It's the smallest of the five North American Great Lakes and the fourteenth largest in the world. Lake Ontario, which provides drinking water for millions in Ontario and New York State and cooling fluid for the eons of businesses that have set up shop along both sides of the lake. Point of fact, Lake Ontario is just one of the two hundred fifty thousand lakes that are completely or partly in Ontario.
And yet we now learn of yet another element in the billion dollar boondoggle that is the G-8 / G-20 coming to Southern Ontario. A fake lake resembling one in the Muskoka region, set up just 500 metres from a real inland sea.
If someone actually manages to break into the red zone, like the Aussie comedy group Chaser's War on Everything did back at the 2007 APEC Summit in Sydney (a summit which cost $350 million and involved 21 countries and actually impelled Australia, the only democracy in the world without a constitutional bill of rights, to pass specific criminal laws just for the summit which of course proved unenforceable), then Harper and Co will look like real idiots.
But considering the fact that because of the relatively mild winter the Northeast had this year, Lake Ontario is nearly a metre below where it should be this time of year -- as measured by the NOAA, the official weather service in the States -- hoarding a huge amount water into what is a temporary tank is just plain irresponsible, especially when shippers have had to lighten their loads at considerable cost and that Toronto and other cities may well impose water restrictions over and above the "odd / even" rule (odd numbered houses can only water lawns and wash cars on odd days, even on even).
I've mentioned before in this space that out west the battle over water rights between mines and tar sands operations on one side, farmers and aboriginals on the other (normally rivals, but allies on this issue) has led to a saying, that "whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting." Drought is something that, unlike out West, is relatively rare in Ontario (about every 10-15 years) but is increasing as climate patterns change. We in the cities, especially close to big bodies of water, think it's impossible to have a drought but tell that to farmers just a few kilometres inland. You can't irrigate everything and when you can it's expensive to pipe water inland -- water rates tend to be double or even triple what we pay in the cities.
And when there are really bad forest fire seasons, and the winter we had is a portent that we'll have one this year, less water means it'll take longer to put out the fires and there'll be less trees to harvest by the forestry companies and their employees meaning more economic woes for the economically disparate North. Oh, right, they vote NDP so Harper figures, who gives a crap about them.
And it's not like, contrary to what the government claims, that a lot of media don't know what's "up North" and they need a replica. They damn well know what the Muskokas (north of Toronto) and the Kawarthas (to the east) are. They would because of their constant hounding of celebrities who spend their summers there, most notably Goldie Hawn and her common-law husband Kurt Russell.
In this day and age, I wonder at times if we even need summits anymore. We do have video-conferencing. Used to cost about $120 per minute per site but is now basically free thanks to the proliferation of broadband around the world. And environmentally friendly too -- no planes, no wasted food piles not destined for food banks, no photo ops.
Even when we do, is such a huge amount of money needed? Unlike the US, Canada does not have a law that prohibits posse comitatus. The principle that active and reserve military, air force and naval troops can double as law enforcement officers when needed is still very much alive here.
The troops at Base Borden near Barrie, an hour drive's north, as well at smaller bases in and around the GTA, could have been called up -- they would be working on their current salaries and with way less overhead. Law abiding people would feel safe, and when the meeting was over the troops would go back to base, no questions asked.
Something like that would cost, say, a few million. Not the billion we've already been asked to spend and which no doubt will be fifty to one hundred percent more when the final bill is tallied -- if Harper ever allows it to be tallied, that is.
And the Conservatives said they are fiscally responsible.
Hmm.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Monday, June 7, 2010
There are control freaks, and then there is ... PMS
Impolitical pretty much covers (and so I'll defer you to her) what I think of today's Canadian Press story about just how determined the Con government is to shape its message and how it's now gotten the non-partisan public service onside. I've heard of control freaks but PMS merits his own dictionary entry on the subject.
To be honest, some Liberal PMs like Trudeau and Chrétien were masterful at shaping their image -- but this move to making a proposal on how to set up a media encounter of any kind makes me ask why anyone would want to work for the public service when their job is to serve the public, not whatever denomination and /or political stripe of the incumbent PM happens to be in play. And what happened to the public servant whose job it was to provide non-partisan and honest advice to the executive and not being forced to shape the message with a pre-determined answer.
Even the British PMO doesn't have this much power -- several agencies are clearly out of Cabinet control and deliberately so.
Rather than have elections, let's call them what they've really become, which are presentations for who gets to be omnipotent and omnipresent dictator.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
To be honest, some Liberal PMs like Trudeau and Chrétien were masterful at shaping their image -- but this move to making a proposal on how to set up a media encounter of any kind makes me ask why anyone would want to work for the public service when their job is to serve the public, not whatever denomination and /or political stripe of the incumbent PM happens to be in play. And what happened to the public servant whose job it was to provide non-partisan and honest advice to the executive and not being forced to shape the message with a pre-determined answer.
Even the British PMO doesn't have this much power -- several agencies are clearly out of Cabinet control and deliberately so.
Rather than have elections, let's call them what they've really become, which are presentations for who gets to be omnipotent and omnipresent dictator.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
The real story behind the "professional allowance" debate
The whole thing about drug stores in Ontario crying foul over the province's proposal to end the professional allowances (i.e. kickbacks, there really is no other word for them other than payola) seems to revolve around the argument that services to patients -- um, customers -- will be hurt if the government doesn't come up with enough money to compensate for what will be lost, roughly $750 million per year. And the whole idea behind eliminating such allowances was to reduce consumer costs and especially for the government which pays a substantial portion of drugs used by seniors and those on social assistance.
The drug stores might have a prima facie argument except for a few things. For one, when the announcement was made by the province's health minister, Deb Matthews, the largest drug store chain by far in Canada responded by cutting back store hours. In seven stores. All in Matthews' London area district. Coincidence? If it was, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
For another drug stores here, like in the United States, do not resemble true health services sales outfits as they do overpriced supermarkets and beauty boutiques. Since the stores in Ontario have not been able to sell tobacco for years (except in "smoke shops" with a separate entrance) they've had to make do by peddling cosmetics. Nearly every such store I've been in lately forces the customer through the salon and a tabloid magazine rack before I can even get to the glorified convenience store -- let alone the actual pharmacy counter or the post office, either or both my usual destinations. I don't begrudge trying to make a buck, but what do most people go into a drug store for? Drugs, or to buy stamps or send a parcel. The most important units are in the least convenient locations. I don't care what they teach in marketing classes, but this is not smart marketing.
