. Even if they could be waived -- and that's a big if -- there simply isn't the fan base here to support it on a long term basis. Besides, there's more to Canada than just hockey. We should be promoting the arts, culture, tourism; bringing small and mid-size businesses to town as well as large ones; offering a corporate friendly tax structure without penalizing residential owners at the same time.
Compared to the competition that wants a team, too, should Pittsburgh not get its act together -- well, Winnipeg wants a team again (after suffering the indignity of losing its storied Jets to Phoenix, Arizona, where they became the Coyotes) so it'll probably be at the front of the line. But there's also Kansas City, Oklahoma City and Las Vegas. All larger markets than Hamilton. Guess who Gary Bettman would prefer?
Not Hamilton. It's time for The Spec to stop dreaming.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Comments:
Tonywrote:
I think a team in Hamilton is long overdue.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
GWB shows up at NAACP convention -- five years too late
It's taken him five years, but finally Dubya is going to address the annual meeting of the NAACP. His boycott of the group has been insensitive at the very least. There is no doubt in my mind he would still be ignoring the mostly left-wing coalition -- were it not for last year's bungled and inhumane response to the Katrina disaster; and the fact the reauthorization of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is still being stalled in Congress by some of his more extreme fellow Republicans who want to strip blacks of their right to vote.
If this is a feeble attempt to keep Congress in Republican hands in this fall's midterms, I wonder if people are going to get fooled again.
UPDATE (12:57 PM EDT, 1657 GMT): Here's the transcript. Note that he mentioned the repeal of the estate tax nine times -- he never mentioned poverty issues even once.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers. click here.
If this is a feeble attempt to keep Congress in Republican hands in this fall's midterms, I wonder if people are going to get fooled again.
UPDATE (12:57 PM EDT, 1657 GMT): Here's the transcript. Note that he mentioned the repeal of the estate tax nine times -- he never mentioned poverty issues even once.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers. click here.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
3P: Pretty Pathetic Propaganda
After posting the letters from Diane Finley and James Flaherty, you might think I'm trying to give them a fair shake ... and to be fair, I wanted to give both the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps I hoped that either or both would move beyond the standard form letter and actually answer what was my fundamental question: How does a transfer of money from poorer families to wealthier ones (which is what happened with the so-called Universal Child Care Benefit) and turning a tax free benefit to a taxable one, help families?
The answer is, quite simply, is that it does not. There was a right way and a wrong way to do this. The Harperites chose the wrong way. The right way would have been to make it tax free -- either to all families, or on a sliding scale based on income. The feds claim that a lot of parents never bothered to apply for the old credit which is why they didn't receive it.
The problem with that argument is that to qualify for it, both parents have to file income tax returns. Many parents with zero incomes didn't bother ... maybe in good will, but this was also a lack of education on the government's part. Just as filing the census form is mandatory, so should filing an income tax return even if it is zero. (This would also solve the annual problem so many seniors face when their Guaranteed Income Supplement suddenly disappears every July.)
The three big problems, as I see it are these.
The answer is, quite simply, is that it does not. There was a right way and a wrong way to do this. The Harperites chose the wrong way. The right way would have been to make it tax free -- either to all families, or on a sliding scale based on income. The feds claim that a lot of parents never bothered to apply for the old credit which is why they didn't receive it.
The problem with that argument is that to qualify for it, both parents have to file income tax returns. Many parents with zero incomes didn't bother ... maybe in good will, but this was also a lack of education on the government's part. Just as filing the census form is mandatory, so should filing an income tax return even if it is zero. (This would also solve the annual problem so many seniors face when their Guaranteed Income Supplement suddenly disappears every July.)
The three big problems, as I see it are these.
- One, because it is taxable, the government will get some or all of it back at the rear end. Even if one spouse's income is zero, his or her partner will have to reduce his or her spousal exemption by an equal amount to the payout -- $1200. Other amounts, including the GST credit and the remaining tax-free portion of the child benefit, will also be clawed back.
- Two, both parents must now must be Canadian citizens to get the money. The old credit was available to all legal residents in Canada ... citizens, permanent aliens and legal refugees. Tens of thousands of families have been cut off.
- Three, the old credit was available to kids under seven. The new one, to under sixes. This is so wrong -- Grades One and Two are probably the most expensive years for parents, other than right after birth.
Maybe it's just me, or the fact I don't have kids. But if the shoes were reversed, I suspect the government would see just how wrong their priorities are. However, I am somewhat heartened by the fact that many immigrant communities in this country Canada are seeing Team Harper for what they are, especially after giving their unequivocal support for Israel and completely dismissing the aspiration of the vast majority of Arabs in the region who just want peace once and for all.
I don't think it'll be child care -- or the lack of it -- that will be the Harper government's downfall. It's their poor planning and thought on foreign policy; and speaking with a voice that doesn't speak for Canadians. They blew it on dead soldiers, they blew it on softwood lumber, and now they've blown it on the Middle East. Three strikes ... you know the rest.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Diane Finley answers -- 142 days too late
As I fully expected, it was another form letter and even more disjointed and pointless than Flaherty's shtick. But I said I would post her reply whenever it came ... so here it is.
Thank you for your electronic message, which was forwarded to me by the office of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, concerning child care policy for Canadian families. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying.
The Government of Canada recognizes that families are the building blocks of a society and that child care is a priority for Canadian families. We are committed to providing parents with resources to help balance work and family life, and letting them choose what is best for their children. Budget 2006 set out the two main elements of Canada’s Universal Child Care Plan. The aim of our plan is to support all parents of young children, whether they work in the paid labour force or stay at home with their children, or live in a small town, rural community or large urban area. I am pleased to take this opportunity to provide you with information on Canada’s Universal Child Care Plan, and to invite you to visit www.universalchildcare.ca, to explore the plan in more detail.
The Universal Child Care Benefit came into effect on July 1, 2006. It provides $100 per month for each child under six, taxable in the hands of the spouse with the lower income. All families with young children benefit, regardless of income or the type of child care they choose. The benefit puts choice for child care where it belongs—in the hands of parents—and allows them to choose the option that best suits their family’s needs. This new benefit provides Canadian families with direct financial assistance in addition to the Canada Child Tax Benefit, National Child Benefit Supplement and Child Care Expense Deduction.
The Government will also help Canadian parents to better balance child care and work responsibilities. The budget allocates $250 million per year, beginning in 2007–2008, to support the creation of up to 25,000 new child care spaces each year. In the coming months, I will consult with parents, employers, community and non-profit organizations, and the provinces and territories on the Child Care Spaces Initiative. The key to this initiative’s success will be to ensure flexibility in its design, so that new spaces meet the needs of all families, regardless of where they live or their hours of work. New spaces could include workplace-based child care centres in big cities, as well as more flexible spaces that work for families in small towns and rural areas, or for parents who work non-traditional hours, outside the standard nine-to-five working day.
