So the United Nations has passed a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. Guess which four countries -- the only four -- voted against? Why, the four countries with the worst records against native people, naturally -- Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand.
Why is that? Let's speculate. All four countries run by small c-conservative regimes (except New Zealand, although Helen Clark does have a coalition with some right-wing parties). Many of the land claims happen to cover government areas where there just happens to be oil or natural gas, or precious commodities like gold or diamonds.
Hmmmm ....
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Just desserts for Mark Bell
The NHL Players Association, like other sports league unions, were founded on a couple of fair principles -- that the players were human beings and not cattle, and they deserved to have a share of the gate, TV revenues and merchandising. But over the years, they've taken on a life of their own. And while they may come off as vociferously opposed to what the teams stand for come the time to negotiate the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), they have actually demonstrated a propensity to collude with the teams on many issues.
Not only do they ferociously defend their now obscene salaries -- which rank with the A-list music and movie stars (a 40:1 ratio compared to the average salary of the working person, compared to, say, 7:1 even 30 years ago), they also oppose two principles: Breaking up the cartels that the North American leagues are in favour of a system of promotion and relegation (instead, weak individual players are "sent down" and strong players from the minors "called up"); and making sure players are subject to the same rules and regulation the rest of us must abide by.
In the real world, for example, Todd Bertuzzi would have been charged with attempted murder for his unwarranted attack against Steve Moore back in February 2004. Instead, he was allowed to plead down to the ridiculously minor charge of assault causing bodily harm -- and got probation plus no rap sheet.
In most of the sporting world, getting caught doping results in a mandatory two-year suspension, in all sports, on a first offence. And that does mean all sports, including contract bridge and Texas-Hold-'Em Poker. Not in North America. Baseball, for instance, only calls for a 20-game suspension -- three weeks. Big hairy deal.
Maybe things are finally starting to turn around. League head offices are starting to smarten up, and for a change are enforcing the morals clause in the CBAs. Sadly, not the players' unions not the teams; who continue to believe players should be in a league of their own. Yesterday, for example, Mark Bell of the Toronto Maple Leafs was suspended for 15 games following word he pleaded nolo contendre to drunk driving. The NHL Players claim the suspension is excessive. So do the Leafs, who pointed out that Dany Heatley killed a fellow teammate while driving and didn't do a single day in jail. Oh yeah. Heatley wasn't drunk.
Is it excessive? Frankly, I think it's not enough. He should be benched concurrent with his jail sentence of six months -- the judge ruled Bell doesn't have to serve it until the end of the season; but I think he should serve it now even if it runs over the winter season of ice hockey. None of the rest of us get deferrals when we cited with a moving violation -- let alone one that merits the purview of the Penal Code.
I hope this is the sign of things to come. It's time players started acting like human beings like the rest of us, and were held to the same standards as the rest of us. It's time teams and unions also took the stand that if their players will not conform to the norms of humanity, they will be kicked out of the fraternity (or sorority, as the case may be) and lose their pensions.
Yeah, yeah, I know, OJ ... but at least he was put on trial for the murders. Many of us would have plead guilty even if we knew Mark Fuhrman had been leading the investigation. Players choosing to commit crimes consciously, like the rest of us who do decide to break the law, should be held accountable -- even if a jury finds them not guilty, the public dressing down is often enough because even presuming innocence, we often hear about other skeletons which make them even more unsavoury characters.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Not only do they ferociously defend their now obscene salaries -- which rank with the A-list music and movie stars (a 40:1 ratio compared to the average salary of the working person, compared to, say, 7:1 even 30 years ago), they also oppose two principles: Breaking up the cartels that the North American leagues are in favour of a system of promotion and relegation (instead, weak individual players are "sent down" and strong players from the minors "called up"); and making sure players are subject to the same rules and regulation the rest of us must abide by.
In the real world, for example, Todd Bertuzzi would have been charged with attempted murder for his unwarranted attack against Steve Moore back in February 2004. Instead, he was allowed to plead down to the ridiculously minor charge of assault causing bodily harm -- and got probation plus no rap sheet.