The huge profit margins they make from selling groceries and the like should more than make up for any perceived losses from losing the scratch my back money. And then some.
In defence of the stores, I do have to admit if the government's approach is an overkill reaction to some unscrupulous pharmacists -- a small minority from the whole of the profession -- who figured out how to sell some drugs several times over and bill the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan for such sales even though the drug was only sold once. If such is the case, then go after the druggists and the drug companies that facilitate what is blatant fraud and don't punish the whole class. The government sought legal action more than a year ago against the crooks and there's still no resolution from what I've been able to find from my web searches ... but in the same period, the allowances paid jumped from $680 million to $750 million. That's 10.3%, way above the inflation rate which had been flat or even negative during that time.
The pharmacists say they'd drop their campaign if the government was willing to cough up about $260 million, more than double what they're offering. The druggists also have suggested the dispensing fee, currently $6.11 ($2 for indigents) and which has been frozen there since 1999, should reflect the actual costs -- which they claim is currently around $11.25 and should be increased in future years to the rate of inflation. As a comparison, the current co-pay for prescriptions in England where there is universal coverage for all patients regardless of income is £7.20 (about CAD 10.96 at current rates -- the co-pay is lower or nil in the other UK countries).
I could accept that as long as there's a phase in period -- going from $6.11 to $11.25 in one swoop would be too much of a shock for too many.
But let's have some honesty on both sides for a change. The government should be truthful about why they're doing this and use their time to prosecute those who actually defraud the system. And it would be nice to see Ontario move towards a universal drug plan like British Columbia and Québec have -- the money from the premium we pay on our income taxes every year must be going somewhere so why not something as primary as the drugs we need?
From the drug stores' side, they need to be honest about what they've been doing to this point and where they are going forward. Don't unilaterally punish patients or blame the government for all their problems. And sell drugs and ancillary appliances as your primary business, not your sideline. As the British pharmacist told Michael Moore in SiCKO! he didn't spend years of training in chemistry just so he could be selling groceries. That means making the drug counter convenient to get to, not going through an increasingly annoying obstacle course.
In the end, everyone can benefit and businesses can still make a profit. But not at the expense of holding patients hostage. In general, I think the McGuinty government is right although their approach leans a bit towards using a sledge hammer to swat a fly.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
The drug stores might have a prima facie argument except for a few things. For one, when the announcement was made by the province's health minister, Deb Matthews, the largest drug store chain by far in Canada responded by cutting back store hours. In seven stores. All in Matthews' London area district. Coincidence? If it was, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
For another drug stores here, like in the United States, do not resemble true health services sales outfits as they do overpriced supermarkets and beauty boutiques. Since the stores in Ontario have not been able to sell tobacco for years (except in "smoke shops" with a separate entrance) they've had to make do by peddling cosmetics. Nearly every such store I've been in lately forces the customer through the salon and a tabloid magazine rack before I can even get to the glorified convenience store -- let alone the actual pharmacy counter or the post office, either or both my usual destinations. I don't begrudge trying to make a buck, but what do most people go into a drug store for? Drugs, or to buy stamps or send a parcel. The most important units are in the least convenient locations. I don't care what they teach in marketing classes, but this is not smart marketing.
The huge profit margins they make from selling groceries and the like should more than make up for any perceived losses from losing the scratch my back money. And then some.
In defence of the stores, I do have to admit if the government's approach is an overkill reaction to some unscrupulous pharmacists -- a small minority from the whole of the profession -- who figured out how to sell some drugs several times over and bill the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan for such sales even though the drug was only sold once. If such is the case, then go after the druggists and the drug companies that facilitate what is blatant fraud and don't punish the whole class. The government sought legal action more than a year ago against the crooks and there's still no resolution from what I've been able to find from my web searches ... but in the same period, the allowances paid jumped from $680 million to $750 million. That's 10.3%, way above the inflation rate which had been flat or even negative during that time.
The pharmacists say they'd drop their campaign if the government was willing to cough up about $260 million, more than double what they're offering. The druggists also have suggested the dispensing fee, currently $6.11 ($2 for indigents) and which has been frozen there since 1999, should reflect the actual costs -- which they claim is currently around $11.25 and should be increased in future years to the rate of inflation. As a comparison, the current co-pay for prescriptions in England where there is universal coverage for all patients regardless of income is £7.20 (about CAD 10.96 at current rates -- the co-pay is lower or nil in the other UK countries).
I could accept that as long as there's a phase in period -- going from $6.11 to $11.25 in one swoop would be too much of a shock for too many.
But let's have some honesty on both sides for a change. The government should be truthful about why they're doing this and use their time to prosecute those who actually defraud the system. And it would be nice to see Ontario move towards a universal drug plan like British Columbia and Québec have -- the money from the premium we pay on our income taxes every year must be going somewhere so why not something as primary as the drugs we need?
From the drug stores' side, they need to be honest about what they've been doing to this point and where they are going forward. Don't unilaterally punish patients or blame the government for all their problems. And sell drugs and ancillary appliances as your primary business, not your sideline. As the British pharmacist told Michael Moore in SiCKO! he didn't spend years of training in chemistry just so he could be selling groceries. That means making the drug counter convenient to get to, not going through an increasingly annoying obstacle course.
In the end, everyone can benefit and businesses can still make a profit. But not at the expense of holding patients hostage. In general, I think the McGuinty government is right although their approach leans a bit towards using a sledge hammer to swat a fly.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, June 4, 2010
So she didn't take a vow of poverty but ...
When I read this one this morning I thought ... she's getting how much for a pension? And she wants more?
Eleanor Clitheroe -- um, make that the Reverend Eleanor Clitheroe, for she's now an Anglican priest -- is in the Ontario Court of Appeal, claiming the provincial legislature violated her rights when it changed the conditions of pensions and other benefits for employees at the fairly new but quickly embattled Hydro One, Ontario's power transmission grid system. Claims she, she and other employees signed on to get credit for two or even three years of benefits for every one of service.
