Security analyist Peter Bergen has a very good op-ed piece in today's Washington Post, about the resurgence of the Taliban and the tough time NATO has had in regaining the upper hand. He points out there is a definitive link between the rise of the opium trade and increased attacks. Further, as we've come to know all too well, a lot of donations to "charities" wind up in the pockets of the terrorists. Bergen refers to a raid of a Taliban "safe house" where about $900 K US of cash was found -- enough to feed a terrorist insurgency by a small band for months.
The Taliban has eseentially one motto: No surrender. Thus, the battle to win the hearts and minds of ordinary people, which is an uphill battle to begin with. There's also a need to redevelop the country's infrastructure, much more than in Iraq; but as Bergen points out, more than five times have been spent in Iraq so far than what has been pledged for Afghanistan, and only a portion of that money has come through so far. About the only major public works project of significance so far built in Iraq since the Taliban were deposed in 2001, that I'm aware of, was the long shelved highway between Kabul and Kandahar, which the West built in a matter of months. In a country where many can't even afford to ride the bus, it's going to take a lot more than that.
It doesn't take an expert like Bergen to point out what we in the blogosphere have said for months -- the Taliban must be destroyed, and the only way to do that is to kill the opium trade and to demand Pakistan plug the holes in the porous border region. Time is running out, and Afghanistan could surely become a failed state as much as Iraq has. We can't let both fall, because then Iran will really become the region's superpower.
In that light, NATO's call for another 5000 troops is really lowballing it on top of the 18,000 already there. To get the job done right, I think they're going to need another fifty thousand. The Bush Administration is not about to redirect a third of its enforcements in Iraq to another country ... and given the lack of goodwill there already is, as well as the mounting casualties, I'm not sure too many other countries are about to line up either. However, I say this is one case where we must do whatever it takes.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
An uphill battle in Afghanistan, says expert
Security analyist Peter Bergen has a very good op-ed piece in today's Washington Post, about the resurgence of the Taliban and the tough time NATO has had in regaining the upper hand. He points out there is a definitive link between the rise of the opium trade and increased attacks. Further, as we've come to know all too well, a lot of donations to "charities" wind up in the pockets of the terrorists. Bergen refers to a raid of a Taliban "safe house" where about $900 K US of cash was found -- enough to feed a terrorist insurgency by a small band for months.
The Taliban has eseentially one motto: No surrender. Thus, the battle to win the hearts and minds of ordinary people, which is an uphill battle to begin with. There's also a need to redevelop the country's infrastructure, much more than in Iraq; but as Bergen points out, more than five times have been spent in Iraq so far than what has been pledged for Afghanistan, and only a portion of that money has come through so far. About the only major public works project of significance so far built in Iraq since the Taliban were deposed in 2001, that I'm aware of, was the long shelved highway between Kabul and Kandahar, which the West built in a matter of months. In a country where many can't even afford to ride the bus, it's going to take a lot more than that.
It doesn't take an expert like Bergen to point out what we in the blogosphere have said for months -- the Taliban must be destroyed, and the only way to do that is to kill the opium trade and to demand Pakistan plug the holes in the porous border region. Time is running out, and Afghanistan could surely become a failed state as much as Iraq has. We can't let both fall, because then Iran will really become the region's superpower.
In that light, NATO's call for another 5000 troops is really lowballing it on top of the 18,000 already there. To get the job done right, I think they're going to need another fifty thousand. The Bush Administration is not about to redirect a third of its enforcements in Iraq to another country ... and given the lack of goodwill there already is, as well as the mounting casualties, I'm not sure too many other countries are about to line up either. However, I say this is one case where we must do whatever it takes.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
The Taliban has eseentially one motto: No surrender. Thus, the battle to win the hearts and minds of ordinary people, which is an uphill battle to begin with. There's also a need to redevelop the country's infrastructure, much more than in Iraq; but as Bergen points out, more than five times have been spent in Iraq so far than what has been pledged for Afghanistan, and only a portion of that money has come through so far. About the only major public works project of significance so far built in Iraq since the Taliban were deposed in 2001, that I'm aware of, was the long shelved highway between Kabul and Kandahar, which the West built in a matter of months. In a country where many can't even afford to ride the bus, it's going to take a lot more than that.
It doesn't take an expert like Bergen to point out what we in the blogosphere have said for months -- the Taliban must be destroyed, and the only way to do that is to kill the opium trade and to demand Pakistan plug the holes in the porous border region. Time is running out, and Afghanistan could surely become a failed state as much as Iraq has. We can't let both fall, because then Iran will really become the region's superpower.