Canada’s Universal Child Care Plan represents a new approach to child care that respects the role of parents in determining how best to care for their children and recognizes the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments for delivering child care services. That is why we are phasing out the 2005 agreements on early learning and child care that were signed with three provinces. As a transitional measure, we are providing funding to all provinces and territories for the 2006–2007 fiscal year, ending March 31, 2007, at the level set out in the 2005 budget: a total of $650 million dollars is allocated to all provincial and territorial governments, on an equal per capita basis. This is in addition to amounts that we transfer to the provinces and territories for early childhood development, including child care ($500 million in 2006–2007), and early learning and child care ($300 million in 2006–2007).
Thank you for sharing your views. I appreciate having had the opportunity to share details of Canada’s Universal Child Care Plan.
Yours sincerely,
The Hon. Diane Finley, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Human Resources and Social Development
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Thank you for your electronic message, which was forwarded to me by the office of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, concerning child care policy for Canadian families. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying.
The Government of Canada recognizes that families are the building blocks of a society and that child care is a priority for Canadian families. We are committed to providing parents with resources to help balance work and family life, and letting them choose what is best for their children. Budget 2006 set out the two main elements of Canada’s Universal Child Care Plan. The aim of our plan is to support all parents of young children, whether they work in the paid labour force or stay at home with their children, or live in a small town, rural community or large urban area. I am pleased to take this opportunity to provide you with information on Canada’s Universal Child Care Plan, and to invite you to visit www.universalchildcare.ca, to explore the plan in more detail.
The Universal Child Care Benefit came into effect on July 1, 2006. It provides $100 per month for each child under six, taxable in the hands of the spouse with the lower income. All families with young children benefit, regardless of income or the type of child care they choose. The benefit puts choice for child care where it belongs—in the hands of parents—and allows them to choose the option that best suits their family’s needs. This new benefit provides Canadian families with direct financial assistance in addition to the Canada Child Tax Benefit, National Child Benefit Supplement and Child Care Expense Deduction.
The Government will also help Canadian parents to better balance child care and work responsibilities. The budget allocates $250 million per year, beginning in 2007–2008, to support the creation of up to 25,000 new child care spaces each year. In the coming months, I will consult with parents, employers, community and non-profit organizations, and the provinces and territories on the Child Care Spaces Initiative. The key to this initiative’s success will be to ensure flexibility in its design, so that new spaces meet the needs of all families, regardless of where they live or their hours of work. New spaces could include workplace-based child care centres in big cities, as well as more flexible spaces that work for families in small towns and rural areas, or for parents who work non-traditional hours, outside the standard nine-to-five working day.
Canada’s Universal Child Care Plan represents a new approach to child care that respects the role of parents in determining how best to care for their children and recognizes the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments for delivering child care services. That is why we are phasing out the 2005 agreements on early learning and child care that were signed with three provinces. As a transitional measure, we are providing funding to all provinces and territories for the 2006–2007 fiscal year, ending March 31, 2007, at the level set out in the 2005 budget: a total of $650 million dollars is allocated to all provincial and territorial governments, on an equal per capita basis. This is in addition to amounts that we transfer to the provinces and territories for early childhood development, including child care ($500 million in 2006–2007), and early learning and child care ($300 million in 2006–2007).
Thank you for sharing your views. I appreciate having had the opportunity to share details of Canada’s Universal Child Care Plan.
Yours sincerely,
The Hon. Diane Finley, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Human Resources and Social Development
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Ralph Reed goes down ... for now
It looks like Jack Abramoff is going to be the two words that haunt the GOP right through to November. The first victim is none other than Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition. He didn't even come close -- he lost the nomination for the Georgia Lieutentant Governor's race to Casey Cagle 56 to 44.
It is true that the results may have been tilted by Democrats crossing over to vote in the Repub race in a deliberate attempt to keep Reed off the ballot. (Georgia has open primaries.) But people are judged by the company they keep; and an anti-gambling advocate like Reed who turned out to be associated with a guy (Abramoff) who made his living off getting gambling licences for whites while screwing Native Americans with similar ambitions may have been one nail on the coffin too many, even dedicated elephants who are getting sick and tired of hypocrisy.
A victory is still a victory, and this is one worth celebrating -- but I don't think we've seen the last of Ralph Reed.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
It is true that the results may have been tilted by Democrats crossing over to vote in the Repub race in a deliberate attempt to keep Reed off the ballot. (Georgia has open primaries.) But people are judged by the company they keep; and an anti-gambling advocate like Reed who turned out to be associated with a guy (Abramoff) who made his living off getting gambling licences for whites while screwing Native Americans with similar ambitions may have been one nail on the coffin too many, even dedicated elephants who are getting sick and tired of hypocrisy.
A victory is still a victory, and this is one worth celebrating -- but I don't think we've seen the last of Ralph Reed.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
US Congressman confuses gay marriage with divorce
The US House of Representatives once again rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The vote this time was 236-176, fully 46 six votes short of the minimum 290 needed to even send it off to the states. (In any case, the measure was dead since the Senate rejected it last month, 49-48 -- 18 votes short.)
The utltimate moment of hilarity came when Lincoln Davis (D-TN) said divorcé(e)s and adulterers should be banned from running for office. 29 members of the House are currently divorced. No Senators are divorced and looking (although John Kerry may be the most famous formerly divorced person on the Hill). And of course, no one knows how many have committed adultery, although if Congress reflects the national average it's probably 80 percent of them.
Listen, Lincoln, while you're at it, visit the sins of the parents on the children so they can't run for office either. That would include me and about a billion other people on the planet.
It's people like Davis that are the reason so many ridicule evangelical Christians; even though most of them, as do most other people, accept divorce as a necessary evil.
UPDATE (Wednesday 06/07/19 12:33 AM, 0433 GMT): Wouldn't you know it -- the guy's actually a Democrat, not a Republican. Guess there are some assholes in the party of donkeys after all.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
The utltimate moment of hilarity came when Lincoln Davis (D-TN) said divorcé(e)s and adulterers should be banned from running for office. 29 members of the House are currently divorced. No Senators are divorced and looking (although John Kerry may be the most famous formerly divorced person on the Hill). And of course, no one knows how many have committed adultery, although if Congress reflects the national average it's probably 80 percent of them.
Listen, Lincoln, while you're at it, visit the sins of the parents on the children so they can't run for office either. That would include me and about a billion other people on the planet.
It's people like Davis that are the reason so many ridicule evangelical Christians; even though most of them, as do most other people, accept divorce as a necessary evil.
UPDATE (Wednesday 06/07/19 12:33 AM, 0433 GMT): Wouldn't you know it -- the guy's actually a Democrat, not a Republican. Guess there are some assholes in the party of donkeys after all.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Jim Flaherty's form letter quarantined as "spam"
Incredibly, this actually did happen to Jimbo Jones' response to my concerns about the so-called "choice in child care" amount and I didn't even realize it until I cleaned out my spam folder.
I promised any and all letters I received about this from Cabinet officials would be reproduced in this blog ... so with no comment except one (that he really didn't answer my question), I present to you his letter.
Thank you for your correspondence of May 3, 2006 regarding the Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB). Please excuse the delay in replying.
