If there are two things which divide people in this country or any other country, it's the beginning of life and the end of it. Dr Jack Kervorkian, of course, became infamous for his approach to the end of life. I still remember when he first gained national attention appearing on Donahue, in fact I remember the very episode where he announced he was taking lethal injections from the death house to the operating room. He claims to have helped 130 people die, either via injection or carbon monoxide poisoning. In each of those cases, he just provided the means to the end for it was the dying patient who "presed the button."
But it was one case where he actively euthanized a patient with Lou Gehrig's Disease, Thomas Youk, that finally crossed the line. Kervorkian was convicted of murder two and got 10 to 25. Tonight, we've learned he'll be paroled after serving just eight years.
End of life issues have always been tough for me, particularly since I've lost both my mother and an aunt to cancer. On the one hand, I can undrrstand fully the need to end needless suffering and that some patients just don't want to put up with the agony anymore. On the other, as a Roman Catholic, I always worry whether any such decision has an element of coercion involved. And the fact is, while I appreciate the point Kervorkian was trying to make I had a very hard time with his modus operandi. There is a fine line between mercy and compassion; but the problem is that Kervorkian never really demonstrated either. He was a smooth operator in for the cash, no more or less.
So, bad health or not, I really can't agree with Kervorkian being released from jail. It's not like he committed crimes of passion. He knew exactly what he was doing, and as such should continue to be in the custody of the state until he finishes his sentence -- when he turns 95.
The big crisis facing health care systems will be the aging population and how to deal with them. Do we just write them off as dispensible? Or do we expand the system of long term care, including nursing homes and hospices? And of course, palliative care will always be an issue with all age groups since sudden health emergencies can happen at any age. Having him released only complicates the issue, and this is one punch line I'm not looking forward to on the next Air Farce.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Mulroney: It's the environment, stupid
It's hard to imagine Brian Mulroney and Stéphane Dion agreeing on anything. However in a rare interview previewed this morning on CBC Radio One, Mulroney said the next election may very well be fought on what's becoming a huge concern for Canadians: Having a sustainable and green economy, and which party -- the Conservatives or the Liberals -- present the best hope in that field.
Mulroney said what a lot of Canadians have been thinking: The Clean Air Act as currently written has a lot of holes in it, enough to drive anything through it. The only thing Harper has going for him right now is the promise of more tax cuts.
Say what one will about Brian, but he's got a point, and he does have several marks in his favour on that count. He led the fight to ban CFCs in aerosols and cooling units. He was also among the leaders who endorsed the recommendations of the Bruntland Commission and at the Rio Summit in 1992 made an unusual offer to developing countries: Clean up their acts, he said, and Canada would forgive their debts and lower import duties. He also lobbyed hard to get America to toughen its Clean Water Act (which it eventually was), and here in Canada he expanded the national parks system substantially.
He does have a point about the previous Liberal government being "tiptoe through the tulips" about our air and water, and Dion has a lot of explaining to do to reburnish his credentials. Dion may have won the Liberal leadership over the issue, but winning over a party and winning over the country are two different things. On the other hand, what has Harper offered so far? One national park, and a plan to get rid of toxic chemicals. Both fine ideas to be sure, but it's just a nosejob.
Over the coming holidays, I'd like to hear more about what both Harper and Dion have in mind. I have a feeling the election will be sooner than when the pundits are saying, and even in Alberta people are starting to get worried about what damage has already been done to the water supply by the oil sands, not to mention what's yet to come.
Mulroney may be a pitiful fellow, but at least he did something. Harper has no right to claim his legacy or that of any other Prime Minister regardless of stripe.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Mulroney said what a lot of Canadians have been thinking: The Clean Air Act as currently written has a lot of holes in it, enough to drive anything through it. The only thing Harper has going for him right now is the promise of more tax cuts.
Say what one will about Brian, but he's got a point, and he does have several marks in his favour on that count. He led the fight to ban CFCs in aerosols and cooling units. He was also among the leaders who endorsed the recommendations of the Bruntland Commission and at the Rio Summit in 1992 made an unusual offer to developing countries: Clean up their acts, he said, and Canada would forgive their debts and lower import duties. He also lobbyed hard to get America to toughen its Clean Water Act (which it eventually was), and here in Canada he expanded the national parks system substantially.
He does have a point about the previous Liberal government being "tiptoe through the tulips" about our air and water, and Dion has a lot of explaining to do to reburnish his credentials. Dion may have won the Liberal leadership over the issue, but winning over a party and winning over the country are two different things. On the other hand, what has Harper offered so far? One national park, and a plan to get rid of toxic chemicals. Both fine ideas to be sure, but it's just a nosejob.
Over the coming holidays, I'd like to hear more about what both Harper and Dion have in mind. I have a feeling the election will be sooner than when the pundits are saying, and even in Alberta people are starting to get worried about what damage has already been done to the water supply by the oil sands, not to mention what's yet to come.
Mulroney may be a pitiful fellow, but at least he did something. Harper has no right to claim his legacy or that of any other Prime Minister regardless of stripe.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Kate Winslet draws line in the sand
Good for Kate Winslet. On the heels of recent annoucements by the catwalks in London and Paris that they will no longer allow chronically underweight women to participate in the spring and fall fashion shows, Winslet has publicly said that she and her husband (director Sam Mendes) make a point of not allowing any fashion magazines in their house in case their kids get the wrong idea and think it's cool to be anorexic.
I wish more Hollywood moms would take the hint and lead by example not just for their kids but also for themselves; and the same goes for the likes of Paris Hilton, Nicole Ritchie and Lindsay Lohan. It's hard to imagine that in a course of twenty years we've gone from a world where it was pretty easy for a woman to get a starring role if she was a 10, 12 or even 14, to one where Tinsletown and the papar****s won't even give her the time of day unless she's a four or less. The current "in" size for female celebrities is zero, and some fashion designers are actually creating dresses for negative sizes. Negative.
Meanwhile, the rest of us, hypocrites we are, are pigging out a storm and facing a life of obesity. That's a fine future for the health care system, including publicly funded ones like ours in Canada. Making sure the underweight and overweight merely stay alive!