The difference? Well, the province concedes she's entitled to get over $25,600 per month. But Rev. Clitheroe says she should be getting roughly another $8000 per month. Keep in mind, the average Hydro One employee can expect a pension of about $33,000 per year. And the average pensioner in Canada gets about $14,000 per year.
Keep in mind, the average Anglican Church of Canada priest makes somewhere between 50k and 60k.
And when pension rules were originally drafted, the intent was that it would be retirement income. If someone on a pension got another job the pension would either be forfeited or otherwise deferred to prevent double dipping. Of course the rules proved unenforceable -- think for example the thousands of Air Force pilots who do their twenty years then head straight to the commercial airline industry and start collecting a salary while collecting a half or greater pension and getting all the health, mortgage and other entitlements a veteran not dishonourably discharged can get.
As far as double dipping in general for public officers -- I think that the rules were meant to ensure a public servant who later gets elected to Parliament or a legislature doesn't collect a pension while collecting the legislative salary to prevent the image of a conflict of interest. When someone leaves the private sector to go public or vice versa, as said in the last paragraph, it's far less certain.
So here's the deal: She collects $300k in pension over and above her current salary in a different job, and she wants that upped to around $400k give or take. Look, if the contract was changed without her consent, and even a legislative veto doesn't count here, then yeah, she's entitled to the money. But the image of a minister collecting a six digit income before his or her stipend and who isn't a televangelist is quite poor to say the least. Forget those who are on TV and preach a life of simplicity while they live high off the hog of their parishoners' contributions, tax free.
In this day and age a vow of poverty is quite unrealistic ... but many of us also remember the cloud under which Clitheroe left her Hydro One job some years ago, fair or not. To be honest, I remember attending the annual stockholder meeting at Dofasco before it was acquired by Luxembourg-based Arcelor Mittal and for some reason Clitheroe (who sat on Dofasco's board -- probably because the company was far and away the province's biggest power consumer) was giving off a negative vibe even though she didn't speak a word (far that I recall).
If she pledged that if she wins the difference it would be donated to charity it might help. But the idea of someone getting five times a salary as a pension and wanting even more ... it just doesn't seem right. Fact is, she could arrange things so she could be tax-free for the rest of her life, something most pensioners and most Canadians in general could never hope for.
I thought something was wrong when a former parish priest (Catholic) I was acquainted with drove around town in a Jaguar ™. Turns out it's not against the "rules." And yet we're expected to pray, pay and obey while they life high off the hog. In this case, the taxpayers.
Just seems to go against some basic principles of what should be fair ... but this wouldn't be the first. Some reporters go into the cleric life and double dip and no one seems to complain about that.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Eleanor Clitheroe -- um, make that the Reverend Eleanor Clitheroe, for she's now an Anglican priest -- is in the Ontario Court of Appeal, claiming the provincial legislature violated her rights when it changed the conditions of pensions and other benefits for employees at the fairly new but quickly embattled Hydro One, Ontario's power transmission grid system. Claims she, she and other employees signed on to get credit for two or even three years of benefits for every one of service.
The difference? Well, the province concedes she's entitled to get over $25,600 per month. But Rev. Clitheroe says she should be getting roughly another $8000 per month. Keep in mind, the average Hydro One employee can expect a pension of about $33,000 per year. And the average pensioner in Canada gets about $14,000 per year.
Keep in mind, the average Anglican Church of Canada priest makes somewhere between 50k and 60k.
And when pension rules were originally drafted, the intent was that it would be retirement income. If someone on a pension got another job the pension would either be forfeited or otherwise deferred to prevent double dipping. Of course the rules proved unenforceable -- think for example the thousands of Air Force pilots who do their twenty years then head straight to the commercial airline industry and start collecting a salary while collecting a half or greater pension and getting all the health, mortgage and other entitlements a veteran not dishonourably discharged can get.
As far as double dipping in general for public officers -- I think that the rules were meant to ensure a public servant who later gets elected to Parliament or a legislature doesn't collect a pension while collecting the legislative salary to prevent the image of a conflict of interest. When someone leaves the private sector to go public or vice versa, as said in the last paragraph, it's far less certain.
So here's the deal: She collects $300k in pension over and above her current salary in a different job, and she wants that upped to around $400k give or take. Look, if the contract was changed without her consent, and even a legislative veto doesn't count here, then yeah, she's entitled to the money. But the image of a minister collecting a six digit income before his or her stipend and who isn't a televangelist is quite poor to say the least. Forget those who are on TV and preach a life of simplicity while they live high off the hog of their parishoners' contributions, tax free.
In this day and age a vow of poverty is quite unrealistic ... but many of us also remember the cloud under which Clitheroe left her Hydro One job some years ago, fair or not. To be honest, I remember attending the annual stockholder meeting at Dofasco before it was acquired by Luxembourg-based Arcelor Mittal and for some reason Clitheroe (who sat on Dofasco's board -- probably because the company was far and away the province's biggest power consumer) was giving off a negative vibe even though she didn't speak a word (far that I recall).
If she pledged that if she wins the difference it would be donated to charity it might help. But the idea of someone getting five times a salary as a pension and wanting even more ... it just doesn't seem right. Fact is, she could arrange things so she could be tax-free for the rest of her life, something most pensioners and most Canadians in general could never hope for.
I thought something was wrong when a former parish priest (Catholic) I was acquainted with drove around town in a Jaguar ™. Turns out it's not against the "rules." And yet we're expected to pray, pay and obey while they life high off the hog. In this case, the taxpayers.
Just seems to go against some basic principles of what should be fair ... but this wouldn't be the first. Some reporters go into the cleric life and double dip and no one seems to complain about that.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
More about the military ... click, click
To follow up on my post the other day about the "scandal" hitting the Canadian military -- okay, I get it folks. Sexual harassment and preferential treatment are always big issues in any place of employ, certainly in a theatre of war. That being said, I listened yesterday to CBC Radio One's The Current with a bit of disgust about how far the armed services go to bury an all too common truth. Sex happens.