In most of the sporting world, getting caught doping results in a mandatory two-year suspension, in all sports, on a first offence. And that does mean all sports, including contract bridge and Texas-Hold-'Em Poker. Not in North America. Baseball, for instance, only calls for a 20-game suspension -- three weeks. Big hairy deal.
Maybe things are finally starting to turn around. League head offices are starting to smarten up, and for a change are enforcing the morals clause in the CBAs. Sadly, not the players' unions not the teams; who continue to believe players should be in a league of their own. Yesterday, for example, Mark Bell of the Toronto Maple Leafs was suspended for 15 games following word he pleaded nolo contendre to drunk driving. The NHL Players claim the suspension is excessive. So do the Leafs, who pointed out that Dany Heatley killed a fellow teammate while driving and didn't do a single day in jail. Oh yeah. Heatley wasn't drunk.
Is it excessive? Frankly, I think it's not enough. He should be benched concurrent with his jail sentence of six months -- the judge ruled Bell doesn't have to serve it until the end of the season; but I think he should serve it now even if it runs over the winter season of ice hockey. None of the rest of us get deferrals when we cited with a moving violation -- let alone one that merits the purview of the Penal Code.
I hope this is the sign of things to come. It's time players started acting like human beings like the rest of us, and were held to the same standards as the rest of us. It's time teams and unions also took the stand that if their players will not conform to the norms of humanity, they will be kicked out of the fraternity (or sorority, as the case may be) and lose their pensions.
Yeah, yeah, I know, OJ ... but at least he was put on trial for the murders. Many of us would have plead guilty even if we knew Mark Fuhrman had been leading the investigation. Players choosing to commit crimes consciously, like the rest of us who do decide to break the law, should be held accountable -- even if a jury finds them not guilty, the public dressing down is often enough because even presuming innocence, we often hear about other skeletons which make them even more unsavoury characters.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Come to Fiji! We're up to our eyeballs in debt!
The next time you see one of those infomercials asking to "sponsor" a Third World child, ask whether it's money being well spent or whether the NGOs are getting shaken down by the countries in which they operate.
Radio Australia reports that Fiji, already one of the most indebted countries on the planet, is going even further into debt by $500 million US, thanks to a loan from the Asia Bank -- an agency of the US Government -- with help from Merrill Lynch. This comes just a week after martial law was reimposed in the country and the European Union is considering whether to suspend its aid. One analyst says the loan will increase Fiji's debt-to-GDP ratio to about 70% -- from 50% -- overnight. (By comparison, Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio was 39.2% at the end of FY 2006 -- the 2007 numbers aren't finalized yet but it's probably even lower than that rate now. The US is at 64.7% and climbing.)
Like many others, I think it's unfair to burden a country and its people with unnecessary debt. This is true whether it's in the developed or developing worlds. But I am also against the idea of loaning out money to a country with no reasonable prospect of repayment or if the money is just going to go down the drain into cronyism and other forms of corruption rather than reaching the people it's intended to go to.
With the state of emergency, one must not even speak of such questions in Fiji. We need to ask those questions here. If APEC is actually serious about having a Pacific wide free trade zone, we need to be asking questions about the propriety of dealing with thugs -- especially thugs who have no intention of paying any loans back.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Radio Australia reports that Fiji, already one of the most indebted countries on the planet, is going even further into debt by $500 million US, thanks to a loan from the Asia Bank -- an agency of the US Government -- with help from Merrill Lynch. This comes just a week after martial law was reimposed in the country and the European Union is considering whether to suspend its aid. One analyst says the loan will increase Fiji's debt-to-GDP ratio to about 70% -- from 50% -- overnight. (By comparison, Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio was 39.2% at the end of FY 2006 -- the 2007 numbers aren't finalized yet but it's probably even lower than that rate now. The US is at 64.7% and climbing.)
Like many others, I think it's unfair to burden a country and its people with unnecessary debt. This is true whether it's in the developed or developing worlds. But I am also against the idea of loaning out money to a country with no reasonable prospect of repayment or if the money is just going to go down the drain into cronyism and other forms of corruption rather than reaching the people it's intended to go to.