It takes courage to do the right thing. Kate Winslet is fine just the way she is. Maybe a few extra pounds, but she doesn't need implants, a facelift or anything else to make her presence both on and off the screen. She deserves an Oscar ™ just for saying enough is enough.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
I wish more Hollywood moms would take the hint and lead by example not just for their kids but also for themselves; and the same goes for the likes of Paris Hilton, Nicole Ritchie and Lindsay Lohan. It's hard to imagine that in a course of twenty years we've gone from a world where it was pretty easy for a woman to get a starring role if she was a 10, 12 or even 14, to one where Tinsletown and the papar****s won't even give her the time of day unless she's a four or less. The current "in" size for female celebrities is zero, and some fashion designers are actually creating dresses for negative sizes. Negative.
Meanwhile, the rest of us, hypocrites we are, are pigging out a storm and facing a life of obesity. That's a fine future for the health care system, including publicly funded ones like ours in Canada. Making sure the underweight and overweight merely stay alive!
It takes courage to do the right thing. Kate Winslet is fine just the way she is. Maybe a few extra pounds, but she doesn't need implants, a facelift or anything else to make her presence both on and off the screen. She deserves an Oscar ™ just for saying enough is enough.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Tread carefully with deregulation of phones
On the way home from whatever I was doing today, I heard on the radio that the federal government is planning to -- finally -- deregulate the local phone business in Canada. For people in most major urban centres, this is supposed to mean lower phone bills.
I'm not so sure that's going to happen.
When long distance was deregulated and competition was allowed, those rates went down, so much so that the traditinoal telcos were forced to match the rates or improve their quality standards. The problem was the higher long distance rates meant that they were subsidizing local phone service. With the cap gone, the rates went up substantially, hitting people with fixed incomes the most.
I find it very difficult to believe that in an environment where shareholders demand maximum returns, they would tolerate cuts in local rates. After all that would mean less profit and therefore lower dividends. The only way the phone companies could make it sustainable is to dramatically increase rates for people in rural areas. They are compelled, by CRTC fiat, to provide 99% of communities with access to at least one locality with a local dial-up Internet connection. That explains why, for instance, the hamlet of Jarvis, in another area code, is a local call for Hamilton but the much closer Six Nations is not (they're in Brantford's local area) or why Dunnville is local but Oakville is long distance. (Oakville is much closer, by the way, but for historical reasons it falls under Toronto's local area.)
The fact is we in the big cities are subsizing the services in smaller areas -- equality of sacrifice, which is fair because we don't want farmers to get stiffed. And there's no way rural people will want to pay more for the limited local access they already have. So who gets to pay? People in the cities, and we will wind up paying more.
The only way I could support this is if deregulation also allows the phone companies to resurrect the plans the CRTC deep-sixed during the 1990s to greatly expand the local calling areas of the largest centres -- for Bell's territory, that would be Toronto, Ottawa-Gatineau and Montréal. The fact is, places like Hamilton and Oshawa are very much in Toronto's shadow, and it's not fair that neighbouring towns can call Toronto locally while we have to pay long distance charges or use a rerouter or VoIP to make it "local." It'd be nice to keep in touch with many of my friends by voice rather than the e-mail I have to rely on without having to move.
I hope they tread carefully with this one ... and make sure the results are in fact better service and more reasonable rates.
Interesting they're saying that the one major city that could get really screwed, even presuming this works the way it's supposed to, is Halifax. Guess it's Harper's way of punishing the city for sticking with the Liberals and NDP through thick and thin.
Comments:
(no name)11/12/2006 9:14:06 PM
(http://mattbraaten.spaces.live.com/)
You are missing the point entirely. Currently the Telcos (telus, bell, etc) are not allowed to reduce their local phone rates below the legislated rates. This is allowing non-telcos such as Shaw, Rogers (historically cable companies) to offer web phones for rates far less than the Telcos because they are not affected by the minimum price legislation. Therefore, the shareholders of the Telco's risk losing market share as they cannot match the prices of the cable companies. This deregulation will enable telephone ompanies to lower their local connection charges to compete with the Cable co's in order to maintain market share. Furthermore, this deregulation does not affect smaller markets where there is less than 3 providers available.
BlastFurnace11/12/2006 10:15:02 PM
(http://blastfurnacecanada.spaces.live.com/)
You do raise some good points, Matt. True, the telcos are losing marking share, but there will always be a core group of customers who stick with the big guys because they simply don't trust the alternatives -- much in the same way people stick with their traditional gas or electric utility after competition is allowed. My concern is that even if they do cut the rates, they won't cut them enough to stop the slide. After all, it's the telcos that maintain most of the lines and switchers and other parts of the infrastructure -- and their overhead is much higher than the competitors. With phone companies being allowed (thanks to another Cabinet decision) to also compete equally in the VoIP market, could there be a point where old-style landline phones become irrelevant?
In my opinion, it should be a two way street. Since there is equal access for long distance, the same should apply for local service, Internet access, etc. Someone I know who doesn't have cable has to pay a surcharge to have a cable modem over and above what cable customers pay. Similarly, most ISPs tack on a surcharge if someone uses a competitor's VoIP. Equal access should mean exactly that -- no surcharges, period.
I'll admit, I'm not well versed in all of the fine points involved here. However, the American experience is instructive. It took years after deregulation and the breakup of Ma Bell's monopoly for the rates to get within reason -- and now they as well as the cablenets are trying to get back at the customers by trying to destroy Net Neutrality. That, plus skyrocketing rates, is the last thing we need from loosening the rules, is the last thing we need and that's the point I was trying to make.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
I'm not so sure that's going to happen.
When long distance was deregulated and competition was allowed, those rates went down, so much so that the traditinoal telcos were forced to match the rates or improve their quality standards. The problem was the higher long distance rates meant that they were subsidizing local phone service. With the cap gone, the rates went up substantially, hitting people with fixed incomes the most.