I think it was Scott Taylor, the editor of Esprit de Corps magazine and a technical consultant to the hit radio soap opera Afghanada which in part deals with battlefield "relations" who noted on the show that Canada had the highest rate of STD occurrences during the Korean War -- a matter of pride with those who fought at the time. But when the Canadian War Museum wanted to make note of this fact, there were protests from veterans' groups who said that this "besmirched" the reputation of those who fought, and the reference was removed -- another cave-in by the CWM which also sanitized references to Bomber Command and the possibility that the "dehousing" air raid campaign was far too excessive.
Another reporter -- Matthew LePlante of the Salt Lake Tribune -- said his reportage on Iraq got almost no comment until he got to the issue of battlefield sex -- and the Pentagon only then went ballistic and tried to censor him, without too much success of course.
Let's face it -- where there's the opportunity, men will leer at their female counterparts' "racks". Women will try to see if the bulge on the man they're targeting is larger than normal. And at mess halls, those of the opposite sex -- and even the same sex -- will try to sit as close as possible as the rules allow or can be possibly bent. It's human nature, and no military code of justice will stop that.
If this is a simple matter of friendly "relations" it's hard to see how it's going to get much traction among the court of opinion of civilians. It may be a crime under military law, certainly -- and courts martial operate with a much lesser burden of proof than civilian courts. If this was put forward as an administrative case in the "public service" no jury in the world would convict unless the sex was coerced or happened as an expectation of continued employment or promotion -- known as quid pro quo harassment. If that happened here, then there's no question in my mind -- the general should be turfed out of the forces all together.
It's where it creates a "hostile work environment" that it becomes less certain. In such cases where there is proof, of course, it should be dealt with just as firmly as a qpq. But the "reasonable person" standard -- that is, if a reasonable person looking inside would view it as harassment if it happened to him or her -- is extremely subjective. Especially so, I think, in the military court system where JAG is both prosecutor and judge.
The only other possibility I can think of is that the guy had an affair with someone other than his wife. Just plain stupidity -- and whatever consequences derive from that should be dealt with where it properly belongs, in family court. Just the image of an unfaithful starred officer should be enough to end his career.
Of course, we need to let the process take its course -- but civilian police are blabbermouths compared to the extremely secretive JAG. We need some more light on this. Open disclosure of the facts need not affect the General's right to a fair trial.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
I think it was Scott Taylor, the editor of Esprit de Corps magazine and a technical consultant to the hit radio soap opera Afghanada which in part deals with battlefield "relations" who noted on the show that Canada had the highest rate of STD occurrences during the Korean War -- a matter of pride with those who fought at the time. But when the Canadian War Museum wanted to make note of this fact, there were protests from veterans' groups who said that this "besmirched" the reputation of those who fought, and the reference was removed -- another cave-in by the CWM which also sanitized references to Bomber Command and the possibility that the "dehousing" air raid campaign was far too excessive.
Another reporter -- Matthew LePlante of the Salt Lake Tribune -- said his reportage on Iraq got almost no comment until he got to the issue of battlefield sex -- and the Pentagon only then went ballistic and tried to censor him, without too much success of course.
Let's face it -- where there's the opportunity, men will leer at their female counterparts' "racks". Women will try to see if the bulge on the man they're targeting is larger than normal. And at mess halls, those of the opposite sex -- and even the same sex -- will try to sit as close as possible as the rules allow or can be possibly bent. It's human nature, and no military code of justice will stop that.
If this is a simple matter of friendly "relations" it's hard to see how it's going to get much traction among the court of opinion of civilians. It may be a crime under military law, certainly -- and courts martial operate with a much lesser burden of proof than civilian courts. If this was put forward as an administrative case in the "public service" no jury in the world would convict unless the sex was coerced or happened as an expectation of continued employment or promotion -- known as quid pro quo harassment. If that happened here, then there's no question in my mind -- the general should be turfed out of the forces all together.
It's where it creates a "hostile work environment" that it becomes less certain. In such cases where there is proof, of course, it should be dealt with just as firmly as a qpq. But the "reasonable person" standard -- that is, if a reasonable person looking inside would view it as harassment if it happened to him or her -- is extremely subjective. Especially so, I think, in the military court system where JAG is both prosecutor and judge.
The only other possibility I can think of is that the guy had an affair with someone other than his wife. Just plain stupidity -- and whatever consequences derive from that should be dealt with where it properly belongs, in family court. Just the image of an unfaithful starred officer should be enough to end his career.
Of course, we need to let the process take its course -- but civilian police are blabbermouths compared to the extremely secretive JAG. We need some more light on this. Open disclosure of the facts need not affect the General's right to a fair trial.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Welcome to the 1990s
Really.
Finally, Southcentral Ontario is getting a smart card for the various local and inter-city transit systems -- called "Presto" (how imaginative). No more having to get multiple passes and tickets to go from one county to the next or on the GO. Thing is ... New York City has had a smart card system since -- wait for it -- 1994. Hong Kong (the Octopus), since 1997. London (the Oyster), since least 2004.
Why are we always the last to get these things? Okay, they're making upgrades to the train station in Hamilton's downtown and buses are slowly having the readers installed for the rollout this fall. But really ... why the wait?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Finally, Southcentral Ontario is getting a smart card for the various local and inter-city transit systems -- called "Presto" (how imaginative). No more having to get multiple passes and tickets to go from one county to the next or on the GO. Thing is ... New York City has had a smart card system since -- wait for it -- 1994. Hong Kong (the Octopus), since 1997. London (the Oyster), since least 2004.
Why are we always the last to get these things? Okay, they're making upgrades to the train station in Hamilton's downtown and buses are slowly having the readers installed for the rollout this fall. But really ... why the wait?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Is this the last we'll hear of Mulroney? Don't bet on it
Any shred of credibility Brian Mulroney had left went out the window yesterday with the release of the final report from Judge Jeffrey Oliphant. Namely, Mulroney broke his own ethics guidelines when he took at least $225,000 in $1000 bills from an arms dealer -- Karlheinz Schreiber, the said dealer and now doing eight years in a German jail for tax evasion, insists it was $300,000 -- but the worst part of it all is that Judge Oliphant had to admit there are no controls currently in place that would prevent a similar incident from occurring in the future. And we know the hot water at least two of Mulroney's successors got into afterwards.