With the state of emergency, one must not even speak of such questions in Fiji. We need to ask those questions here. If APEC is actually serious about having a Pacific wide free trade zone, we need to be asking questions about the propriety of dealing with thugs -- especially thugs who have no intention of paying any loans back.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Ontario 2007: Day One
The election campaign officially got underway in Ontario today; and while I will be keeping an eye on the national and world scenes, a fair chunk of my entries the next few weeks will be focused on both the hustings as well as the referendum on MMP.
Here's what to watch for from where I stand:
Dalton McGuinty (Liberal): The incumbent has run a fairly competent government over the last four years, but a lot of people haven't forgiven him for breaking his promise not to raise taxes -- there is that health tax we pay on our income tax returns at the end of the year. There are two big issues I see from his campaign in order for him to win. First is where he's going to go on the issue of long-term care; a very big issue because the first stream of the baby boom will start collecting Old Age Security in 2011, the fourth year of the next mandate. The enhanced kids' benefit will go a long way to give kids a head start, but the older generation is the real time-bomb. The second is the issue of who does what and pays for it. There are some pretty ambitious transit projects coming on stream, but a lot of cities are struggling just to keep up the buses and trains right now. Not to mention welfare costs -- pooling has ended in the GTA which means Toronto could get really hammered unless the province takes it back.
John Tory (PC): The guy who became infamous for authoring the "Funny Face" ads that ridiculed Jean Chrétien and later ran the CFL is in a fight for his reputation. His stumbles so far on the education issue haven't helped. But another big problem is that he's tried to move the party back to the centre, somewhere near where Bill Davis was during the 70s and early 80s. That's sure to alienate the right-wingers who still think Mike Harris is the greatest invention since sliced bread. Tory should have no trouble in rural Ontario, but the key is the suburbs. Unless he can take at least a dozen from Dalton and early, he's going to have a long night on October 10.
Howard Hampton (NDP): Four years ago, he ran a brilliant campaign around the theme of "Public Power" but he got stonewalled by the battle between McGuinty and Ernie Eves. This is Hampton's third go as his party's nominee for Premier. Realistically, this could be his last election, too. He has some good ideas, like public dental care ... but unless he's able to hold the balance of power, the NDP will be looking for a new leader. He needs a hook and he needs to put it out front and early.
My early prediction, based on the signs right now:
Liberals 55
Conservatives 38
NDP 14
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Here's what to watch for from where I stand:
Dalton McGuinty (Liberal): The incumbent has run a fairly competent government over the last four years, but a lot of people haven't forgiven him for breaking his promise not to raise taxes -- there is that health tax we pay on our income tax returns at the end of the year. There are two big issues I see from his campaign in order for him to win. First is where he's going to go on the issue of long-term care; a very big issue because the first stream of the baby boom will start collecting Old Age Security in 2011, the fourth year of the next mandate. The enhanced kids' benefit will go a long way to give kids a head start, but the older generation is the real time-bomb. The second is the issue of who does what and pays for it. There are some pretty ambitious transit projects coming on stream, but a lot of cities are struggling just to keep up the buses and trains right now. Not to mention welfare costs -- pooling has ended in the GTA which means Toronto could get really hammered unless the province takes it back.
John Tory (PC): The guy who became infamous for authoring the "Funny Face" ads that ridiculed Jean Chrétien and later ran the CFL is in a fight for his reputation. His stumbles so far on the education issue haven't helped. But another big problem is that he's tried to move the party back to the centre, somewhere near where Bill Davis was during the 70s and early 80s. That's sure to alienate the right-wingers who still think Mike Harris is the greatest invention since sliced bread. Tory should have no trouble in rural Ontario, but the key is the suburbs. Unless he can take at least a dozen from Dalton and early, he's going to have a long night on October 10.
Howard Hampton (NDP): Four years ago, he ran a brilliant campaign around the theme of "Public Power" but he got stonewalled by the battle between McGuinty and Ernie Eves. This is Hampton's third go as his party's nominee for Premier. Realistically, this could be his last election, too. He has some good ideas, like public dental care ... but unless he's able to hold the balance of power, the NDP will be looking for a new leader. He needs a hook and he needs to put it out front and early.