I find it very difficult to believe that in an environment where shareholders demand maximum returns, they would tolerate cuts in local rates. After all that would mean less profit and therefore lower dividends. The only way the phone companies could make it sustainable is to dramatically increase rates for people in rural areas. They are compelled, by CRTC fiat, to provide 99% of communities with access to at least one locality with a local dial-up Internet connection. That explains why, for instance, the hamlet of Jarvis, in another area code, is a local call for Hamilton but the much closer Six Nations is not (they're in Brantford's local area) or why Dunnville is local but Oakville is long distance. (Oakville is much closer, by the way, but for historical reasons it falls under Toronto's local area.)
The fact is we in the big cities are subsizing the services in smaller areas -- equality of sacrifice, which is fair because we don't want farmers to get stiffed. And there's no way rural people will want to pay more for the limited local access they already have. So who gets to pay? People in the cities, and we will wind up paying more.
The only way I could support this is if deregulation also allows the phone companies to resurrect the plans the CRTC deep-sixed during the 1990s to greatly expand the local calling areas of the largest centres -- for Bell's territory, that would be Toronto, Ottawa-Gatineau and Montréal. The fact is, places like Hamilton and Oshawa are very much in Toronto's shadow, and it's not fair that neighbouring towns can call Toronto locally while we have to pay long distance charges or use a rerouter or VoIP to make it "local." It'd be nice to keep in touch with many of my friends by voice rather than the e-mail I have to rely on without having to move.
I hope they tread carefully with this one ... and make sure the results are in fact better service and more reasonable rates.
Interesting they're saying that the one major city that could get really screwed, even presuming this works the way it's supposed to, is Halifax. Guess it's Harper's way of punishing the city for sticking with the Liberals and NDP through thick and thin.
Comments:
(no name)11/12/2006 9:14:06 PM
(http://mattbraaten.spaces.live.com/)
You are missing the point entirely. Currently the Telcos (telus, bell, etc) are not allowed to reduce their local phone rates below the legislated rates. This is allowing non-telcos such as Shaw, Rogers (historically cable companies) to offer web phones for rates far less than the Telcos because they are not affected by the minimum price legislation. Therefore, the shareholders of the Telco's risk losing market share as they cannot match the prices of the cable companies. This deregulation will enable telephone ompanies to lower their local connection charges to compete with the Cable co's in order to maintain market share. Furthermore, this deregulation does not affect smaller markets where there is less than 3 providers available.
BlastFurnace11/12/2006 10:15:02 PM
(http://blastfurnacecanada.spaces.live.com/)
You do raise some good points, Matt. True, the telcos are losing marking share, but there will always be a core group of customers who stick with the big guys because they simply don't trust the alternatives -- much in the same way people stick with their traditional gas or electric utility after competition is allowed. My concern is that even if they do cut the rates, they won't cut them enough to stop the slide. After all, it's the telcos that maintain most of the lines and switchers and other parts of the infrastructure -- and their overhead is much higher than the competitors. With phone companies being allowed (thanks to another Cabinet decision) to also compete equally in the VoIP market, could there be a point where old-style landline phones become irrelevant?
In my opinion, it should be a two way street. Since there is equal access for long distance, the same should apply for local service, Internet access, etc. Someone I know who doesn't have cable has to pay a surcharge to have a cable modem over and above what cable customers pay. Similarly, most ISPs tack on a surcharge if someone uses a competitor's VoIP. Equal access should mean exactly that -- no surcharges, period.
I'll admit, I'm not well versed in all of the fine points involved here. However, the American experience is instructive. It took years after deregulation and the breakup of Ma Bell's monopoly for the rates to get within reason -- and now they as well as the cablenets are trying to get back at the customers by trying to destroy Net Neutrality. That, plus skyrocketing rates, is the last thing we need from loosening the rules, is the last thing we need and that's the point I was trying to make.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Will Mohammed al-Fayed just give up already?
While I continue to believe there are still many unanswered questions about the murders of the Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King, as well as about the events of 9/11, I've never been one for major conspiracy theories. It's just that everything usually has a logical explanation and it's usually the simplest one.
For nine years, Mohammed al-Fayed, the controversial owner of Harrod's, has insisted that his son Dodi (the flamboyant Hollywood producer who financed, among other films, Chariots of Fire) and Princess Diana were murdered by the British secret services because someone in the government or at Buckingham Palace didn't want the ex-wife of the heir apparent Prince Charles and the mother of the heirs presumptive to the British throne, Princes William and Harry, to marry a Muslim. One of the keys items underlying this ridiculous allegation was evidence that the blood-alcohol test applied on driver Henri Paul after he, Diana and Dodi were killed in the car wreck (and a fourth individual, Trevor Rees-Jones, was badly injured) was faked to make it look like it was an accident.
The BBC reported last nght, however, that a DNA test proves the blood from the sample was that of Paul, and he was definitely drunk -- in fact, he was three times over the legal limit.
What of the other claim, that Dodi had proposed to Diana that night or was about to? After all, he did lavish her with a rather expensive ring. I very much doubt that too. After getting burned by Chuck, and still recovering from bulimia and five suicide attempts, Diana would hardly have made such a rash decision, at least not without consulting her kids. After all, William is destined to be head of the Churches of England and Scotland. Would he tolerate having had a stepfather who was Muslim while holding such a position -- no matter how much respect "The Firm" has otherwise expressed for their brothers and sisters of Islam?
Besides, Diana politely declined police protection after her divorce from Charles even though she was entitled to it for the rest of her life. She wanted to be her own person -- and I have every reason to believe that both John Major and Tony Blair fully respected that. They would have told MI-5 and -6 to back off.
The coroner who's investigating this should just say this is an open and shut case. The papparazzi were irresponsible in their decision not to try to save her life -- which violated French law -- but the accident was entirely the fault of Henri Paul. Diana and her companions in the car were not murdered, they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Case closed.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
For nine years, Mohammed al-Fayed, the controversial owner of Harrod's, has insisted that his son Dodi (the flamboyant Hollywood producer who financed, among other films, Chariots of Fire) and Princess Diana were murdered by the British secret services because someone in the government or at Buckingham Palace didn't want the ex-wife of the heir apparent Prince Charles and the mother of the heirs presumptive to the British throne, Princes William and Harry, to marry a Muslim. One of the keys items underlying this ridiculous allegation was evidence that the blood-alcohol test applied on driver Henri Paul after he, Diana and Dodi were killed in the car wreck (and a fourth individual, Trevor Rees-Jones, was badly injured) was faked to make it look like it was an accident.