One of the most important investments our new Government can make is to support families as they raise their children. That is why Budget 2006 announced the kind of investments that will make a real difference to parents, by providing more choice in child care for families with young children.
The UCCB provides all families with $100 per month for each child under age 6, effective July 1, 2006. Through the UCCB, parents are able to choose the child care option that best suits their families' needs ? whether that means formal child care, informal care through neighbours or relatives, or a parent staying at home. Budget 2006 proposes that amounts received under the UCCB will be taxable in the hands of the lower-income spouse. Amounts received under the UCCB will not reduce benefits paid under the Canada Child Tax Benefit and the Goods and Services Tax Credit. Also, the UCCB will not be considered income for the purposes of federal income-tested programs delivered outside of the income tax system, such as the Guaranteed Income Supplement, the Canada Education Savings Grant, the Canada Learning Bond and Employment Insurance.
The UCCB substantially increases federal assistance for children by providing direct federal support to approximately 1.5 million families and more than 2 million children. Direct federal benefits to families with children will be provided through the UCCB and two components of the CCTB: the base benefit, which is targeted to low- and middle-income families, and the National Child Benefit supplement, which provides additional assistance to low-income families. In total, direct federal support to families will be approximately $11.1 billion for the 2006-07 fiscal year, with the vast majority of benefits directed to low- and middle-income families. Additionally, Budget 2006 sets aside $250 million per year, beginning in 2007-08, to support the creation of child care spaces. We will consult to ensure that assistance is effective in creating additional child care spaces, responsive to the needs of parents and administered in an efficient and accountable manner. As child care is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, the Honourable Diane Finley, I have forwarded a copy of your correspondence to her, for information. Thank you for communicating your concerns.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers click here.
I promised any and all letters I received about this from Cabinet officials would be reproduced in this blog ... so with no comment except one (that he really didn't answer my question), I present to you his letter.
Thank you for your correspondence of May 3, 2006 regarding the Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB). Please excuse the delay in replying.
One of the most important investments our new Government can make is to support families as they raise their children. That is why Budget 2006 announced the kind of investments that will make a real difference to parents, by providing more choice in child care for families with young children.
The UCCB provides all families with $100 per month for each child under age 6, effective July 1, 2006. Through the UCCB, parents are able to choose the child care option that best suits their families' needs ? whether that means formal child care, informal care through neighbours or relatives, or a parent staying at home. Budget 2006 proposes that amounts received under the UCCB will be taxable in the hands of the lower-income spouse. Amounts received under the UCCB will not reduce benefits paid under the Canada Child Tax Benefit and the Goods and Services Tax Credit. Also, the UCCB will not be considered income for the purposes of federal income-tested programs delivered outside of the income tax system, such as the Guaranteed Income Supplement, the Canada Education Savings Grant, the Canada Learning Bond and Employment Insurance.
The UCCB substantially increases federal assistance for children by providing direct federal support to approximately 1.5 million families and more than 2 million children. Direct federal benefits to families with children will be provided through the UCCB and two components of the CCTB: the base benefit, which is targeted to low- and middle-income families, and the National Child Benefit supplement, which provides additional assistance to low-income families. In total, direct federal support to families will be approximately $11.1 billion for the 2006-07 fiscal year, with the vast majority of benefits directed to low- and middle-income families. Additionally, Budget 2006 sets aside $250 million per year, beginning in 2007-08, to support the creation of child care spaces. We will consult to ensure that assistance is effective in creating additional child care spaces, responsive to the needs of parents and administered in an efficient and accountable manner. As child care is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, the Honourable Diane Finley, I have forwarded a copy of your correspondence to her, for information. Thank you for communicating your concerns.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers click here.
Monday, July 17, 2006
We deliver food, not dispense advice
I knew when I was recently promoted to the customer service department of the place where I work, I'd be gettng all sorts of calls. I wasn't expecting what I got very early this morning.
Our stores, or most of them, close at 2 or 3 am in the morning most days -- although some more out of the way locations shut down at midnight. We stay open for another half hour or so for customer service concerns and to help stores do end of the day bookkeeping (such as adding tips to credit cards and cancelling orders that were never picked up or delivered).
We also have to tell latecomers that the stores are closed and they're not making any more pies for the day. Some accept this, but others go nuts and demand we order the stores to turn the ovens back on. Not going to happen: The stores employ us, not the other way around. So it went with this one guy who wanted a party pizza. I said, sorry, we're closed. This went on for a couple of minutes. Then he threw a curveball. He said he caught his wife in bed with another man and wanted to know if he should take her back. I said I was in no position to say -- and besides, we were not a counselling service. This went on for another couple of minutes. He then changed the subject and asked me for help on a math problem .... at which point I hung up.
Folks, if you need personal help, don't call a restaurant chain There are many distress lines listed in the White Pages. You're just making people who really do need our help wait, and more frustrated.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Our stores, or most of them, close at 2 or 3 am in the morning most days -- although some more out of the way locations shut down at midnight. We stay open for another half hour or so for customer service concerns and to help stores do end of the day bookkeeping (such as adding tips to credit cards and cancelling orders that were never picked up or delivered).
We also have to tell latecomers that the stores are closed and they're not making any more pies for the day. Some accept this, but others go nuts and demand we order the stores to turn the ovens back on. Not going to happen: The stores employ us, not the other way around. So it went with this one guy who wanted a party pizza. I said, sorry, we're closed. This went on for a couple of minutes. Then he threw a curveball. He said he caught his wife in bed with another man and wanted to know if he should take her back. I said I was in no position to say -- and besides, we were not a counselling service. This went on for another couple of minutes. He then changed the subject and asked me for help on a math problem .... at which point I hung up.
Folks, if you need personal help, don't call a restaurant chain There are many distress lines listed in the White Pages. You're just making people who really do need our help wait, and more frustrated.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Has Bush's perfect storm finally arrived?
Eight Canadians have been killed after an Israeli air strike on the town of Aitaroun, Lebanon, right on the border. Even scarier is that while 16,000 Canadians are officially registered with the embassy in Beirut, the feds here think there could be as many as 50,000 there.
I can't even imagine how they evacuate that many people when the airport's been blown up and there's a blockade of the harbours. And that's just Canada.
After surfing the chat shows this morning and actually seeing Newt Gingrich and Joe Biden agree on most of the talking points, I had to ask myself if this is the perfect storm everyone has said was going to happen. Rockets are going back and forth between Israel and Lebanon, Iran is percolating, Iraq is going nowhere fast, and North Korea can launch ICBMs on an itchy finger's notice. Rather than containing terrorism and violence to one country, the United States has unwittingly allowed it to spread -- and now faces the possibility of fighting wars not on one front, but four.
And all of a sudden, just as we thought there might finally be some relief in gas prices, we're now paying $1.10 a litre or more and with no end in sight for even higher prices. Makes me wonder if I can take the road trips I'd been planning for later this summer -- within Canada.
Sometime in the next few days, the cost of the Iraq war will have hit $300 billion.