My early prediction, based on the signs right now:
Liberals 55
Conservatives 38
NDP 14
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
E! Or should it be Ewwwwwwwwwwww!
It's been announced for months, but over the weekend, quietly, the "CH" channels in Hamilton, Victoria, Montréal, Red Deer, Kelowna and Kamloops quietly turned into E! As in E!-Entertainment, the US cable outlet that set the standard for celebrity -- no, what's the right word here -- b.s. info.
It's not information. It's tripe.
It may be true that Global (which got away with creating a second network without trying) has licenced the E! name; and the US operation will have no say in its running, although it has agreed to run some Canadian shows worldwide. But the station that started independent television in Hamilton was the risk taker -- being the first to air The Godfather I in the 70s, the Tyson-Tucker fight in the 80s, and originated such classic shows as Hillarious House of Frightenstein, Party Game and The Red Green Show (in its early seasons). And yes, it also aired the treachly Tiny Talent Time as well as WWF wrestling and the endearing country music and comedy show Hee Haw.
And if Ken Soble, who helped co-found that channel -- CHCH -- could rise from his grave, he'd gladly wring the neck out of the Asper brothers. This is a complete and utter disgrace.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
It's not information. It's tripe.
It may be true that Global (which got away with creating a second network without trying) has licenced the E! name; and the US operation will have no say in its running, although it has agreed to run some Canadian shows worldwide. But the station that started independent television in Hamilton was the risk taker -- being the first to air The Godfather I in the 70s, the Tyson-Tucker fight in the 80s, and originated such classic shows as Hillarious House of Frightenstein, Party Game and The Red Green Show (in its early seasons). And yes, it also aired the treachly Tiny Talent Time as well as WWF wrestling and the endearing country music and comedy show Hee Haw.
And if Ken Soble, who helped co-found that channel -- CHCH -- could rise from his grave, he'd gladly wring the neck out of the Asper brothers. This is a complete and utter disgrace.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
The Man in the Mirror
Not that I like Michael Jackson, but he was absolutely right: We have to look at the man in the mirror, and Brian Mulroney just doesn't want to do that.
He says Lucien Bouchard stabbed him in the back. I think it's fairer to say that it was Mulroney who was playing games. He had no business getting into an alliance with the independence movement in Québec, yet that's exactly what he did in an attempt to address the province's aspirations in the Constitution. Many of the amendments proposed by the Meech Lake Accord were unnecessary, or could have been proposed line-item rather than as a package deal (e.g. the amendments dealing with immigration were quite fair, after all immigration is a shared responsibility between Canada and the provinces).
When it was clear the deal was in trouble, Mulroney waited until the last possible moment to get a First Ministers' meeting together -- knowing that it would be torpedoed in Manitoba and in Newfoundland. Mulroney can't deny the simple fact he said he "rolled the dice" with the Constitution. The Constitution is the country's basic law. One doesn't just "roll the dice" with it.
As for his bad-mouthing Trudeau -- frankly I think Pierre was a self-indulgent and egotistical tripe. But he honestly did what he thought was right by Canada; and Mulroney must have thought as much as well. In most other democracies, Presidents and Prime Ministers may well criticize each other and openly but they never make it personal. Not Canada, for some reason.
And seriously -- if Trudeau was still alive, you think they'd sit at the same table that judges the "Next Great Canadian Prime Minister" contest? NO.
The only reason Mulroney showed up at Trudeau's funeral, I believe, was not out of respect for a man who shared the same office he once did or as a fellow attorney. I think it's because it would have been outright disrespectful not to show up at all.
It's easy to criticize the faults of others, but not easy to admit one's own shortcomings. The latter is something both men had in common. The former ... well, even Trudeau knew when to draw the line.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
He says Lucien Bouchard stabbed him in the back. I think it's fairer to say that it was Mulroney who was playing games. He had no business getting into an alliance with the independence movement in Québec, yet that's exactly what he did in an attempt to address the province's aspirations in the Constitution. Many of the amendments proposed by the Meech Lake Accord were unnecessary, or could have been proposed line-item rather than as a package deal (e.g. the amendments dealing with immigration were quite fair, after all immigration is a shared responsibility between Canada and the provinces).