The BBC reported last nght, however, that a DNA test proves the blood from the sample was that of Paul, and he was definitely drunk -- in fact, he was three times over the legal limit.
What of the other claim, that Dodi had proposed to Diana that night or was about to? After all, he did lavish her with a rather expensive ring. I very much doubt that too. After getting burned by Chuck, and still recovering from bulimia and five suicide attempts, Diana would hardly have made such a rash decision, at least not without consulting her kids. After all, William is destined to be head of the Churches of England and Scotland. Would he tolerate having had a stepfather who was Muslim while holding such a position -- no matter how much respect "The Firm" has otherwise expressed for their brothers and sisters of Islam?
Besides, Diana politely declined police protection after her divorce from Charles even though she was entitled to it for the rest of her life. She wanted to be her own person -- and I have every reason to believe that both John Major and Tony Blair fully respected that. They would have told MI-5 and -6 to back off.
The coroner who's investigating this should just say this is an open and shut case. The papparazzi were irresponsible in their decision not to try to save her life -- which violated French law -- but the accident was entirely the fault of Henri Paul. Diana and her companions in the car were not murdered, they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Case closed.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, December 9, 2006
I'm entitled to my entitlements: Hydro One edition
This is beyond unbelievable. Despite getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar -- or to be more accurate, having his secretary spend $45,000 of his personal expenses on her corporate credit card -- Tom Parkinson resigns from Hydro One with a severance package of $3 million. Last year, he used the corporate helicopter, really the property of the people of Ontario, to fly to his cottage in Muskoka.
Once again, there are two sets of standards -- one for public servants, another for the rest of us.
A number of years back, I read about a court case where a guy who served his company for thirty-five years was fired after some pretty strong and credible accusations of sexual harrassment. Along with the dismissal came the forfeiture of his company pension, perhaps in the six figures each year for the rest of his life. He said he was entitled to it regardless of his behaviour or alleged behaviour, since he fiercely denied the improprieties. He initially won, but then the company appealed; and the Ontario Court of Appeal said that the company was in the right, since even though he wasn't a member of the union as an executive, the wording of the collective bargaining agreement made it clear that the "morals clause" applied to everyone from the top down, and since management co-signed what was essentially a legal contract, they had to abide by the rules too. Since the executive violated the anti-discrimination policy, he had to accept whatever penalties came with his dismissal.
Last I heard, the jerk -- can't remember his name -- was on the streets panning for money. Sweet justice.
We go ballistic if someone steals paperclips from a secretary, or abuses the "take a penny, leave a penny" incentive. But when it comes to the public service, we must pretend as if we see, hear or speak nothing. Sometimes I wonder why we even bother.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Once again, there are two sets of standards -- one for public servants, another for the rest of us.
A number of years back, I read about a court case where a guy who served his company for thirty-five years was fired after some pretty strong and credible accusations of sexual harrassment. Along with the dismissal came the forfeiture of his company pension, perhaps in the six figures each year for the rest of his life. He said he was entitled to it regardless of his behaviour or alleged behaviour, since he fiercely denied the improprieties. He initially won, but then the company appealed; and the Ontario Court of Appeal said that the company was in the right, since even though he wasn't a member of the union as an executive, the wording of the collective bargaining agreement made it clear that the "morals clause" applied to everyone from the top down, and since management co-signed what was essentially a legal contract, they had to abide by the rules too. Since the executive violated the anti-discrimination policy, he had to accept whatever penalties came with his dismissal.
Last I heard, the jerk -- can't remember his name -- was on the streets panning for money. Sweet justice.
We go ballistic if someone steals paperclips from a secretary, or abuses the "take a penny, leave a penny" incentive. But when it comes to the public service, we must pretend as if we see, hear or speak nothing. Sometimes I wonder why we even bother.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, December 8, 2006
Twelve Days of Christmas "story" just a myth
With nothing on my mind today, I offer you this link to an entry at the urban legends site, Snopes.com that answers something that even fooled me a few years ago: Is the song the Twelve Days of Christmas just a song, or does it have a religious connotation? The answer, sadly, is the former.
But it's a very, very cute story.
For the record, my favourite secular Christmas song is Gordon Lightfoot's Song for a Winter's Night. And my favourite religious one? Without a question, and especially for a world at war with forces even darker than Hitler, O Little Town of Bethlehem, by Phillps Brooks and Lewis Redner.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
But it's a very, very cute story.
For the record, my favourite secular Christmas song is Gordon Lightfoot's Song for a Winter's Night. And my favourite religious one? Without a question, and especially for a world at war with forces even darker than Hitler, O Little Town of Bethlehem, by Phillps Brooks and Lewis Redner.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, December 7, 2006
When will the other shoe drop?
I just wanted to talk this morning about the resignation of Giuliano Zaccardelli as Commissioner of the RCMP -- essentially Canada's top cop.
I think it's just the first shoe dropping. I don't think we've quite heard all the answers quite yet from the whole Maher Arar affair and there are still people left in both the Liberals and the Conservatives who have to answer for what happened to him. The fact is, though, the Mounties have the most to answer for, especially the senior management of "The Force," as the RCMP calls itself. They are not just a symbol but our national police force and militia, with major roles in fighting organized crime and running counterintelligence, and in most provinces they are the highway patrol as well. They are a part of the fabric of Canadian life far beyond the Musical Ride. That goes without saying of course, but the twenty-one thousand women and men who wear the Red Serge deserve far better leadership than what we've gotten the last six years under Zaccardelli.
Why do they deserve better? Simply put, Canadians see those who have been invited to join The Force as the best of the best. We expect the Mounties to live up to the highest moral and ethical standards. That's true of all cops, but for some reason (maybe because of the stereotypes Hollywood has played out) we think they are a cut above. Slipping erroneous or misleading information about Maher Arar was not just a mere slip-up but a serious lack of judgement. In the private sector, such actions would lead to dismissal. In self-regulated professions like the law or accounting, being outcast and certainly public humiliation.