Terrorists must never be appeased under any circumstances -- never -- but imagine if that money had been spent on securing ports and airports, enriching the earned income tax credit (rather than giving a huge tax break to the million dollar club), shoring up weak levies (which could have prevented New Orleans from sinking) and still having enough left over to build some basic infrastructure in some trouble spots in the Middle East and build up two or three more entirely new military divisions -- while trying to find some way to kidnap Saddam Hussein without causing a war that has killed tens of thousands of civilians.
Would America have been better prepared to respond to the current whirlwind? You bet it would have. Would it have been better able to take out terrorists? I think so.
Bush is caught between a rock and a hard place, and he has put himself there. The rock is his sincere although stumbling desire for increased democracy in the Middle East and a resolution once and for all to the question of the Middle East. The hard place is the extreme wing of the evangelical movement who got him elected and favours nothing short of a "final solution" for the Palestinians and Arabs.
He had a chance to destroy Al-Qaeda in the weeks after 9/11. He gave OBL a six week head start, and the maniac's still alive and caused grief to Mandrid and London -- and nearly did the same to Toronto. He had a chance to pummel Hamas. He let them get away with their attacks and now they're the government in Palestine. He had a chance to annihilate Hezbollah. We all know what happened there.
Oh, but Hezbollah and Hamas were democratically elected. Sure they were. So was Adolf Hitler. And thanks to our anti-Semitism as well as his, 12 million were exterminated.
All Bush has given America is short term gain for long term pain. And now the world's paying the price. The man who believes God talks to him must be getting mixed signals. The Communists used to have a saying: "Jesus fed twenty thousand people in one day. We don't have that ability."
I have never thought Dubya to be a bad man -- but rather a basically good guy who's shown bad judgment and gotten bad advice. Until this past week, even I didn't realize just how bad both were.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
I can't even imagine how they evacuate that many people when the airport's been blown up and there's a blockade of the harbours. And that's just Canada.
After surfing the chat shows this morning and actually seeing Newt Gingrich and Joe Biden agree on most of the talking points, I had to ask myself if this is the perfect storm everyone has said was going to happen. Rockets are going back and forth between Israel and Lebanon, Iran is percolating, Iraq is going nowhere fast, and North Korea can launch ICBMs on an itchy finger's notice. Rather than containing terrorism and violence to one country, the United States has unwittingly allowed it to spread -- and now faces the possibility of fighting wars not on one front, but four.
And all of a sudden, just as we thought there might finally be some relief in gas prices, we're now paying $1.10 a litre or more and with no end in sight for even higher prices. Makes me wonder if I can take the road trips I'd been planning for later this summer -- within Canada.
Sometime in the next few days, the cost of the Iraq war will have hit $300 billion.
Terrorists must never be appeased under any circumstances -- never -- but imagine if that money had been spent on securing ports and airports, enriching the earned income tax credit (rather than giving a huge tax break to the million dollar club), shoring up weak levies (which could have prevented New Orleans from sinking) and still having enough left over to build some basic infrastructure in some trouble spots in the Middle East and build up two or three more entirely new military divisions -- while trying to find some way to kidnap Saddam Hussein without causing a war that has killed tens of thousands of civilians.
Would America have been better prepared to respond to the current whirlwind? You bet it would have. Would it have been better able to take out terrorists? I think so.
Bush is caught between a rock and a hard place, and he has put himself there. The rock is his sincere although stumbling desire for increased democracy in the Middle East and a resolution once and for all to the question of the Middle East. The hard place is the extreme wing of the evangelical movement who got him elected and favours nothing short of a "final solution" for the Palestinians and Arabs.
He had a chance to destroy Al-Qaeda in the weeks after 9/11. He gave OBL a six week head start, and the maniac's still alive and caused grief to Mandrid and London -- and nearly did the same to Toronto. He had a chance to pummel Hamas. He let them get away with their attacks and now they're the government in Palestine. He had a chance to annihilate Hezbollah. We all know what happened there.
Oh, but Hezbollah and Hamas were democratically elected. Sure they were. So was Adolf Hitler. And thanks to our anti-Semitism as well as his, 12 million were exterminated.
All Bush has given America is short term gain for long term pain. And now the world's paying the price. The man who believes God talks to him must be getting mixed signals. The Communists used to have a saying: "Jesus fed twenty thousand people in one day. We don't have that ability."
I have never thought Dubya to be a bad man -- but rather a basically good guy who's shown bad judgment and gotten bad advice. Until this past week, even I didn't realize just how bad both were.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Reforming Canada's tax system: Natives
A few years back, a Cree native named Gordon Benoit filed a court challenge claiming the Government of Canada violated the provisions of Treaty 8 and that Indians covered under the treaty were entitled to be tax-exempt into perpetuity. An initial court victory was overturned on appeal, but it did raise two fundamental questions:
- Should Canada's First Nations continue to have a general exemption on taxes for income earned, even on reserve?
- As well, should non-natives who live on reserve land -- as is the case with some sections of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia -- have a say in the levies charged on them?
It's a tough question. Certainly our history of persecuting Aboriginals and attempts to commit cultural genocide through the residential school system is not a proud one. The unemployment rate among Indians, Inuit and Métis is also an embarrassment. But even within our discriminatory system, some have prospered and flourished -- many by working within the system, but some by working outside of it.
A number of years back, during a time when the cigarette smuggling syndrome was at its peak, CBC Radio did a story about one native on Six Nations who ran several smoke shops catering to "outsiders." The report alleged he cleared $1 million -- in a month. And because he was on reserve, it was all tax free.
That may be an extreme example, but it does raise a question. If some natives pay income taxes but others don't, some pay payroll taxes but others don't, and some don't carry tax cards but others do, doesn't that also create two classes of natives?
I'm not sure what the best solution would be. But one possible answer may come from two often forgotten corners of Canada -- and both are in the High Arctic.
In the Yukon, nine First Nations recently concluded land claims settlements with the feds and the territorial government. Among the provisions of the agreement is that the tax exempt status ended but that income taxes are shared with the tribal councils -- to be more exact, 75% of federal income tax and 95% of territorial income tax are redirected to the tribes to use as they see fit. They also charge GST to their members for products -- variably called a First Nations Tax or a community improvement charge, and retain the revenues.
In the NWT, the Tlicho (formerly known as the Dogrib) signed a land claims agreement with the feds that also sees a sharing of income tax revenue. I'm not sure what the percentages are, but what makes the agreement unique is that it also applies to non-natives living on land claim areas as well -- in other words a non-native can ask for a portion of his or her income taxes to be redirected to the tribal administration and can also run for band council positions, although not as an elected chief.
What could happen is a myriad of revenue sharing agreements -- one for each of the nearly 600 bands in Canada; or comprehensive agreements by each province on how to share monies. But the solution adopted in the Yukon and by the Tlicho are definitely worth considering in our South. It's hard to say whether natives would agree to give up their tax-exempt status even if they got more of the control over issues they're entitled to; on the other hand the approach taken by the Harperites which is doing nothing at all (and which actually opposed the Tlicho settlement) and opposing so-called "race-based solutions" is not acceptable.