When it was clear the deal was in trouble, Mulroney waited until the last possible moment to get a First Ministers' meeting together -- knowing that it would be torpedoed in Manitoba and in Newfoundland. Mulroney can't deny the simple fact he said he "rolled the dice" with the Constitution. The Constitution is the country's basic law. One doesn't just "roll the dice" with it.
As for his bad-mouthing Trudeau -- frankly I think Pierre was a self-indulgent and egotistical tripe. But he honestly did what he thought was right by Canada; and Mulroney must have thought as much as well. In most other democracies, Presidents and Prime Ministers may well criticize each other and openly but they never make it personal. Not Canada, for some reason.
And seriously -- if Trudeau was still alive, you think they'd sit at the same table that judges the "Next Great Canadian Prime Minister" contest? NO.
The only reason Mulroney showed up at Trudeau's funeral, I believe, was not out of respect for a man who shared the same office he once did or as a fellow attorney. I think it's because it would have been outright disrespectful not to show up at all.
It's easy to criticize the faults of others, but not easy to admit one's own shortcomings. The latter is something both men had in common. The former ... well, even Trudeau knew when to draw the line.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Osama the cry-baby
Why do we even give this guy a platform? He's just a schoolyard bully when it all comes down to it. A dangerous one, but that's all he is. Someone crying out for attention. Like other bullies, he should be ignored.
By the way, message to AQ -- you can forget about converting us. At least you won't me, Osama. You'll have to kill me and even in the afterlife I'll denounce you to the end of time and beyond.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
By the way, message to AQ -- you can forget about converting us. At least you won't me, Osama. You'll have to kill me and even in the afterlife I'll denounce you to the end of time and beyond.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Let's not make the MMP vote personal
With 34 days to go before the election and referendum in Ontario, I have a suggestion.
I think it's to be expected the politicans are going to sling it out, rake the muck, do anything to demean each other. But on the referendum, where mixed member proportional and first past the post are on the ballot (not in that order!), I think we should try to put forward our points and where need be agree to disagree; but there's no reason for things to get personal. That's for the politicians to do.
This is about the form of democracy we should take -- and I think when it comes to something that amounts to an amendment to the province's constitution we need to think clearly and logically. Sure we're going to be passionate about it; but let's not let passion overtake reason.
Some of my fellow ProgBlogs (including some fellow federal Liberals), as well as some other bloggers, have taken a position contrary to what I and most of my colleagues have and that's fine. I pledge not to hold that against them, no matter the outcome.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
I think it's to be expected the politicans are going to sling it out, rake the muck, do anything to demean each other. But on the referendum, where mixed member proportional and first past the post are on the ballot (not in that order!), I think we should try to put forward our points and where need be agree to disagree; but there's no reason for things to get personal. That's for the politicians to do.
This is about the form of democracy we should take -- and I think when it comes to something that amounts to an amendment to the province's constitution we need to think clearly and logically. Sure we're going to be passionate about it; but let's not let passion overtake reason.
Some of my fellow ProgBlogs (including some fellow federal Liberals), as well as some other bloggers, have taken a position contrary to what I and most of my colleagues have and that's fine. I pledge not to hold that against them, no matter the outcome.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
In memoriam: Luciano Pavarotti
It's a truly sad morning as the sun rises here this morning as I write these words, with the news that Luciano Pavarotti has died. Even those in rap and hip-hop have surely heard of the greatest tenor since Enrico Caruso.
Pavarotti had what Caruso didn't, radio and television -- and it was those media, as well as his numerous performances at the Metropolitan Opera and La Scala, among others, that brought the man to superstardom.
Those of us in the younger generations will, of course, remember him as part of the Three Tenors supergroup -- the others being José Carerras and Plácido Domingo. Domingo said last night that the three often forgot they were performing before a paying audience because they had so much fun.
That pretty much hits the point. Those guys, all of them, made opera fun again and certainly more accessible -- no less than Dame Kiri Te Kanawa and the late Beverly Sills did on the female side.