But the public service? The rules seem to be different for them, as we all found out from the Gomery Report.
There has been talk the last few days that the Mounties may need someone from the outside to step in and clean up the image of The Force. Maybe the real solution is to do below the Deputy Commisioner level and find a man or a woman -- and at this stage, I'm kind of hoping it will be a woman -- who's been on the front lines all these years and who's actually handled all the bric-a-brac they do rather than just been sitting behind a desk pushing paper. If it was a Deputy, I think the other shoe would drop very quickly if he or she had even the slightest hint of taint in the Arar scandal or anything else of disrepute.
We can't have democracy without law and order, which the Mounties normally exemplify. Zaccardelli's leaving is the first step. The question that must ultimately be asked is, what did both Irwin Cotler and Stockwell Day know, and when did they know it?
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
I think it's just the first shoe dropping. I don't think we've quite heard all the answers quite yet from the whole Maher Arar affair and there are still people left in both the Liberals and the Conservatives who have to answer for what happened to him. The fact is, though, the Mounties have the most to answer for, especially the senior management of "The Force," as the RCMP calls itself. They are not just a symbol but our national police force and militia, with major roles in fighting organized crime and running counterintelligence, and in most provinces they are the highway patrol as well. They are a part of the fabric of Canadian life far beyond the Musical Ride. That goes without saying of course, but the twenty-one thousand women and men who wear the Red Serge deserve far better leadership than what we've gotten the last six years under Zaccardelli.
Why do they deserve better? Simply put, Canadians see those who have been invited to join The Force as the best of the best. We expect the Mounties to live up to the highest moral and ethical standards. That's true of all cops, but for some reason (maybe because of the stereotypes Hollywood has played out) we think they are a cut above. Slipping erroneous or misleading information about Maher Arar was not just a mere slip-up but a serious lack of judgement. In the private sector, such actions would lead to dismissal. In self-regulated professions like the law or accounting, being outcast and certainly public humiliation.
But the public service? The rules seem to be different for them, as we all found out from the Gomery Report.
There has been talk the last few days that the Mounties may need someone from the outside to step in and clean up the image of The Force. Maybe the real solution is to do below the Deputy Commisioner level and find a man or a woman -- and at this stage, I'm kind of hoping it will be a woman -- who's been on the front lines all these years and who's actually handled all the bric-a-brac they do rather than just been sitting behind a desk pushing paper. If it was a Deputy, I think the other shoe would drop very quickly if he or she had even the slightest hint of taint in the Arar scandal or anything else of disrepute.
We can't have democracy without law and order, which the Mounties normally exemplify. Zaccardelli's leaving is the first step. The question that must ultimately be asked is, what did both Irwin Cotler and Stockwell Day know, and when did they know it?
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
"No easy solutions"
Very interesting. The Iraq Study Group has said what a lot of people have been saying for months: The United States needs to re-establish full ties to Syria and Iran; and a comprehensive Middle East peace must be negotiated including a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. Beyond that, the States also has to get other countries involved, including the European Union and Russia. (PDF of recommendations here.) Jim Baker III and Lee Hamilton were pretty blunt about it, there are "no easy answers" in their words.
Trouble is, if Dubya and Tony had heeded precisely that four years ago when the mess all started and had gotten NATO onside to deal firmly with Saddam Hussein, the US and the UK would not be in the pickle they are in right now. Matter of fact, there might not have even been a war. But America made its choice and they're stuck with what Gen. Colin Powell called the Pottery Barn, you break it so you buy it. Interesting the ISG isn't calling for either an immediate pullout or a mass mobilization of new troops but rather a phased withdrawal with some brigades moving back to the States as early as 2008.
From what I see, they're going to need a massive UN peacekeeping and peacemaking force the size of which has never been seen before -- at least a hundred thousand or more. And the key will be making the peace, as much as it in Afghanistan -- or at least trying.
Naturally, the televangelists are going to pounce on anything that appears to be even a slight amount of appeasement to the Muslims they hate so much. For once, I'd like to see Bush stop listening to the false teachers and listen to some common sense. This report may not be the be all and end all, but the recommendations should at least be taken seriously.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Trouble is, if Dubya and Tony had heeded precisely that four years ago when the mess all started and had gotten NATO onside to deal firmly with Saddam Hussein, the US and the UK would not be in the pickle they are in right now. Matter of fact, there might not have even been a war. But America made its choice and they're stuck with what Gen. Colin Powell called the Pottery Barn, you break it so you buy it. Interesting the ISG isn't calling for either an immediate pullout or a mass mobilization of new troops but rather a phased withdrawal with some brigades moving back to the States as early as 2008.
From what I see, they're going to need a massive UN peacekeeping and peacemaking force the size of which has never been seen before -- at least a hundred thousand or more. And the key will be making the peace, as much as it in Afghanistan -- or at least trying.
Naturally, the televangelists are going to pounce on anything that appears to be even a slight amount of appeasement to the Muslims they hate so much. For once, I'd like to see Bush stop listening to the false teachers and listen to some common sense. This report may not be the be all and end all, but the recommendations should at least be taken seriously.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
1989-12-06 Remembered; Ontario Auditor-General Report
I will never forget what happened seventeen years ago -- what Marc Lépine did, and what he failed to do. It was not just a mass murder but a political act, as much as the decision of the other men who were there that day not to lift a finger to help their sisters in need was also a political act -- and we must never allow those kinds of politics to take Canada over again, ever. I know it's unpopular for me to say this, but the blood is still on the hands of all men in Canada, not just that of Lépine.
On a much more sublime but no less outrageous note the Ontario Auditor General, Jim McCarter, released his 2006 annual report, the first since his office got an expanded mandate to take a look into the activities of Crown Agencies and not just provincial departments . Especially coming under harsh criticism are the almost unaudited government credit cards that wound up being used for personal expenses such as DVDs and leather jackets and even flowers for one's own birthday. The worst violators were employees at Ontario Power Generation (the main electric producer), Hydro One (which owns the transmission lines) and the Children's Aid Societies (who should be spending that money on foster care).