In that light, NATO's call for another 5000 troops is really lowballing it on top of the 18,000 already there. To get the job done right, I think they're going to need another fifty thousand. The Bush Administration is not about to redirect a third of its enforcements in Iraq to another country ... and given the lack of goodwill there already is, as well as the mounting casualties, I'm not sure too many other countries are about to line up either. However, I say this is one case where we must do whatever it takes.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Saturday, September 9, 2006
Hasta la vista, Arnie
Politicians seem to forgot sometimes that nothing -- absolutely nothing -- is truly "off the record." Arnold Schwarzenegger got into hot water the other day when he made some rather indelicate remarks about people from Cuba and Puerto Rico; the latter of which is, of course, part of the United States. Running in an election where his major challenger is a person of Hispanic origin (as well as the person in charge of California's budget process), not a very smart move.
He apologized almost as soon as the comments, caught on tape, were leaked to the LA Times. All well and good. But he has never apologized, nor does it appear he ever intends to, for his racist remarks against Arabs and Muslims; even if he performed them while playing fictional characters on the big screen. He can't have it both ways. Either he's the Governor of all of California, or Muslims are not part of his state. If he believes the latter, he doesn't deserve to serve in any political or civil office, even a local rate assessor or county extension agent.
Actually, even if he does disassociate himself from such remarks, he still doesn't deserve the job. After all, he was in bed with ENRON during the energy crisis; then used that as leverage to vault himself to office during the recall which was partly in part about the energy crisis. Which makes him a hypocrite. Like the Kennedy family he married into -- the pieces of shit.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
He apologized almost as soon as the comments, caught on tape, were leaked to the LA Times. All well and good. But he has never apologized, nor does it appear he ever intends to, for his racist remarks against Arabs and Muslims; even if he performed them while playing fictional characters on the big screen. He can't have it both ways. Either he's the Governor of all of California, or Muslims are not part of his state. If he believes the latter, he doesn't deserve to serve in any political or civil office, even a local rate assessor or county extension agent.
Actually, even if he does disassociate himself from such remarks, he still doesn't deserve the job. After all, he was in bed with ENRON during the energy crisis; then used that as leverage to vault himself to office during the recall which was partly in part about the energy crisis. Which makes him a hypocrite. Like the Kennedy family he married into -- the pieces of shit.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Hasta la vista, Arnie
Politicians seem to forgot sometimes that nothing -- absolutely nothing -- is truly "off the record." Arnold Schwarzenegger got into hot water the other day when he made some rather indelicate remarks about people from Cuba and Puerto Rico; the latter of which is, of course, part of the United States. Running in an election where his major challenger is a person of Hispanic origin (as well as the person in charge of California's budget process), not a very smart move.
He apologized almost as soon as the comments, caught on tape, were leaked to the LA Times. All well and good. But he has never apologized, nor does it appear he ever intends to, for his racist remarks against Arabs and Muslims; even if he performed them while playing fictional characters on the big screen. He can't have it both ways. Either he's the Governor of all of California, or Muslims are not part of his state. If he believes the latter, he doesn't deserve to serve in any political or civil office, even a local rate assessor or county extension agent.
Actually, even if he does disassociate himself from such remarks, he still doesn't deserve the job. After all, he was in bed with ENRON during the energy crisis; then used that as leverage to vault himself to office during the recall which was partly in part about the energy crisis. Which makes him a hypocrite. Like the Kennedy family he married into -- the pieces of shit.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
He apologized almost as soon as the comments, caught on tape, were leaked to the LA Times. All well and good. But he has never apologized, nor does it appear he ever intends to, for his racist remarks against Arabs and Muslims; even if he performed them while playing fictional characters on the big screen. He can't have it both ways. Either he's the Governor of all of California, or Muslims are not part of his state. If he believes the latter, he doesn't deserve to serve in any political or civil office, even a local rate assessor or county extension agent.
Actually, even if he does disassociate himself from such remarks, he still doesn't deserve the job. After all, he was in bed with ENRON during the energy crisis; then used that as leverage to vault himself to office during the recall which was partly in part about the energy crisis. Which makes him a hypocrite. Like the Kennedy family he married into -- the pieces of shit.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Friday, September 8, 2006
Don't the Chinese call it interfering in their internal affairs?
I've said on a number of occasions here that I oppose gay marriage; and that I have a great deal of difficulty with abortion, even though a number of my female colleagues have had the procedure. But as a Catholic, I also believe that we have the freedom to think and to make our own choices. It's in that vein that I wish sometimes Joe Ratzinger would just butt out. 43% of Canadians are Roman Catholic, myself included, and I sense the vast majority of us see themselves as Canadians, not pawns of the Vatican. If the Holy See had their way on everything, Québec would still be a facist theocracy and Catholics and Protestants would still walk on opposite sides of the street.