So, I bow my head in respect this morning. Arrivederci.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Pavarotti had what Caruso didn't, radio and television -- and it was those media, as well as his numerous performances at the Metropolitan Opera and La Scala, among others, that brought the man to superstardom.
Those of us in the younger generations will, of course, remember him as part of the Three Tenors supergroup -- the others being José Carerras and Plácido Domingo. Domingo said last night that the three often forgot they were performing before a paying audience because they had so much fun.
That pretty much hits the point. Those guys, all of them, made opera fun again and certainly more accessible -- no less than Dame Kiri Te Kanawa and the late Beverly Sills did on the female side.
So, I bow my head in respect this morning. Arrivederci.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
A promise Tory can't keep
Earlier in the year, I wrote a post expressing my support for the idea of funding religious schools -- all of them, not just Catholic -- though not necessarily in the format that John Tory is proposing.
But if Tory was hoping to win over the religious right like Reagan and Dubya did in the States, he gave them a really big brush-off today when he said that any school that attempts to teach "creation science" or "intelligent design" as fact will lose their funding. Teaching about a religious point of view is only permitted in religion classes, according to the Department of Education.
Which is fine as far as it goes -- I went to a Catholic school where I had no choice but to take at least one religion class each year (for credit) and it wasn't a bird course either. Besides, I learned that the Catholic Church doesn't oppose the idea of evolution; its position is that God is needed to explain the human soul but that people should be allowed to reason, and evolution (or the theory of it) isn't necessarily in conflict with the Biblical story of creation. God is, after all, the creator of both the physical and the spiritual worlds. But people shouldn't be condemned because they honestly believe the world was created in just six days, either -- provided they have come to that through reason and not coercion.
The problem is that this promise that Tory made today is the kind of promise Tory simply can't keep. If the religious right wants its way, it will have its way and it will do it with votes -- and funding. Many would rather stay home than vote for the "infidel" parties. So if a vocal minority wants to impose their will on the majority, they will. And to hell with the common curriculum.
So, not that they were probably going to get my vote anyway, but Tory lost it for the Tories today -- at least from me.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
But if Tory was hoping to win over the religious right like Reagan and Dubya did in the States, he gave them a really big brush-off today when he said that any school that attempts to teach "creation science" or "intelligent design" as fact will lose their funding. Teaching about a religious point of view is only permitted in religion classes, according to the Department of Education.
Which is fine as far as it goes -- I went to a Catholic school where I had no choice but to take at least one religion class each year (for credit) and it wasn't a bird course either. Besides, I learned that the Catholic Church doesn't oppose the idea of evolution; its position is that God is needed to explain the human soul but that people should be allowed to reason, and evolution (or the theory of it) isn't necessarily in conflict with the Biblical story of creation. God is, after all, the creator of both the physical and the spiritual worlds. But people shouldn't be condemned because they honestly believe the world was created in just six days, either -- provided they have come to that through reason and not coercion.
The problem is that this promise that Tory made today is the kind of promise Tory simply can't keep. If the religious right wants its way, it will have its way and it will do it with votes -- and funding. Many would rather stay home than vote for the "infidel" parties. So if a vocal minority wants to impose their will on the majority, they will. And to hell with the common curriculum.
So, not that they were probably going to get my vote anyway, but Tory lost it for the Tories today -- at least from me.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Steve Fossett missing
Whatever you may think of Steve Fossett, he's the kind of guy anyone would admire for just having the guts to do what he's done so far. Let's hope this is not the end for him.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Classic Clip: Picnic Panic
It's Labour Day in Canada and the United States. In honour of the occasion I'm taking a break from blogging (unless something really big happens); so for your entertainment: This one from the Garfield cartoon series.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
When a church isn't one? When it's run by Tom Monaghan
HT to AveWatch: Things just seem to go from bad to worse for Ave Maria University. Its law school in open revolt, with a majority of its graduates demanding the reinstatement of some recently dismissed law professors apparently let go for no other reason than Tom Monaghan hates them because they don't fit into his view of "Catholicism" (and most conservative Catholics would, I think, readily disavow this conservative's brand). Monaghan actually called these profs "academic terrorists."