Most perplexing for me, however, is that even with the introduction of photo health cards with expiry dates several years ago, there are still 300 000 more cards than residents in Ontario. The government denies this, saying there are actually fewer cards than residents -- but I believe the AG and his assertion it's costing us taxpayers $150 million per year. Who will stop the fraud?
It's the feast of St. Nick today. Who's been naughty and nice on my list? Um, that will have to wait until Christmas Eve.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
On a much more sublime but no less outrageous note the Ontario Auditor General, Jim McCarter, released his 2006 annual report, the first since his office got an expanded mandate to take a look into the activities of Crown Agencies and not just provincial departments . Especially coming under harsh criticism are the almost unaudited government credit cards that wound up being used for personal expenses such as DVDs and leather jackets and even flowers for one's own birthday. The worst violators were employees at Ontario Power Generation (the main electric producer), Hydro One (which owns the transmission lines) and the Children's Aid Societies (who should be spending that money on foster care).
Most perplexing for me, however, is that even with the introduction of photo health cards with expiry dates several years ago, there are still 300 000 more cards than residents in Ontario. The government denies this, saying there are actually fewer cards than residents -- but I believe the AG and his assertion it's costing us taxpayers $150 million per year. Who will stop the fraud?
It's the feast of St. Nick today. Who's been naughty and nice on my list? Um, that will have to wait until Christmas Eve.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
Watch where your donations go
An item this morning on the regional news of CBC Radio One brought back some bad memories. Last week the Mayor of Stratford, Dan Mathieson, went on the air and encouraged people to give money -- as much as a day's pay -- to a charity called Pediatric AIDS Canada. No sooner than he made that announcement than he started getting flooded with complaints about the group. We in Hamilton are all too familiar with this one, a not-for-profit group that in the past has been investigated by the local press for spending way more on administration than on actually purchasing anti-viral drugs for kids. Besides, I thought our health care system took care of such catastrophic drug costs already. So this morning, the mayor pulled his support and said he needs to do more research.
He had better. For at one point in my life, I was unwittingly part of such a scam. Desperate for a summer job in high school, any summer job, I went to work for this little firm called Great West Entertainment -- GWE -- and got a job in their boiler room, raising money for any of a number of charities. I was so burned out doing futile cold calls to people who normally hang up right away (one had to meet a quota at that level in order to be eligible to call people who actually donate on a regular basis to various groups), that I quit within a week and a half. And this was in the days when call centres used handsets and wrote everything on paper, not the kind I work at now where it's mostly paperless and hands-free. Imagine my shock and anger when I later found out -- thanks to an investigation by CBC's Marketplace -- that my former employer and its then main competitor (can't remember which one) often took a commission of 60% right off the top for its services. The claim was made by the executives that ran them, that they were entitled to it since they were doing a job that smaller charities -- say Big Brothers or the Wheelchair Basketball Association -- couldn't do or be bothered to do.
Which really bothered me, and for this reason: If the consulting firm was collecting a fee of 60%, that only meant 40% was going to the charity. And they have their bills to pay too -- utilities, food and lodging, etc. So when all was said and done, they maybe were left with a quarter or even less if that.
So if I had a hundred bucks at the end of the year and I wanted to make a donation, where do I send it? To a smaller group who has to rely on these big guys, even in the age of the Internet when it's much cheaper to run a secure on-line site? To an established group like the Sally Anns or the Red Cross? Both of those generate a tax receipt but in my bracket I only get back barely 21 cents on the dollar. If it was just those two choices, I'd rather give it to the bigger groups who keep their administration costs down so I know my donation goes to those in the greatest need.
Then there's the third choice, making a political contribution. On donations up to $400, the rebate come the new year is 75%. Doesn't take a genius to figure out which one's the best one from a tax standpoint.
Even if I just decided to go the altrusitic route, it's a good idea to do some research. Ask some tough questions. If they spend more than 25% on administration year after year, then you have to wonder whether it's a group that has just registered as a charity to avoid paying taxes. It's also worth (as well as a bit of work) checking into the lifestyle of those who run such groups. One can't exactly expect such leaders to live on the street, of course, but if their travel is anything above business class and for anything other than work specific to the group (think, for example, of Benny Hinn's "layovers") then look somewhere else to donate.
It's the end of the year, the time for the greatest need. The last thing we need is people being exploited for selfish reasons. So watch where your donations go. And another thing: If you see those donation boxes or kettles, ask if there's a toll free number or website -- then make your donation directly so you actually get a receipt. Screw Stephen Harper and Dalton McGuinty for once and keep at least some of that pledge in your pocket.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
He had better. For at one point in my life, I was unwittingly part of such a scam. Desperate for a summer job in high school, any summer job, I went to work for this little firm called Great West Entertainment -- GWE -- and got a job in their boiler room, raising money for any of a number of charities. I was so burned out doing futile cold calls to people who normally hang up right away (one had to meet a quota at that level in order to be eligible to call people who actually donate on a regular basis to various groups), that I quit within a week and a half. And this was in the days when call centres used handsets and wrote everything on paper, not the kind I work at now where it's mostly paperless and hands-free. Imagine my shock and anger when I later found out -- thanks to an investigation by CBC's Marketplace -- that my former employer and its then main competitor (can't remember which one) often took a commission of 60% right off the top for its services. The claim was made by the executives that ran them, that they were entitled to it since they were doing a job that smaller charities -- say Big Brothers or the Wheelchair Basketball Association -- couldn't do or be bothered to do.
Which really bothered me, and for this reason: If the consulting firm was collecting a fee of 60%, that only meant 40% was going to the charity. And they have their bills to pay too -- utilities, food and lodging, etc. So when all was said and done, they maybe were left with a quarter or even less if that.
So if I had a hundred bucks at the end of the year and I wanted to make a donation, where do I send it? To a smaller group who has to rely on these big guys, even in the age of the Internet when it's much cheaper to run a secure on-line site? To an established group like the Sally Anns or the Red Cross? Both of those generate a tax receipt but in my bracket I only get back barely 21 cents on the dollar. If it was just those two choices, I'd rather give it to the bigger groups who keep their administration costs down so I know my donation goes to those in the greatest need.
Then there's the third choice, making a political contribution. On donations up to $400, the rebate come the new year is 75%. Doesn't take a genius to figure out which one's the best one from a tax standpoint.