I'll leave it to others to decide if Mulroney committed something more than what he called a lapse in judgment. But it only leads to more cynicism about the whole system and lower voter participation -- except by those driven to vote, which as it turns out is the current power base that Mulroney fought so hard against during his time in office. Remember, he was a Progressive Conservative and supported the welfare state that the religious right wants so much to dismantle.
I happen to think that if we had proportional representation, there might have been more checks in place to ensure that any MP and certainly a current or former Prime Minister would not have been able to do something like this. And even that aside, let's get real. If you were offered an envelope of M notes, wouldn't you ask questions? Was Mulroney's affairs so out of whack that he had to get himself into this mess? It's sad in a way -- likeable fellow, kind of guy you'd want to share a drink with (even though he doesn't drink) but this is the kind of thing you'd expect in a third world country.
Not a "clean" country like CA-NA-DA.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
I'll leave it to others to decide if Mulroney committed something more than what he called a lapse in judgment. But it only leads to more cynicism about the whole system and lower voter participation -- except by those driven to vote, which as it turns out is the current power base that Mulroney fought so hard against during his time in office. Remember, he was a Progressive Conservative and supported the welfare state that the religious right wants so much to dismantle.
I happen to think that if we had proportional representation, there might have been more checks in place to ensure that any MP and certainly a current or former Prime Minister would not have been able to do something like this. And even that aside, let's get real. If you were offered an envelope of M notes, wouldn't you ask questions? Was Mulroney's affairs so out of whack that he had to get himself into this mess? It's sad in a way -- likeable fellow, kind of guy you'd want to share a drink with (even though he doesn't drink) but this is the kind of thing you'd expect in a third world country.
Not a "clean" country like CA-NA-DA.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Monday, May 31, 2010
No fraternizing? Yeah, like that's going to happen!
Help me out here folks, but since when is having an affair with a fellow officer on the battlefield a crime? It's not like passions don't heat up in the flame of war, especially in a country where there are several factions who want to engage in femicide.
It's not clear whether Brig. Gen. Daniel Menard, scheduled to lead the NATO charge in and around Kandahar City this fall, was doing the nasty -- either with his wife (who is another officer under his command) or another female officer. But coming just weeks after he was fined $4000 for unlawful discharge of a firearm -- it doesn't look good.
Certainly we expect a higher standard of ethics from those men and women brave enough to wear the uniform. But isn't this just a bit unrealistic? Like, when was the last time a general or admiral went to the brig for having sex? Come on, there's more to this story than what we're being told. Another billion dollar boondoggle (Read: G-8 / G-20) the Harper Government doesn't want us to know about, perhaps?
Maybe someone who wears a uniform can explain why this would be detrimental to morale -- even if it was with wifey.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
It's not clear whether Brig. Gen. Daniel Menard, scheduled to lead the NATO charge in and around Kandahar City this fall, was doing the nasty -- either with his wife (who is another officer under his command) or another female officer. But coming just weeks after he was fined $4000 for unlawful discharge of a firearm -- it doesn't look good.
Certainly we expect a higher standard of ethics from those men and women brave enough to wear the uniform. But isn't this just a bit unrealistic? Like, when was the last time a general or admiral went to the brig for having sex? Come on, there's more to this story than what we're being told. Another billion dollar boondoggle (Read: G-8 / G-20) the Harper Government doesn't want us to know about, perhaps?
Maybe someone who wears a uniform can explain why this would be detrimental to morale -- even if it was with wifey.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Be very, very careful about drilling in the Beaufort Sea
News that Plan Number 17 (or whatever we're up to) to stop the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico may finally be starting to work is welcome but it's worth pointing out that this disaster, significant as it is and damaging to fisheries and tourism for quite some time to come, happened in a subtropical climate. Remember Sarah Palin and her "Drill Baby Drill" chant during the 2008 election? Looks pretty bad now, especially considering she was still in university (on a basketball varsity scholarship) when the 1989 Valdez disaster happened in her home state, when the Arctic winter was just ending.
This naturally brings up the issue of what to do with the vast reserves of oil and natural gas in the Beaufort Sea. We know that approval of the Mackenzie Pipeline, considered at least since the 1970s, is almost a given now that most of the land claims in the NWT have been settled. One potential hangup is the still undemaracted sea border between the Yukon and Alaska -- Canada claims it should continue due north from the land border along the West 141st Meridian while the States claims it should be up to the 200 mile limit of the western coast of the Arctic Islands.
But setting that aside the real problem is the fact the continental shelf in the Beaufort drops quite suddenly just a few knots off shore, and during the winter months it is pitch black. We know how hard it was to find the leak off Lousiana -- but at least there was some light on the way down. Imagine a blowout a mile down, in February, when it's 50 below.
Certainly we need to become less dependent on OPEC oil and gas -- we still import quite a bit from Venezuela. And the less dependent the territories become from Ottawa the better.
But if we are going to permit drilling in the final frontier, we'd better know what we are doing and make sure that disasters like the one down South are prosecuted stiffly, including the cleanup costs. Otherwise, the Great White North will become the Black and Blue North in no time flat.
I'm just worried about the rush to start drilling ... I realize it's been talked about for decades but would another year or two to make absolutely sure really hurt all that much?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
This naturally brings up the issue of what to do with the vast reserves of oil and natural gas in the Beaufort Sea. We know that approval of the Mackenzie Pipeline, considered at least since the 1970s, is almost a given now that most of the land claims in the NWT have been settled. One potential hangup is the still undemaracted sea border between the Yukon and Alaska -- Canada claims it should continue due north from the land border along the West 141st Meridian while the States claims it should be up to the 200 mile limit of the western coast of the Arctic Islands.
But setting that aside the real problem is the fact the continental shelf in the Beaufort drops quite suddenly just a few knots off shore, and during the winter months it is pitch black. We know how hard it was to find the leak off Lousiana -- but at least there was some light on the way down. Imagine a blowout a mile down, in February, when it's 50 below.