But it gets better -- much better. The Diocese of Venice, Florida -- which includes the dictatorial town of Ave Maria, outside of Naples (one of only two in the state, the other being the district that includes Disneyworld) has ruled the "oratory" at the University is not a church. In fact, the university isn't even Catholic. You read that right. It's not allowed to perform any sacraments other than reconciliation or communion on its campus. It's not even allowed to call itself a Catholic university without approval, but does anyway.
Monaghan has waited three years for this sanction but it's still being withheld in part because even priests -- who tend to be more conservative than the laity -- are scared by just how far to the right the man is. (For example, Monaghan is anti-union; interesting to note, however, that in that other "dictatorship" town the employees of you-know-where are represented by the Teamsters.)
And now, controversy over something much more serious: What started as an altercation in a parking lot and probably just a misunderstanding has now led to charges of sexual harassment (i.e. a pat on the arm was, it is alleged, escalated into sexual touching). And the guy doing the firing is the same guy who couldn't explain how child pornography wound up on the university's mainframe (the best he could come up with was a non-employee hacked into the system, who just happened to be a Catholic priest). This last one really irks me because, although I don't know what happened, sexual harassment is a very serious charge and it needs to be investigated rather than just accepted at face value.
If I ever have kids, I'm going to tell them to stay away -- as far away as they can -- from AMU. Georgetown, Notre Dame, Gonzaga -- those are the real Catholic Universities. Maybe I'm hoping they might want to get married on campus; at least I'd like to know the wedding was sanctioned by the Church, which ain't gonna happen in "Ave Maria Town."
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
But it gets better -- much better. The Diocese of Venice, Florida -- which includes the dictatorial town of Ave Maria, outside of Naples (one of only two in the state, the other being the district that includes Disneyworld) has ruled the "oratory" at the University is not a church. In fact, the university isn't even Catholic. You read that right. It's not allowed to perform any sacraments other than reconciliation or communion on its campus. It's not even allowed to call itself a Catholic university without approval, but does anyway.
Monaghan has waited three years for this sanction but it's still being withheld in part because even priests -- who tend to be more conservative than the laity -- are scared by just how far to the right the man is. (For example, Monaghan is anti-union; interesting to note, however, that in that other "dictatorship" town the employees of you-know-where are represented by the Teamsters.)
And now, controversy over something much more serious: What started as an altercation in a parking lot and probably just a misunderstanding has now led to charges of sexual harassment (i.e. a pat on the arm was, it is alleged, escalated into sexual touching). And the guy doing the firing is the same guy who couldn't explain how child pornography wound up on the university's mainframe (the best he could come up with was a non-employee hacked into the system, who just happened to be a Catholic priest). This last one really irks me because, although I don't know what happened, sexual harassment is a very serious charge and it needs to be investigated rather than just accepted at face value.
If I ever have kids, I'm going to tell them to stay away -- as far away as they can -- from AMU. Georgetown, Notre Dame, Gonzaga -- those are the real Catholic Universities. Maybe I'm hoping they might want to get married on campus; at least I'd like to know the wedding was sanctioned by the Church, which ain't gonna happen in "Ave Maria Town."
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Elections Ontario trying to rig the MMP vote
HT to Scott Tribe:
The supposedly non-partisan agency that runs provincial elections in Ontario is trying to do everything they can to make sure the referendum on MMP is defeated. That's because the ballot on October 10th isn't a straight yes or no question. It's whether people support first past the post or mixed member proportional. (The website they've set up is even more ambiguous in trying to explain things.)
So let's put it in layperson's terms: If you support the current system that ensures a one man (or woman) dictatorship for four years, vote FPTP. If you think it's time we joined the civilized world and have legislatures that actually represent the popular vote, vote MMP.
I hope you vote for the latter -- and tell EO to f*** off, too.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
The supposedly non-partisan agency that runs provincial elections in Ontario is trying to do everything they can to make sure the referendum on MMP is defeated. That's because the ballot on October 10th isn't a straight yes or no question. It's whether people support first past the post or mixed member proportional. (The website they've set up is even more ambiguous in trying to explain things.)
So let's put it in layperson's terms: If you support the current system that ensures a one man (or woman) dictatorship for four years, vote FPTP. If you think it's time we joined the civilized world and have legislatures that actually represent the popular vote, vote MMP.