Even if I just decided to go the altrusitic route, it's a good idea to do some research. Ask some tough questions. If they spend more than 25% on administration year after year, then you have to wonder whether it's a group that has just registered as a charity to avoid paying taxes. It's also worth (as well as a bit of work) checking into the lifestyle of those who run such groups. One can't exactly expect such leaders to live on the street, of course, but if their travel is anything above business class and for anything other than work specific to the group (think, for example, of Benny Hinn's "layovers") then look somewhere else to donate.
It's the end of the year, the time for the greatest need. The last thing we need is people being exploited for selfish reasons. So watch where your donations go. And another thing: If you see those donation boxes or kettles, ask if there's a toll free number or website -- then make your donation directly so you actually get a receipt. Screw Stephen Harper and Dalton McGuinty for once and keep at least some of that pledge in your pocket.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Monday, December 4, 2006
John Bolton resigns as UN Ambassador
He was toast anyway with outgoing Senator Lincoln Chafee saying he'd never vote to confirm him, but today's decision by Bolton to throw in the towel is really good news for those who feel the UN needs a major shakeup but should not be dismantled. For a guy who once said it wouldn't be enough to lob 20 stories off Turtle Bay, he never should have been there in the first place and would not have been except for Dubya's recess appointment.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, December 3, 2006
It's Stéphane Dion
So it's Stéphane Dion, who won it on the fourth ballot. He pulled ahead of Iggy on the third, leaping from third place; but the momentum was unstoppable at that point. What may have done it is his emphasis on two issues that are definitely going to be at or near the top of the agenda come the next election: The environment, and child care. The Liberals have taken quite the risk in picking him, hoping he can pick up momentum in Québec and in Western Canada. The pundits think he can't but maybe the delegates know something the MSM doesn't.
Not that Ignatieff had bad ideas on the "big"issues and other policy points. His were, in my opinion, probably better overall. But Dion has actually worked in the trenches for quite some time now, whereas his main opponent has been in the world of higher education and the talk show circuit. Not necessarily bad to do so but Ottawa can be a very nasty place and Ignatieff probably didn't connect as well as Trudeau did 38 years ago. His strong showing overall, however, and his promise to run in the next election puts him in line for a very powerful post in Cabinet -- perhaps Finance or Foreign Affairs. Unlike the Chrétien and Martin show, however, I think there won't be an underground battle to unseat the leader just days after the last campaign ended.
As for my first choice of Gerard Kennedy -- he did the right thing by pulling out relatively early. There would not have been much point dragging things ou for so long. I just wonder what role Dion has for him in mind, though; if it turns out to be something token it won't exactly be gratitude.
As for all the other candidates, I hope they run in the next election. Including Martha Hall Findlay -- who I think may be the party's future.
The focus now is Stephen Harper. There is no question he has to be defeated before the real damage is done to Canada. His announcement that 12 of the 16 Status of Women offices closing just a couple of days before the anniversary of the Montréal Massacre is not a coincidence; as some (though not all) of his hardest core supporters support violence against women. It's my hope in the coming days -- perhaps even today -- Dion puts together a Shadow Cabinet that turns on the screws and lets the dogs out from Day One. Harper may say publicly he can knock down Dion like a steamroller, but I honestly don't think he saw this one coming. He wanted Ignatieff.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Not that Ignatieff had bad ideas on the "big"issues and other policy points. His were, in my opinion, probably better overall. But Dion has actually worked in the trenches for quite some time now, whereas his main opponent has been in the world of higher education and the talk show circuit. Not necessarily bad to do so but Ottawa can be a very nasty place and Ignatieff probably didn't connect as well as Trudeau did 38 years ago. His strong showing overall, however, and his promise to run in the next election puts him in line for a very powerful post in Cabinet -- perhaps Finance or Foreign Affairs. Unlike the Chrétien and Martin show, however, I think there won't be an underground battle to unseat the leader just days after the last campaign ended.
As for my first choice of Gerard Kennedy -- he did the right thing by pulling out relatively early. There would not have been much point dragging things ou for so long. I just wonder what role Dion has for him in mind, though; if it turns out to be something token it won't exactly be gratitude.
As for all the other candidates, I hope they run in the next election. Including Martha Hall Findlay -- who I think may be the party's future.
The focus now is Stephen Harper. There is no question he has to be defeated before the real damage is done to Canada. His announcement that 12 of the 16 Status of Women offices closing just a couple of days before the anniversary of the Montréal Massacre is not a coincidence; as some (though not all) of his hardest core supporters support violence against women. It's my hope in the coming days -- perhaps even today -- Dion puts together a Shadow Cabinet that turns on the screws and lets the dogs out from Day One. Harper may say publicly he can knock down Dion like a steamroller, but I honestly don't think he saw this one coming. He wanted Ignatieff.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, December 2, 2006
How Old Crow, Yukon is doing the unthinkable
We're so used to hearing about rampant health problems among Canada's Métis, Inuit and North American Indians; as well as corrupt Aboriginal band councils, that we rarely hear about the genuine good news stories. The Toronto Star has one of those today, talking about the the Gwitchin of Old Crow, Yukon.
About the only time we hear about Old Crow is during the Yukon Assembly elections every four years, and a district with so few people that elections for the area's MLA are often decided by a vote or two. Yet this remarkable town of 300 people on the Beaufort Sea and closer to Alaska than to most other towns in the Yukon has one of the healthiest native populations in the country, students who actually graduate high school, and not one reported suicide in the last ten years. (Compare that to Northern Ontario with a suicide rate 40 times higher.) What makes the difference? Well, for one thing, they've been somewhat luckier than others -- their natural food habitat is still mostly intact. But the more important thing is they have real self-government, one that actually works; something which appears to be true of other native tribes in the Klondike as well. Government is kept small, and is run by consensus.