Certainly we need to become less dependent on OPEC oil and gas -- we still import quite a bit from Venezuela. And the less dependent the territories become from Ottawa the better.
But if we are going to permit drilling in the final frontier, we'd better know what we are doing and make sure that disasters like the one down South are prosecuted stiffly, including the cleanup costs. Otherwise, the Great White North will become the Black and Blue North in no time flat.
I'm just worried about the rush to start drilling ... I realize it's been talked about for decades but would another year or two to make absolutely sure really hurt all that much?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Harper and the "Mexico City Policy"
As much as abortion upsets me personally, as much as I think the issue should be debated (as Canada is one of the few countries with no law whatsoever), the approach being taken by Stephen Harper -- that he won't rock the boat here but none of our foreign aid money will be used for abortions in Third World countries, or even to promote the procedure -- is disingenuous at best and outright stupid at worst. Can he really expect us to think we can have it both ways? Are we going to have our own version of the "Mexico City Policy" after all?
In a idealistic world, no unmarried person would have sex voluntarily and no person would ever be subjected to sexual assault. But this isn't an ideal world and abortion, while I think it is evil, has to remain a necessary and legal evil. Consigning 70,000 women in other countries to death sentences while thousands, even tens of thousands, of women here can get therapeutic reproductive services without question is a double standard.
Whose advice Mr. Harper has been taking, and why is he so bound and determined to undermine Canada's reputation in the world -- first for the environment, and now on women's health?
For that matter, why have governments of all stripes have taken contradictory positions on all sorts of issues -- asbestos, seal pelts, overfishing? Why the whole us versus them mentality? Isn't this the same planet we all share?
I do think the Liberals really dropped the ball on this one weeks ago when it didn't know how to crack the whip and when. Then again, if we're going to be discussing the issue, let's have a proper debate in Parliament and not a decision made by executive order without giving MPs a chance to even review the draft regulations.
We've already lost face with the Palestinians (the peaceful ones, that is), now with poor women. What is Harper's next move? Oh, let's see ... banning women from the workplace. Then taking away their right to vote. That'll really go over well.
We want and should have faith based politicians, but that doesn't mean that should lead to faith based politics. Canada hasn't been a Dominion for decades and we don't need Dominionism (i.e. "Kingdom Now") for the present or the future.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
In a idealistic world, no unmarried person would have sex voluntarily and no person would ever be subjected to sexual assault. But this isn't an ideal world and abortion, while I think it is evil, has to remain a necessary and legal evil. Consigning 70,000 women in other countries to death sentences while thousands, even tens of thousands, of women here can get therapeutic reproductive services without question is a double standard.
Whose advice Mr. Harper has been taking, and why is he so bound and determined to undermine Canada's reputation in the world -- first for the environment, and now on women's health?
For that matter, why have governments of all stripes have taken contradictory positions on all sorts of issues -- asbestos, seal pelts, overfishing? Why the whole us versus them mentality? Isn't this the same planet we all share?
I do think the Liberals really dropped the ball on this one weeks ago when it didn't know how to crack the whip and when. Then again, if we're going to be discussing the issue, let's have a proper debate in Parliament and not a decision made by executive order without giving MPs a chance to even review the draft regulations.
We've already lost face with the Palestinians (the peaceful ones, that is), now with poor women. What is Harper's next move? Oh, let's see ... banning women from the workplace. Then taking away their right to vote. That'll really go over well.
We want and should have faith based politicians, but that doesn't mean that should lead to faith based politics. Canada hasn't been a Dominion for decades and we don't need Dominionism (i.e. "Kingdom Now") for the present or the future.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Open the books, residents of the Château on the Rideau
Maybe I was joking back in October when I suggested Canada needed an expenses row of our own. But the refusal of MPs from all parties to even consider the idea of an audit of personal and parliamentary expenses, rallying behind the supersecret committee called the Board of Internal Economy, is nuts. In fact, it does suggest there may be in fact a degree of inpropriety even if there hasn't been. So what's the big deal?
This is a simple one. MPs and Senators should be required to declare all conflicts of interest and to place any companies they own into blind trusts. They certainly have a zone of privacy regarding "the games people play" (ahem!) but they should have no right of privacy when it comes to their income taxes -- they and their spouses or partners should be required by law to disclose federal and provincial returns for all calendar years for which they served at public expense, even for just one day. And the Auditor General should have the right to do a forensic audit of Parliamentary expenses -- in fact you'd think they (Senators and MPs) would welcome being scrutinized to know we're getting value for money.
Come on, it's a $500 million operation. This is a drop in the bucket considering the executive branch spends $200 billion + every year. A little openness wouldn't hurt, would it?
About five percent of Canadians get audited every year for income taxes -- that's 400,000 out of, say, 20 million returns filed. Most are just requests for more receipts (in the age of e-filing, that's understandable) and maybe only a few thousand get the full "screwjob" audit the IRS is notorious for (where the personal audit rate can run to as high as 20% in some years). We're talking about only 308 MPs and 105 Senators. What's the freaking problem? Who polices the police?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
This is a simple one. MPs and Senators should be required to declare all conflicts of interest and to place any companies they own into blind trusts. They certainly have a zone of privacy regarding "the games people play" (ahem!) but they should have no right of privacy when it comes to their income taxes -- they and their spouses or partners should be required by law to disclose federal and provincial returns for all calendar years for which they served at public expense, even for just one day. And the Auditor General should have the right to do a forensic audit of Parliamentary expenses -- in fact you'd think they (Senators and MPs) would welcome being scrutinized to know we're getting value for money.
Come on, it's a $500 million operation. This is a drop in the bucket considering the executive branch spends $200 billion + every year. A little openness wouldn't hurt, would it?