I hope you vote for the latter -- and tell EO to f*** off, too.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Craig out!
When it comes to gays and lesbians, my attitude has mostly been that of Seinfeld -- "not that there's anything wrong with it." As I've noted on this blog previously, I do oppose gay marriage (though not civil unions) but also think the issue has been settled in Canada and we should just get on with it. I also support the right of social conservatives to raise their points as to why they think homosexuality is wrong.
What I do oppose, strenuously, is hypocrisy. I stand against public officials who oppose abortion but help themselves or other female relatives to access one. The same goes for vices such as gambling, smoking, gambling, and adult entertainment -- they say no for everyone else except themselves.
Hence, Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-ID). Earlier this year, the gentleman (and I use that term a bit skeptically) was arrested for soliciting sex in a Minneapolis restroom from another man who turned out to be a cop. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanour earlier this week but quickly said it was a mistake just to make things go away and insisted he was not gay. That might work, except NBC News pointed out earlier this week he was asked the same question about his sexual orientation when he was a Representative -- 25 years ago. His response was something to the effect of, "I'm not going to dignify that question."
Well, needless to say, the pressure for Craig to resign came this week not from Democrats (who stand to gain from this, they have a tenuous one seat majority in the Senate right now) but Republicans; and the GOP's facing tough races next year in quite a few of the 22 they have to defend. Ronald Reagan's adage "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican" went out the window as Mitch McConnell (KY), John Ensign (NV) and John McCain (AZ) all said it was time for Craig to get the hell out of DC.
Craig was also dumped as Mitt Romney's campaign manager. Today, Craig is expected to resign.
I find it so interesting that Republicans continue to speak of traditional values, yet they're the ones who are the most under investigation. By my count, only one Democrat at the federal level is facing indictment; Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA), the guy who just happened to have $75,000 in his home freezer.
Bill Clinton wasn't impeached for doing Monica Lewinsky, it was being not truthful about it. Anyone who can't admit to having tendencies like those Craig has while rooting for the other side doesn't deserve to be in public office. Being openly gay and supporting gay rights -- I can be persuaded to vote for such a candidate. Opposing the gay lifestyle while hiding in the closest -- sorry. I don't like public outings, but Craig deserved it bigtime.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
What I do oppose, strenuously, is hypocrisy. I stand against public officials who oppose abortion but help themselves or other female relatives to access one. The same goes for vices such as gambling, smoking, gambling, and adult entertainment -- they say no for everyone else except themselves.
Hence, Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-ID). Earlier this year, the gentleman (and I use that term a bit skeptically) was arrested for soliciting sex in a Minneapolis restroom from another man who turned out to be a cop. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanour earlier this week but quickly said it was a mistake just to make things go away and insisted he was not gay. That might work, except NBC News pointed out earlier this week he was asked the same question about his sexual orientation when he was a Representative -- 25 years ago. His response was something to the effect of, "I'm not going to dignify that question."
Well, needless to say, the pressure for Craig to resign came this week not from Democrats (who stand to gain from this, they have a tenuous one seat majority in the Senate right now) but Republicans; and the GOP's facing tough races next year in quite a few of the 22 they have to defend. Ronald Reagan's adage "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican" went out the window as Mitch McConnell (KY), John Ensign (NV) and John McCain (AZ) all said it was time for Craig to get the hell out of DC.
Craig was also dumped as Mitt Romney's campaign manager. Today, Craig is expected to resign.
I find it so interesting that Republicans continue to speak of traditional values, yet they're the ones who are the most under investigation. By my count, only one Democrat at the federal level is facing indictment; Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA), the guy who just happened to have $75,000 in his home freezer.
Bill Clinton wasn't impeached for doing Monica Lewinsky, it was being not truthful about it. Anyone who can't admit to having tendencies like those Craig has while rooting for the other side doesn't deserve to be in public office. Being openly gay and supporting gay rights -- I can be persuaded to vote for such a candidate. Opposing the gay lifestyle while hiding in the closest -- sorry. I don't like public outings, but Craig deserved it bigtime.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)