The natives were here first, they're entitled to a share of the revenues -- even if it means taxing their own people.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
More on the Middle East crisis
The crisis in the Middle East is heating up by the hour. A number of Lebanese civilians were killed as they were trying to escape to safer ground in Syria. Hezbollah has declared war after its headquarters were bombed. Some news sources also say a border crossing between Egypt and Gaza was blown up by militants, allowing people to rush in (presumably to join the war against Israel).
Surfing the pundit sites, I find some gems (or duds, depending on your point of view). Josh Marshall tries to look at it from both sides, pointing out that very many Palestinians were disposessed and the resentment lasts to this day; and that there are many elements in the Jewish and fundamentalist Christian communities that fail to recognize this fact. On the other hand, there are many who are too willing to demonize Israel without understanding why the country needs to defend itself as it does.
On the other side of the divide, Ed Morrissey critizes the Vatican for its stance on the deteriorating situation. A statement from the Catholic Church says that Israel attacked Lebanon -- without referencing the fact that it was Hezbollah -- which is part of the coalition government in Lebanon -- fired the first shot by kidnapping two Israeli soldiers.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess.
It's hard to come up with words to describe my feelings without being offensive to both sides of the argument. I'm probably no better at it than Vanessa Redgrave was -- someone who managed to say something that insulted both Jews and Palestinians. But here's my sense:
Surfing the pundit sites, I find some gems (or duds, depending on your point of view). Josh Marshall tries to look at it from both sides, pointing out that very many Palestinians were disposessed and the resentment lasts to this day; and that there are many elements in the Jewish and fundamentalist Christian communities that fail to recognize this fact. On the other hand, there are many who are too willing to demonize Israel without understanding why the country needs to defend itself as it does.
On the other side of the divide, Ed Morrissey critizes the Vatican for its stance on the deteriorating situation. A statement from the Catholic Church says that Israel attacked Lebanon -- without referencing the fact that it was Hezbollah -- which is part of the coalition government in Lebanon -- fired the first shot by kidnapping two Israeli soldiers.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess.
It's hard to come up with words to describe my feelings without being offensive to both sides of the argument. I'm probably no better at it than Vanessa Redgrave was -- someone who managed to say something that insulted both Jews and Palestinians. But here's my sense:
- The terrorists, and any government that would sponsor terrorism as generally understood (using violence, extortion or other similar means to win concessions) must be stopped. In fact, they must be destroyed.
- All countries, democratically elected or not, must look upon themselves and see if they have contributed to the spread of violence around the world; and take the necessary steps.
- The fact is that Israel and Palestine must agree to live side by side in peace. This may necessitate some land swaps. While I think the 1967 "Green Line" should be the border between Israel and the West Bank (with free and open access to all religious sites for those who come in peace), there can be an argument made for another line that gives both sides what they want. But it must be settled, and now.
- The Palestinian Authority must stop all rogue elements in its midst. In fact, Hamas, who is the government in the region now, must renounce violence in all its forms.
- Israel is well within its rights to defend its people and territory and to take action to ensure it remains protected. Attacking civilians is not, however, an appropriate response -- all efforts must be made to ensure ordinary people aren't targeted.
- Finally, it's time for the fundamentalist Christians to realize that there are such a people as Palestinians, they have a right to exist -- and some of them are also Christians. It's also time for the fundies to stop pretending that the Jews are the "chosen people" but that they'll go to hell if they don't convert to Christianity. That's heresy. The Jews are the chosen people, period, and they don't have to convert unless they want to.
I don't know if all that would work. It's just a thought. But the parties involved had better solve this soon; before OPEC imposes another trade embargo on the West and oil hits $200 a barrel.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Woman calls 911 looking for a date
It's gotten to the point in my life where I'm in such a rut in terms of human relations, that I've signed up for one of those "speed dating" events. But consider this item: One desperate woman in Aloha, Oregon, called 911 regarding a noise complaint. A few hours later, she called back asking for the same officer, who she that was "cutest cop she'd ever seen" -- and was promptly arrested for abusing the emergency system.
Man, I've heard of patients falling for their EMS rescuers or the nurse or the doctor in the hospital -- but this is ridiculous. Even I'm not that desperate for a woman! (Although I have do some female friends from high school who are now nurses, physiotherapists, or forensic pathologists.)
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Man, I've heard of patients falling for their EMS rescuers or the nurse or the doctor in the hospital -- but this is ridiculous. Even I'm not that desperate for a woman! (Although I have do some female friends from high school who are now nurses, physiotherapists, or forensic pathologists.)
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Woman calls 911 looking for a date
It's gotten to the point in my life where I'm in such a rut in terms of human relations, that I've signed up for one of those "speed dating" events. But consider this item: One desperate woman in Aloha, Oregon, called 911 regarding a noise complaint. A few hours later, she called back asking for the same officer, who she that was "cutest cop she'd ever seen" -- and was promptly arrested for abusing the emergency system.
Man, I've heard of patients falling for their EMS rescuers or the nurse or the doctor in the hospital -- but this is ridiculous. Even I'm not that desperate for a woman! (Although I have do some female friends from high school who are now nurses, physiotherapists, or forensic pathologists.)
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Man, I've heard of patients falling for their EMS rescuers or the nurse or the doctor in the hospital -- but this is ridiculous. Even I'm not that desperate for a woman! (Although I have do some female friends from high school who are now nurses, physiotherapists, or forensic pathologists.)
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Toronto 18 mole comes foward
Last night's broadcast of an interview with Mubin Shaikh, the so-called "eighteenth man" and the mole who broke up the Toronto conspiracy, raises some very serious questions for me.
- Shaikh says that he backs the jihad in Afghanistan and Iraq, but not attacks on civilians in Canada. Aren't humans the same no matter what country they live in?
- He admits running the "training camp" in Washago, Ontario while acting as a mole for Canada's spy service as well as the Mounties. Isn't that a form of entrapment?
- He supports sharia law, and it was his scuffle with a female protestor, in part, that led to Ontario banning all religions from running arbitration panels. Even though, as it turns out, most Muslims were against the panels. Was he just playing possum?
- Finally, he was offered witness protection; but came forward after being "urged to do so" by his fellow Muslims who have known about his role for weeks. Doesn't that just blow the case right open? If someone tries to whack him, doesn't that put it down the drain?
It's good to see someone doing the right thing and helping to stop a truly dastardly plot. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't question the motives of the whistleblower, either. I'm not the only one who's thinking this: Kathy Shaidle quotes a Muslim leader asking if this is another case of the pot calling the kettle black ... and she asks the same question regarding Shaikh's stance on the sharia issue.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
We're #54!
The latest rankings for FIFA, the governing body for soccer, are out. They show Canada's national team (I didn't know we still had one) has rocketed up 29 spots to 54th. Even though we didn't qualify for the World Cup -- in fact, we haven't played a FIFA sanctioned game in over three months.