About five percent of Canadians get audited every year for income taxes -- that's 400,000 out of, say, 20 million returns filed. Most are just requests for more receipts (in the age of e-filing, that's understandable) and maybe only a few thousand get the full "screwjob" audit the IRS is notorious for (where the personal audit rate can run to as high as 20% in some years). We're talking about only 308 MPs and 105 Senators. What's the freaking problem? Who polices the police?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Adultery can pay -- sometimes
When I read this story the other day, I thought at first the woman was nuts -- you heard about this, I'm sure: A woman, who had a cell phone account under her maiden name, is now suing Rogers for contributing to the breakup of her marriage because when her husband bundled cable and Internet the company apparently also included the cell account and he discovered the affair by reviewing the combined bill and noticing three one hour calls -- which obviously weren't business related. The woman claims after her husband left her, her job performance sank to the point she was fired -- from a job that paid over $100k a year. The affair, it should be pointed out, was short-lived.
The damages she is seeking: $600,000.
Obviously, I don't condone adultery, except under one condition -- that the one cheating is a victim of his or her partner's serial abuse or drug use. Neither was the case here, far as I know. However, there is the issue of consent -- no one asked her if she wanted the cell phone included in the account, apparently it seems either her husband or Rogers did this unilaterally.
So, I think she has a case. Everyone has a right to privacy, and as far as I know adultery is not a criminal offence in Canada. But $600,000? A bit high under the common law. I'd award maybe half that. Too bad she's not in Québec -- she might have cleaned up under the Civil Code (though I could be wrong -- any civil litigators in La Belle who can clarify what damages she might be entitled to?).
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
The damages she is seeking: $600,000.
Obviously, I don't condone adultery, except under one condition -- that the one cheating is a victim of his or her partner's serial abuse or drug use. Neither was the case here, far as I know. However, there is the issue of consent -- no one asked her if she wanted the cell phone included in the account, apparently it seems either her husband or Rogers did this unilaterally.
So, I think she has a case. Everyone has a right to privacy, and as far as I know adultery is not a criminal offence in Canada. But $600,000? A bit high under the common law. I'd award maybe half that. Too bad she's not in Québec -- she might have cleaned up under the Civil Code (though I could be wrong -- any civil litigators in La Belle who can clarify what damages she might be entitled to?).
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Double standard in cartoons? (And the Tea Partiers, too)
Over the last few years, some of the most familiar cartoon characters have had makeovers. In particular, three female characters stand out. No one seemed bothered when Strawberry Shortcake ™ and Holly Hobbie ™, created by Muriel Fahrion and the real Hobbie respectively, got worked up to look like sassy and sexy teenagers. But a few months back, when Dora "The Explorer" Marquez ™ got a similar do-over, people flipped out. In fact, some people I know are still calling New Dora a "slut". Really.
Bit of racism, perhaps? It's okay for a white teenager to look sexy but not a Hispanic? What is wrong with parents these days? Must be the same gang that started the whole Tea Party movement in the States. Anti-immigrant, wants a Berlin Wall along the Mexican border, wants priests and ministers to check the ids of every congregant in the communion line. Guess it's the new crime down there -- DWH. Driving While Hispanic.
So ... how was your day.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Bit of racism, perhaps? It's okay for a white teenager to look sexy but not a Hispanic? What is wrong with parents these days? Must be the same gang that started the whole Tea Party movement in the States. Anti-immigrant, wants a Berlin Wall along the Mexican border, wants priests and ministers to check the ids of every congregant in the communion line. Guess it's the new crime down there -- DWH. Driving While Hispanic.
So ... how was your day.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Who cares about a new stadium anyway?
You know that when a city or region gets a major sporting event there will always be a way to screw things up. So it is with Toronto and the Pan-Am Games coming in 2015. Hamilton is supposed to host track and field, swimming and cycling. The track field is also supposed to be converted into a football stadium which would be the new home of the Ti-Cats to replace the decrepit Ivor Wynne. Hence the ongoing war of words between the team's current owner Bob Young and the city managers. Young claims the west end site currently being proposed -- a former air conditioning factory, next to a rail marshaling yard and near a major city park -- doesn't have nearly enough parking and even if public transit could be figured into the mix he'd still lose about $9 million a year.
Oh to have so much money that one could complain about losing so little an amount.
But here's the hilarious part. Of the alternate sites -- a few on the Escarpment, one near Confederation Park (where the campground is being decommissioned), these are also dissatisfactory to Young. So what did he suggest? The "Hamilton part" of Aldershot.
For those of you not familiar with Southern Ontario, Aldershot is the western part of Burlington, with the sole exception of a cemetery (Woodlawn) that is, since the closing of an arterial road last year that was turned into a pedestrian walkway, an exclave of Hamilton. The rest is pretty much filled in with a lot of the brown fields being turned into residential space, along with clearly designated greenbelt space and other cemeteries (Jewish and Catholic, mostly).
True, many homes in Aldershot have Hamilton phone numbers (I know this from my time working at the pizza call centre) but this goes back to the days when Burlington was a bedroom community of Hamilton and not Toronto as it is nowadays.
Time is running out. Already, the velodrome (cycling track) may be relocated to a sports park in Dundas and that raises its own problems as part of the park is on a closed landfill. If we don't get our act together, the organizing committee in Toronto may just decide Hamilton isn't worth it -- in which case all we'd be left with is bocci (and yes, there are bocci courts ready to go).
I am all too familiar with the white elephant syndrome.
But if we're looking for legacy facilities, we need to make a decision soon -- figure out what will become of the sports stadiums long after the games. It's been years since we've had an outdoor stadium concert -- why aren't we taking that into consideration? (Concerts have been banned at Ivor Wynne for more than three decades -- most of us remember the 1975 fiasco when Pink Floyd used up their remaining fireworks for the North American tour and wound up completely destroying the scoreboard and smashing the windows of houses blocks away, the 1979 Rush concert wasn't so much better. There was a lot of hope when Faith Hill and Tim McGraw wanted to do a show there but they backed off once they heard about the Floyd incident.)
Or demanding the province fast-track the LRT lines which would resolve a lot of the issues Young has brought up?
Oh, there's one other thing to consider -- many of the major sports showcased at the Pan-Am Games also have their world championships in odd numbered years and also act as qualifiers for the Summer Olympics the following year -- in this case the 2016 extravaganza in Rio de Janiero. Most of the A-list stars pass on the Pan-Ams to prepare for their worlds which means we'll be getting mostly the B-teams -- the university athletes not good enough to be world class. That's also something to keep in mind.