Let us figure out the tough moral issues in honest and focused debate. Our faith, and those of other Canadians, should always be a guide. But we must ask ourselves What Would Jesus Do -- and not worry about what other think on that question.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Let us figure out the tough moral issues in honest and focused debate. Our faith, and those of other Canadians, should always be a guide. But we must ask ourselves What Would Jesus Do -- and not worry about what other think on that question.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Joan Donaldson dead
Muckraking journalist Alexandra Kitty, who I happen to know personally, once joked that "no one likes the CBC unless they get a job there." But there are times when Canada's state broadcaster gets its act right and tells the story without spin -- they let the story, in fact, speak for itself. One of the people who did that best was Joan Donaldson. She did it so well that she was given the job of being the first person in charge of the CBC's 24 hour news channel, Newsworld.
Their rating stunk at first when it launched in June 1989. In fact, their morning show averaged only 6000 -- that's thousand -- viewers. Their format was also very hectic, with rotating news desks in Halifax, Toronto, Winnipeg and Calgary. But it was very positive in one way; it allowed Canadians to get local stories of interest that never made it on to The National. It took a while, but people actually liked watching local newscasts from other time zones.
The network really took off a month later when it decided to cover, wall to wall, a public inquiry into how the RCMP and the Manitoba government fucked up the investigation into the murder of Helen Osborne in The Pas; and why it took so long to bring just two of the four suspects to trial (the other two got immunity in exchange for their testimony). Canadians were riveted when the man convicted in the affair, Dwayne Johnson, refused to take an oath to tell the truth -- flat out refused to testify period. Newsworld had found its niche, and was subtitled "The Inquiry Network" because it had the ability to do that, and cover other news events extensively.
Donaldson was in her stride. Unfortunately, her peak wasn't to last. Barely six months later, she was hit by a bicycle in front of Maison de Radio Canada in Montréal, presumably to give advice to the CBC's French network on how to start up their own news net (which they eventually did in 1995, RDI). While she was able to talk again, eventually, she was left a quadripelegic for life. She died last night at the age of sixty.
Some of the reporters at the CBC, and at other MSM outlets, still have the kind of integrity Joan had. Most don't, and that's a shame.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Their rating stunk at first when it launched in June 1989. In fact, their morning show averaged only 6000 -- that's thousand -- viewers. Their format was also very hectic, with rotating news desks in Halifax, Toronto, Winnipeg and Calgary. But it was very positive in one way; it allowed Canadians to get local stories of interest that never made it on to The National. It took a while, but people actually liked watching local newscasts from other time zones.
The network really took off a month later when it decided to cover, wall to wall, a public inquiry into how the RCMP and the Manitoba government fucked up the investigation into the murder of Helen Osborne in The Pas; and why it took so long to bring just two of the four suspects to trial (the other two got immunity in exchange for their testimony). Canadians were riveted when the man convicted in the affair, Dwayne Johnson, refused to take an oath to tell the truth -- flat out refused to testify period. Newsworld had found its niche, and was subtitled "The Inquiry Network" because it had the ability to do that, and cover other news events extensively.
Donaldson was in her stride. Unfortunately, her peak wasn't to last. Barely six months later, she was hit by a bicycle in front of Maison de Radio Canada in Montréal, presumably to give advice to the CBC's French network on how to start up their own news net (which they eventually did in 1995, RDI). While she was able to talk again, eventually, she was left a quadripelegic for life. She died last night at the age of sixty.
Some of the reporters at the CBC, and at other MSM outlets, still have the kind of integrity Joan had. Most don't, and that's a shame.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Joan Donaldson dead
Muckraking journalist Alexandra Kitty, who I happen to know personally, once joked that "no one likes the CBC unless they get a job there." But there are times when Canada's state broadcaster gets its act right and tells the story without spin -- they let the story, in fact, speak for itself. One of the people who did that best was Joan Donaldson. She did it so well that she was given the job of being the first person in charge of the CBC's 24 hour news channel, Newsworld.
Their rating stunk at first when it launched in June 1989. In fact, their morning show averaged only 6000 -- that's thousand -- viewers. Their format was also very hectic, with rotating news desks in Halifax, Toronto, Winnipeg and Calgary. But it was very positive in one way; it allowed Canadians to get local stories of interest that never made it on to The National. It took a while, but people actually liked watching local newscasts from other time zones.
The network really took off a month later when it decided to cover, wall to wall, a public inquiry into how the RCMP and the Manitoba government fucked up the investigation into the murder of Helen Osborne in The Pas; and why it took so long to bring just two of the four suspects to trial (the other two got immunity in exchange for their testimony). Canadians were riveted when the man convicted in the affair, Dwayne Johnson, refused to take an oath to tell the truth -- flat out refused to testify period. Newsworld had found its niche, and was subtitled "The Inquiry Network" because it had the ability to do that, and cover other news events extensively.