Why the huge improvement? Because now FIFA only takes into account the average performance of national teams over the last four years, not eight; as well as the strength of the various conferences. That also explains Team USA which took a nosedive, dropping from 5th to 16th. It has long dominated CONCACAF, the region that covers North America and the Caribbean, but it's considered weak compared to UEFA (Europe) or CAF (Africa).
Hey, there's always the World Cup in 2010 ... which will be held in Johannesburg, South Africa. By which time, we may very well be #1!
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Why the huge improvement? Because now FIFA only takes into account the average performance of national teams over the last four years, not eight; as well as the strength of the various conferences. That also explains Team USA which took a nosedive, dropping from 5th to 16th. It has long dominated CONCACAF, the region that covers North America and the Caribbean, but it's considered weak compared to UEFA (Europe) or CAF (Africa).
Hey, there's always the World Cup in 2010 ... which will be held in Johannesburg, South Africa. By which time, we may very well be #1!
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
We're #54!
The latest rankings for FIFA, the governing body for soccer, are out. They show Canada's national team (I didn't know we still had one) has rocketed up 29 spots to 54th. Even though we didn't qualify for the World Cup -- in fact, we haven't played a FIFA sanctioned game in over three months.
Why the huge improvement? Because now FIFA only takes into account the average performance of national teams over the last four years, not eight; as well as the strength of the various conferences. That also explains Team USA which took a nosedive, dropping from 5th to 16th. It has long dominated CONCACAF, the region that covers North America and the Caribbean, but it's considered weak compared to UEFA (Europe) or CAF (Africa).
Hey, there's always the World Cup in 2010 ... which will be held in Johannesburg, South Africa. By which time, we may very well be #1!
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Why the huge improvement? Because now FIFA only takes into account the average performance of national teams over the last four years, not eight; as well as the strength of the various conferences. That also explains Team USA which took a nosedive, dropping from 5th to 16th. It has long dominated CONCACAF, the region that covers North America and the Caribbean, but it's considered weak compared to UEFA (Europe) or CAF (Africa).
Hey, there's always the World Cup in 2010 ... which will be held in Johannesburg, South Africa. By which time, we may very well be #1!
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Sea Kings in the sun, Comorants ... in the sea
A few years back, some disgrunted and as yet still unnamed members of the Canadian Forces did a parody of Terry Jacks' 1974 hit Seasons in the Sun, called Sea Kings in the Sun, about the perennial problems the ancient class of Skikorsky helicopters were having -- including the fact they spent 30 hours in the shop for every one hour in the air.
One would think that after finally -- finally! -- beginning to replace those stupid Sea Kings things would finally get better. Wrong. We learn this morning that a fairly brand new Cormorant search and rescue chopper crashed this morning into the Atlantic, off the coast of Canso, Nova Scotia. Three servicepersons were killed.
As things start to get out of hand in Afghanistan, one can probably expect the body count to rise. We do not, however, expect people to die on training exercises before they're set off to patrol the seas or fight in the mountains and deserts. Are these new helicopters defective? Are they being maintained to standards not in line with the manufacturer's specifications? Or was this just one of those freak accidents?
More and more, Canadians are starting to realize that the "strong and proud" need all the help they can get. They sure as heck don't need setbacks like this.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
One would think that after finally -- finally! -- beginning to replace those stupid Sea Kings things would finally get better. Wrong. We learn this morning that a fairly brand new Cormorant search and rescue chopper crashed this morning into the Atlantic, off the coast of Canso, Nova Scotia. Three servicepersons were killed.
As things start to get out of hand in Afghanistan, one can probably expect the body count to rise. We do not, however, expect people to die on training exercises before they're set off to patrol the seas or fight in the mountains and deserts. Are these new helicopters defective? Are they being maintained to standards not in line with the manufacturer's specifications? Or was this just one of those freak accidents?
More and more, Canadians are starting to realize that the "strong and proud" need all the help they can get. They sure as heck don't need setbacks like this.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Sea Kings in the sun, Comorants ... in the sea
A few years back, some disgrunted and as yet still unnamed members of the Canadian Forces did a parody of Terry Jacks' 1974 hit Seasons in the Sun, called Sea Kings in the Sun, about the perennial problems the ancient class of Skikorsky helicopters were having -- including the fact they spent 30 hours in the shop for every one hour in the air.
One would think that after finally -- finally! -- beginning to replace those stupid Sea Kings things would finally get better. Wrong. We learn this morning that a fairly brand new Cormorant search and rescue chopper crashed this morning into the Atlantic, off the coast of Canso, Nova Scotia. Three servicepersons were killed.
As things start to get out of hand in Afghanistan, one can probably expect the body count to rise. We do not, however, expect people to die on training exercises before they're set off to patrol the seas or fight in the mountains and deserts. Are these new helicopters defective? Are they being maintained to standards not in line with the manufacturer's specifications? Or was this just one of those freak accidents?
More and more, Canadians are starting to realize that the "strong and proud" need all the help they can get. They sure as heck don't need setbacks like this.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
One would think that after finally -- finally! -- beginning to replace those stupid Sea Kings things would finally get better. Wrong. We learn this morning that a fairly brand new Cormorant search and rescue chopper crashed this morning into the Atlantic, off the coast of Canso, Nova Scotia. Three servicepersons were killed.
As things start to get out of hand in Afghanistan, one can probably expect the body count to rise. We do not, however, expect people to die on training exercises before they're set off to patrol the seas or fight in the mountains and deserts. Are these new helicopters defective? Are they being maintained to standards not in line with the manufacturer's specifications? Or was this just one of those freak accidents?
More and more, Canadians are starting to realize that the "strong and proud" need all the help they can get. They sure as heck don't need setbacks like this.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
No to the CTV - CHUM merger
Media concentration is not good for Canadians. Just ask the people in Vancouver, where Can West Global owns all three local papers -- the Vancouver Sun, Province, and the Vancouver edition of the Toronto National Post; as well as 70% of the TV and radio market there.
Fewer voices means less diversity, and less choice. Not everyone can afford even a dial-up connection, which means they need to rely on the media they can access ... and their opinions are more often than not shaped by the editorial content and the way writers slant their stories.
Regulators -- both competition and broadcast -- must stop this deal from going through. We must not allow CTV to effectively own three networks: CTV, City and A-Channel.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Fewer voices means less diversity, and less choice. Not everyone can afford even a dial-up connection, which means they need to rely on the media they can access ... and their opinions are more often than not shaped by the editorial content and the way writers slant their stories.
Regulators -- both competition and broadcast -- must stop this deal from going through. We must not allow CTV to effectively own three networks: CTV, City and A-Channel.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Did Harper break his promise not to cut the GST credit?
Is it just me, or has everyone's quarterly GST rebate cheques gone down a fair bit as a result of the cut in the federal excise tax from 7 to 6%? Some of my supervisors tell me they earned the same amount or slightly more last year, but just under the threshold before the rebate starts getting clawed back. But instead of the $200 or so they were expecting for their families, they got about $170. Singles who were expecting something in the range of $100 only got $88. Me included.