And in the long run, will people remember there even were the Pan-Ams here? Can you remember which city hosted in 1987? Quickly -- it was Indianapolis. What was the main event at the 1999 games in Winnipeg? A reunion of The Guess Who. Sure, it'd be nice to see Gordon Lightfoot perform "Canadian Railroad Trilogy" one last time -- when he's 77 (and hopefully still alive -- remember the death hoax back in February?). But most of us will see it on TV anyway.
If Hamilton loses its chance, it will be because the people that matter were too stupid to work something out. But let's not forget it wasn't until 2006 that taxpayers in Montréal finally paid off the Big Owe. Sydney and Beijing have barely used facilities left over. And the worst case -- Greece is paying a huge price right now for a whole bunch of fiascoes -- the 2004 Athens Olympics being just one of them. In the end, because the Government of Ontario is contractually bound to cover any losses, we'll lose no matter what.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Oh to have so much money that one could complain about losing so little an amount.
But here's the hilarious part. Of the alternate sites -- a few on the Escarpment, one near Confederation Park (where the campground is being decommissioned), these are also dissatisfactory to Young. So what did he suggest? The "Hamilton part" of Aldershot.
For those of you not familiar with Southern Ontario, Aldershot is the western part of Burlington, with the sole exception of a cemetery (Woodlawn) that is, since the closing of an arterial road last year that was turned into a pedestrian walkway, an exclave of Hamilton. The rest is pretty much filled in with a lot of the brown fields being turned into residential space, along with clearly designated greenbelt space and other cemeteries (Jewish and Catholic, mostly).
True, many homes in Aldershot have Hamilton phone numbers (I know this from my time working at the pizza call centre) but this goes back to the days when Burlington was a bedroom community of Hamilton and not Toronto as it is nowadays.
Time is running out. Already, the velodrome (cycling track) may be relocated to a sports park in Dundas and that raises its own problems as part of the park is on a closed landfill. If we don't get our act together, the organizing committee in Toronto may just decide Hamilton isn't worth it -- in which case all we'd be left with is bocci (and yes, there are bocci courts ready to go).
I am all too familiar with the white elephant syndrome.
But if we're looking for legacy facilities, we need to make a decision soon -- figure out what will become of the sports stadiums long after the games. It's been years since we've had an outdoor stadium concert -- why aren't we taking that into consideration? (Concerts have been banned at Ivor Wynne for more than three decades -- most of us remember the 1975 fiasco when Pink Floyd used up their remaining fireworks for the North American tour and wound up completely destroying the scoreboard and smashing the windows of houses blocks away, the 1979 Rush concert wasn't so much better. There was a lot of hope when Faith Hill and Tim McGraw wanted to do a show there but they backed off once they heard about the Floyd incident.)
Or demanding the province fast-track the LRT lines which would resolve a lot of the issues Young has brought up?
Oh, there's one other thing to consider -- many of the major sports showcased at the Pan-Am Games also have their world championships in odd numbered years and also act as qualifiers for the Summer Olympics the following year -- in this case the 2016 extravaganza in Rio de Janiero. Most of the A-list stars pass on the Pan-Ams to prepare for their worlds which means we'll be getting mostly the B-teams -- the university athletes not good enough to be world class. That's also something to keep in mind.
And in the long run, will people remember there even were the Pan-Ams here? Can you remember which city hosted in 1987? Quickly -- it was Indianapolis. What was the main event at the 1999 games in Winnipeg? A reunion of The Guess Who. Sure, it'd be nice to see Gordon Lightfoot perform "Canadian Railroad Trilogy" one last time -- when he's 77 (and hopefully still alive -- remember the death hoax back in February?). But most of us will see it on TV anyway.
If Hamilton loses its chance, it will be because the people that matter were too stupid to work something out. But let's not forget it wasn't until 2006 that taxpayers in Montréal finally paid off the Big Owe. Sydney and Beijing have barely used facilities left over. And the worst case -- Greece is paying a huge price right now for a whole bunch of fiascoes -- the 2004 Athens Olympics being just one of them. In the end, because the Government of Ontario is contractually bound to cover any losses, we'll lose no matter what.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Monday, May 3, 2010
What I am not
It's been a few weeks since my last post ... I almost made a comment last week about Gordon Brown's comment calling a constituent "bigoted" but there's no need: Elections aren't won but lost and he lost it with that one, his apology notwithstanding.
But I do need to make a few things absolutely clear today because of some ugly things I learned offhand from a "source" the last few days about some things that have been said about me.
Let me be clear: I am by no means perfect. In fact, I have done some pretty lousy things which have gotten me into a heap of trouble and for which I am prepared to take full responsibility.
But amongst the most outrageous things, I categorically deny. So let's set the record straight. I am straight, not homosexual or bisexual (not that there's anything wrong with either). I most certainly am not a pedophile. I don't even know what it means to give off an "effeminate bearing" so I am not going to go there. I can be mean and put people off the wrong way at times, but the suggestion that I am evil or the devil incarnate or the Antichrist -- well, if that was the case, all the televangelists would have targeted me for assassination by now! (And it's not like there are already a whole bunch of candidates anyway already.)
I can't forgive myself for the wrongs I've done (although God can) but I won't apologize for the things I am not. I don't expect an apology either -- I just want to clear the air.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
But I do need to make a few things absolutely clear today because of some ugly things I learned offhand from a "source" the last few days about some things that have been said about me.
Let me be clear: I am by no means perfect. In fact, I have done some pretty lousy things which have gotten me into a heap of trouble and for which I am prepared to take full responsibility.
But amongst the most outrageous things, I categorically deny. So let's set the record straight. I am straight, not homosexual or bisexual (not that there's anything wrong with either). I most certainly am not a pedophile. I don't even know what it means to give off an "effeminate bearing" so I am not going to go there. I can be mean and put people off the wrong way at times, but the suggestion that I am evil or the devil incarnate or the Antichrist -- well, if that was the case, all the televangelists would have targeted me for assassination by now! (And it's not like there are already a whole bunch of candidates anyway already.)
I can't forgive myself for the wrongs I've done (although God can) but I won't apologize for the things I am not. I don't expect an apology either -- I just want to clear the air.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)