I've taken a look at the Yukon model the last few years (which includes, among other things, a share of income tax revenues), and while I've wondered at times how well it would work in other parts of the country, I'm now convinced more than ever that Indian Affairs should move aggressively to implement it on a national basis. However, I also think many if not most band councils in Canada would never agree to it. Nepotism and klepotcracy are unfortunate consequences of even the limited powers they have under the current Indian Act, leaving so many natives impoverished; and unless there is a strong tradition of democracy within a community, there are inevitably battles between those who support a more open process versus a traditional form of government where one's position is based on birth rather than merit. (Not that the clan mothers or traditional chiefs at Six Nations, for instance, are bad; but as someone asked not too long ago, who picks the clan mothers or traditional chiefs? And with an elected band council competing for loyalties, who's really in charge?)
And given the rate at which DIAND settles land claims, does anyone think they're going to give up their powers? Ha! Especially with Stephen Harper in power.
Still, it's a ray of light in what others see as general darkness. The specifics may have to be worked out for each tribe, but if Old Crow can do it maybe the rest of Canada could follow their example. Including non-natives in their governance models, who prefer confrontation and partisanship over conciliation and partnership.
UPDATE (12:49 PM EST, 1749 GMT): Fixing a bad link.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
About the only time we hear about Old Crow is during the Yukon Assembly elections every four years, and a district with so few people that elections for the area's MLA are often decided by a vote or two. Yet this remarkable town of 300 people on the Beaufort Sea and closer to Alaska than to most other towns in the Yukon has one of the healthiest native populations in the country, students who actually graduate high school, and not one reported suicide in the last ten years. (Compare that to Northern Ontario with a suicide rate 40 times higher.) What makes the difference? Well, for one thing, they've been somewhat luckier than others -- their natural food habitat is still mostly intact. But the more important thing is they have real self-government, one that actually works; something which appears to be true of other native tribes in the Klondike as well. Government is kept small, and is run by consensus.
I've taken a look at the Yukon model the last few years (which includes, among other things, a share of income tax revenues), and while I've wondered at times how well it would work in other parts of the country, I'm now convinced more than ever that Indian Affairs should move aggressively to implement it on a national basis. However, I also think many if not most band councils in Canada would never agree to it. Nepotism and klepotcracy are unfortunate consequences of even the limited powers they have under the current Indian Act, leaving so many natives impoverished; and unless there is a strong tradition of democracy within a community, there are inevitably battles between those who support a more open process versus a traditional form of government where one's position is based on birth rather than merit. (Not that the clan mothers or traditional chiefs at Six Nations, for instance, are bad; but as someone asked not too long ago, who picks the clan mothers or traditional chiefs? And with an elected band council competing for loyalties, who's really in charge?)
And given the rate at which DIAND settles land claims, does anyone think they're going to give up their powers? Ha! Especially with Stephen Harper in power.
Still, it's a ray of light in what others see as general darkness. The specifics may have to be worked out for each tribe, but if Old Crow can do it maybe the rest of Canada could follow their example. Including non-natives in their governance models, who prefer confrontation and partisanship over conciliation and partnership.
UPDATE (12:49 PM EST, 1749 GMT): Fixing a bad link.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, December 1, 2006
US Gov't Agency: Voting machines can be rigged
Want more proof computerized voting terminals can't be trusted? Well then, how about this apple: The National Institute of Science and Technology, an agency of the US Government, says they can't be trusted. It's now recommending what critics of the US election process have for a long time: Scan sheets, plus a printout of each ballot so the voter can verify his or her selections were properly registered.
The problem is the smart card that is supposed to register all the votes then is retrieved and uploaded into another computer so they can be tallied. Without proper security, anyone can actually preload it to ensure the voting machine operators' favourite choice, not the people's choice, is selected. This is done simply by giving one candidate "X" number of negative votes and another the same number of "positive" votes and no one knows the better because it all balances out to zero.
Don't believe it? Click here to see the HBO documentary that Diebold Election Systems wanted banned.
The earliest the NIST recommendations (which are entirely voluntary) could be adopted is 2009, which just happens to be one year after the next Presidential election. Hmmm ....
The real problem aren't just the voting machines. It's that elections in the States are run by each jurisdiction's Secretary of State, a partisan official and who actively campaigns for his or her party. In nearly every other democracy around the world, the job is handled by an arms-length and non-partisan commission -- which takes its job so seriously that the person who runs it is actually often banned from voting at all. I know, morals are out of the NIST's jurisdiction, but it's something that ought to be considered too before the US way of voting really falls into disrepute.
The fact that this year's mid-terms and the 2004 Presidential election had to be monitored by officials from the body that administers the Helsinki Accord should be nothing short of an embarrassment for the United States. This is the kind of thng we expect for new and emerging democracies, not a country who's operated with the same essentially democratic system of government for 219 years.
What could be more essential in a free country than the right to choose one's representatives and to do it to ensure that the privileged has the same voice as the indigent? At least someone in the US Government has finally figured that one out.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
The problem is the smart card that is supposed to register all the votes then is retrieved and uploaded into another computer so they can be tallied. Without proper security, anyone can actually preload it to ensure the voting machine operators' favourite choice, not the people's choice, is selected. This is done simply by giving one candidate "X" number of negative votes and another the same number of "positive" votes and no one knows the better because it all balances out to zero.
Don't believe it? Click here to see the HBO documentary that Diebold Election Systems wanted banned.
The earliest the NIST recommendations (which are entirely voluntary) could be adopted is 2009, which just happens to be one year after the next Presidential election. Hmmm ....
The real problem aren't just the voting machines. It's that elections in the States are run by each jurisdiction's Secretary of State, a partisan official and who actively campaigns for his or her party. In nearly every other democracy around the world, the job is handled by an arms-length and non-partisan commission -- which takes its job so seriously that the person who runs it is actually often banned from voting at all. I know, morals are out of the NIST's jurisdiction, but it's something that ought to be considered too before the US way of voting really falls into disrepute.
The fact that this year's mid-terms and the 2004 Presidential election had to be monitored by officials from the body that administers the Helsinki Accord should be nothing short of an embarrassment for the United States. This is the kind of thng we expect for new and emerging democracies, not a country who's operated with the same essentially democratic system of government for 219 years.
What could be more essential in a free country than the right to choose one's representatives and to do it to ensure that the privileged has the same voice as the indigent? At least someone in the US Government has finally figured that one out.
Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)