Have this happened to any of the rest of you? Please post.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Have this happened to any of the rest of you? Please post.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Two more soldiers kidnapped; Israel plays hardball
Is the Middle East headed towards another war? It sure looks like this morning, after two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah, prompting Israel to invade the southern part of Lebanon and occupy it for the first time since 2000; and as I write these words the reserves have been activated and Israel has all but declared war on the land of cedars. One can only pray for the safe return of the hostages and a very quick end to hostilities both there and in the Gaza, where another soldier is being held.
If people thought that the newbie Kadima Party was just going to let Hamas and Hezbollah just roll over Israel, they have been sadly mistaken. One only has to think about yesterday's attacks in Mumbai (Bombay) to realize what's at stake here.
One doesn't negotiate with terrorists. There are only two possibilities that can come out of this. Either the reactionaries will lay down their arms, renounce violence, and talk; or they will be completely destroyed. I am all for peace -- but it cannot come at any price.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
If people thought that the newbie Kadima Party was just going to let Hamas and Hezbollah just roll over Israel, they have been sadly mistaken. One only has to think about yesterday's attacks in Mumbai (Bombay) to realize what's at stake here.
One doesn't negotiate with terrorists. There are only two possibilities that can come out of this. Either the reactionaries will lay down their arms, renounce violence, and talk; or they will be completely destroyed. I am all for peace -- but it cannot come at any price.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Should Ontario get rid of its Catholic schools?
A few weeks ago the government in Halton Region, the county next to the one in which I live, decided to build a new and improved regional headquarters and invited some other public funded bodies in the area which have been looking for new spaces as well to join in to save costs -- on the rational that a super head office would save taxpayers money as well as give public servants the space and legroom they so badly needed.
The Halton Police and the Halton Public School Board said yes. The Halton Catholic Board -- after some thought -- said no, saying it had to protect "Catholic values" but really implying they preferred to be scattered in three or four cramped buildings around the county.
Since that decision, the local and community papers -- including the Hamilton Spectator -- have been swamped with e-mails asking whether we even need a Catholic school system anymore, saying it's a 19th century anachronism. They point to at least two UN Human Rights rulings that have said Ontario's system is discriminatory towards non-Catholics. Many, but not most, Catholics have felt to respond that forced integration would be an assault on "their values."
What are Catholic values, anyway? Does it make a difference that kids are sent to Catholic schools, often against their will?
I went to a Catholic high school, and quite frankly it did not make a wit of difference to me. It may have helped to have a group of colleagues that were mostly united by faith, and it was nice to have a chapel (really a converted classroom) where I could just sit down and reflect when things got nasty (which they did when my parents' marriage broke down). But we students and our teachers expressed our common faith in so many different ways that the Vatican would have been more than happy to excommunicate 90% of us if they could send a spy and see what was really going on.
At least half, and as many as 80%, were having sexual relations and even most of the females who weren't were still on birth control. The vast majority never attended church except for the in-school Masses we were compelled to attend. Half the kids came from broken homes and both they and their parents were still receiving Communion -- and perhaps as many as half of the teachers, Catholic teachers, were divorced themselves.
And because the full funding of Catholic schools in Ontario had been implemented the year I started high school (up until then, they were financed only up to Grade 10), the board was stripped of the ability to punish students who did "un-Catholic" things like getting pregnant out of wedlock -- which sanction had until then normally been expulsion. Not only that, but I know that some of the counsellors actually encouraged their "patients" to have sex. How do I know this? Because one of them told me so, straight in my face. She said I didn't have to "wait" if I had a girlfriend and she and I decided we couldn't wait.
In my senior year, the religion class I was in -- which for that year dealt with "lifestyle choices" such as marriage, the single life or a religious vocation -- asked us to write a brief essay about whether it had made a difference we were in a Catholic school. One of the essays was to be picked for the school board's newsletter / propaganda sheet. Most said yes. I dared to say no -- and I actually got an A+ from my teacher for my chutzpah.
So far, two provinces -- Québec and Newfoundland-Labrador -- have obtained Constitutional Amendments regarding education. Québec no longer legally has to provide for the funding of religious schools, having switched to a language based system (French and English), although Catholic and Protestant schools still do operate at public pleasure in Montréal and Québec City, having been "grandfathered."
Newfoundland once had no public system at all, but finally abolished the faith based schools and now has a purely secular system although credit courses specific to each major religion has taken over. Interesting that in the referendum to pass that amendment, residents in mostly Catholic districts supported doing away with religious schools and those in mostly Protestant districts did not. Manitoba may be considering an amendment not unlike the one Québec obtained, if it hasn't already passed yet.
Should Ontario do the same? A few years back, the Conservative government tried rather clumsily to introduce a "voucher" regime through the income tax system that would have funded all private schools, which over time would have resulted in a subsidy of the lesser of 50% of tuition or $3500 per student. The McGuinty Liberals, as soon as they were elected, abolished it saying it drew money away from public and Catholic schools which needed to be fixed.
The Catholic school system, in my opinion, only encourages segregation; and we live in what should be an integrated world. As Christians, we're called to live in the world but not be of it. We can't have it both ways -- pretending to live in a world that doesn't exist. So there are basically two ways one can respect the rights of minorities, including non-Christians.
First, do what Newfoundland did for years -- have faith based schools for all religions, and fund them equally, with elected school boards whose boundaries might emcompass the entire province if a group was small enough. The downside is that students might have to be bused for hours at a time, two hours or more each way -- which is why "The Rock" finally gave up on it.
The second, and which I would support albeit with reluctance, is to abolish the sectarian schools but replace them with a requirement that all students in public high schools must take one credit course each year -- either for the religion they belong to, or a general course on "ethics" if they don't have a religion at all or want to opt out of the religion course.
This will probably not be very popular at first. In fact, I suspect that what will happen, at least in the early stages, is that in the lunchrooms Catholics will be in one corner, Muslims in another, evangelical Protestants in a third and so forth -- just as kids of various ethnicities prefer to hang out with "their own kind." Moreover, I think a lot of parents will just pull their kids out of the schools and into private institutions or home schooling.
In the long run, however, I think students will appreciate the benefits of working in one system, because it will encourage them to improve it and raise the bar for academic standards. The separated system forces colleges and universities to compare apples to oranges when selecting students for admission. An integrated system would let them compare apples to apples. It's time to progress and realize this is 2006, not 1867. Other provinces have realized the "Confederation Bargain" can be altered to meet current circumstances.
Ontario should at least consider doing the same -- or else ensuring those "outside" the funded streams get the same education as those who are "in."
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
The Halton Police and the Halton Public School Board said yes. The Halton Catholic Board -- after some thought -- said no, saying it had to protect "Catholic values" but really implying they preferred to be scattered in three or four cramped buildings around the county.
Since that decision, the local and community papers -- including the Hamilton Spectator -- have been swamped with e-mails asking whether we even need a Catholic school system anymore, saying it's a 19th century anachronism. They point to at least two UN Human Rights rulings that have said Ontario's system is discriminatory towards non-Catholics. Many, but not most, Catholics have felt to respond that forced integration would be an assault on "their values."
What are Catholic values, anyway? Does it make a difference that kids are sent to Catholic schools, often against their will?
I went to a Catholic high school, and quite frankly it did not make a wit of difference to me. It may have helped to have a group of colleagues that were mostly united by faith, and it was nice to have a chapel (really a converted classroom) where I could just sit down and reflect when things got nasty (which they did when my parents' marriage broke down). But we students and our teachers expressed our common faith in so many different ways that the Vatican would have been more than happy to excommunicate 90% of us if they could send a spy and see what was really going on.
At least half, and as many as 80%, were having sexual relations and even most of the females who weren't were still on birth control. The vast majority never attended church except for the in-school Masses we were compelled to attend. Half the kids came from broken homes and both they and their parents were still receiving Communion -- and perhaps as many as half of the teachers, Catholic teachers, were divorced themselves.
And because the full funding of Catholic schools in Ontario had been implemented the year I started high school (up until then, they were financed only up to Grade 10), the board was stripped of the ability to punish students who did "un-Catholic" things like getting pregnant out of wedlock -- which sanction had until then normally been expulsion. Not only that, but I know that some of the counsellors actually encouraged their "patients" to have sex. How do I know this? Because one of them told me so, straight in my face. She said I didn't have to "wait" if I had a girlfriend and she and I decided we couldn't wait.
In my senior year, the religion class I was in -- which for that year dealt with "lifestyle choices" such as marriage, the single life or a religious vocation -- asked us to write a brief essay about whether it had made a difference we were in a Catholic school. One of the essays was to be picked for the school board's newsletter / propaganda sheet. Most said yes. I dared to say no -- and I actually got an A+ from my teacher for my chutzpah.
So far, two provinces -- Québec and Newfoundland-Labrador -- have obtained Constitutional Amendments regarding education. Québec no longer legally has to provide for the funding of religious schools, having switched to a language based system (French and English), although Catholic and Protestant schools still do operate at public pleasure in Montréal and Québec City, having been "grandfathered."
Newfoundland once had no public system at all, but finally abolished the faith based schools and now has a purely secular system although credit courses specific to each major religion has taken over. Interesting that in the referendum to pass that amendment, residents in mostly Catholic districts supported doing away with religious schools and those in mostly Protestant districts did not. Manitoba may be considering an amendment not unlike the one Québec obtained, if it hasn't already passed yet.
Should Ontario do the same? A few years back, the Conservative government tried rather clumsily to introduce a "voucher" regime through the income tax system that would have funded all private schools, which over time would have resulted in a subsidy of the lesser of 50% of tuition or $3500 per student. The McGuinty Liberals, as soon as they were elected, abolished it saying it drew money away from public and Catholic schools which needed to be fixed.
The Catholic school system, in my opinion, only encourages segregation; and we live in what should be an integrated world. As Christians, we're called to live in the world but not be of it. We can't have it both ways -- pretending to live in a world that doesn't exist. So there are basically two ways one can respect the rights of minorities, including non-Christians.
First, do what Newfoundland did for years -- have faith based schools for all religions, and fund them equally, with elected school boards whose boundaries might emcompass the entire province if a group was small enough. The downside is that students might have to be bused for hours at a time, two hours or more each way -- which is why "The Rock" finally gave up on it.
The second, and which I would support albeit with reluctance, is to abolish the sectarian schools but replace them with a requirement that all students in public high schools must take one credit course each year -- either for the religion they belong to, or a general course on "ethics" if they don't have a religion at all or want to opt out of the religion course.
This will probably not be very popular at first. In fact, I suspect that what will happen, at least in the early stages, is that in the lunchrooms Catholics will be in one corner, Muslims in another, evangelical Protestants in a third and so forth -- just as kids of various ethnicities prefer to hang out with "their own kind." Moreover, I think a lot of parents will just pull their kids out of the schools and into private institutions or home schooling.
In the long run, however, I think students will appreciate the benefits of working in one system, because it will encourage them to improve it and raise the bar for academic standards. The separated system forces colleges and universities to compare apples to oranges when selecting students for admission. An integrated system would let them compare apples to apples. It's time to progress and realize this is 2006, not 1867. Other provinces have realized the "Confederation Bargain" can be altered to meet current circumstances.
Ontario should at least consider doing the same -- or else ensuring those "outside" the funded streams get the same education as those who are "in."
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
I overreacted
Yesterday, I tried to make a point about a case about an eleven year old who had been raped; and how Canada's low age of consent makes kids like her vulnerable -- that while in many places an accused would be charged with child exploitation; in Canada the charge is all too often statutory rape, no matter how brutal the crime.
Unfortunately, I made the jump to confusing unwanted sexual intercourse with sexual harrassment. I was wrong, and I regret that. So, let me set this straight, if I can.
Unfortunately, I made the jump to confusing unwanted sexual intercourse with sexual harrassment. I was wrong, and I regret that. So, let me set this straight, if I can.
- There should be a line drawn between what is proper behaviour and what is not. Sexual harrassmen is always wrong, no matter how subtle (like the kind that goes on in so many workplaces) or overt (such as butt pinching), and there should be consequences. Perhaps not life in bars, but definitely some kind of sanctions.
- If someone is penetrated without their consent whether it's by a stalker lying in wait or a date rape or spousal rape, the charge should be sexual assault. Period. It should not matter how old or young someone is. And it's in those cases that I think a life sentence would be appropriate, which in Canada -- when no parole eligibility period is attached -- means a minimum of seven years.
It should be up to judges and juries to decide when an offence has taken place, but the baloney has gone on long enough. It's time for people to stand up.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Monday, July 10, 2006
North Korea has bomb, Japan may be next
Steve Clemons at TWN has an insightful post on the current North Korea standoff and how Team Dubya has sabotaged efforts by career State Department officials to try to bring sanity to the situation. Clemons also discusses how Japan may feel compelled to acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrent if they think the US can no longer handle the security needs of the Asia-Pacific region.
The US has traditionally had a policy of imposing limited trade sanctions against countries that acquire the bomb -- India and Pakistan, for instance; although they were later lifted in the interests of diplomacy. Japan could be a different story -- not the least of which is because they have so many branch plants in the United States. Not putting in similar sanctions, as I suspect will happen, would be the ultimate double standard and would be a victory for those who think America is "anti-Islam."
Dubya had better tread carefully on this one. The last thing we need is another guy or gal with his or her fingers on "The Button." One can only hope and pray the entire Korean Penninsula will be denuclearized, and democratized, before things get totally out of hand.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
The US has traditionally had a policy of imposing limited trade sanctions against countries that acquire the bomb -- India and Pakistan, for instance; although they were later lifted in the interests of diplomacy. Japan could be a different story -- not the least of which is because they have so many branch plants in the United States. Not putting in similar sanctions, as I suspect will happen, would be the ultimate double standard and would be a victory for those who think America is "anti-Islam."
Dubya had better tread carefully on this one. The last thing we need is another guy or gal with his or her fingers on "The Button." One can only hope and pray the entire Korean Penninsula will be denuclearized, and democratized, before things get totally out of hand.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)