Donaldson was in her stride. Unfortunately, her peak wasn't to last. Barely six months later, she was hit by a bicycle in front of Maison de Radio Canada in Montréal, presumably to give advice to the CBC's French network on how to start up their own news net (which they eventually did in 1995, RDI). While she was able to talk again, eventually, she was left a quadripelegic for life. She died last night at the age of sixty.
Some of the reporters at the CBC, and at other MSM outlets, still have the kind of integrity Joan had. Most don't, and that's a shame.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Their rating stunk at first when it launched in June 1989. In fact, their morning show averaged only 6000 -- that's thousand -- viewers. Their format was also very hectic, with rotating news desks in Halifax, Toronto, Winnipeg and Calgary. But it was very positive in one way; it allowed Canadians to get local stories of interest that never made it on to The National. It took a while, but people actually liked watching local newscasts from other time zones.
The network really took off a month later when it decided to cover, wall to wall, a public inquiry into how the RCMP and the Manitoba government fucked up the investigation into the murder of Helen Osborne in The Pas; and why it took so long to bring just two of the four suspects to trial (the other two got immunity in exchange for their testimony). Canadians were riveted when the man convicted in the affair, Dwayne Johnson, refused to take an oath to tell the truth -- flat out refused to testify period. Newsworld had found its niche, and was subtitled "The Inquiry Network" because it had the ability to do that, and cover other news events extensively.
Donaldson was in her stride. Unfortunately, her peak wasn't to last. Barely six months later, she was hit by a bicycle in front of Maison de Radio Canada in Montréal, presumably to give advice to the CBC's French network on how to start up their own news net (which they eventually did in 1995, RDI). While she was able to talk again, eventually, she was left a quadripelegic for life. She died last night at the age of sixty.
Some of the reporters at the CBC, and at other MSM outlets, still have the kind of integrity Joan had. Most don't, and that's a shame.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Thursday, September 7, 2006
Why running a website may disqualify you from local politics
With local elections just around the corner in Ontario, people are starting to wake up to the fact that the terms of office are now four years and not just three. With Sponsorgate still in the minds of a lot of us, we too are looking for ethical candidates who play by the rules. Hence, Fred Eisenberger's challenge to Larry DiIanni for Mayor of Hamilton, who last month pleaded guilty to several counts of illegal fundraising in the last campaign. He got off with a small fine, which is peanuts compared to the maximum penalty which would have been expulsion from local offices for life.
Thank a pluckly little lady from the Dundas district named Joanna Chapman, who made a point of going through the financial records of each and every candidate for possible improprities. Although Chapman alleged fraud, in DiIanni's case, it was probably more of a case of improper procedure than anything else; but he did accept donations from a couple of cement companies with different names but which in fact are divisions of the same global corporation. Under the rules, they're counted as one company and may only donate once.
We need people like Chapman. But I wonder if this time someone has gone too far in their zeal to apply the "rules."
The City of Hamilton is now investigating Eisenberger for violating the rules right out of the gate. Eisenberger announced his candidacy yesterday, a Wednesday. However, it seems, his website was actually up on Tuesday. By law, a candidate cannot raise funds until he or she registers his or her nomination papers; nor it seems can they spend any money on the campaign either. If that's the case, Eisenberger could be disqualified from the ballot by the mere act of running a beta test on a dummy website to see if it was working before he had his press conference.
Does this actually mean one cannot register a website, say he or she is going to get a website, even do some surfing or calling an ISP to see how to set one up, without filing a candidacy first? If so, this gives a potential third party (who doesn't have to register at all) plenty of time to squat a preferred web address that winds up criticizing the original candidate.
It's a violation of freedom of expression. And the City of Hamilton should so rule. Let Eisenberger, DiIanni and perennial candidate (and pothead) Michael Baldasaro duke it out in cyberspace as they wish. A window of three to five days to get things started should be fair. Actually fundraising on a website before becoming a candidate should, of course, be illegal. Running a website itself should not be.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Thank a pluckly little lady from the Dundas district named Joanna Chapman, who made a point of going through the financial records of each and every candidate for possible improprities. Although Chapman alleged fraud, in DiIanni's case, it was probably more of a case of improper procedure than anything else; but he did accept donations from a couple of cement companies with different names but which in fact are divisions of the same global corporation. Under the rules, they're counted as one company and may only donate once.
We need people like Chapman. But I wonder if this time someone has gone too far in their zeal to apply the "rules."
The City of Hamilton is now investigating Eisenberger for violating the rules right out of the gate. Eisenberger announced his candidacy yesterday, a Wednesday. However, it seems, his website was actually up on Tuesday. By law, a candidate cannot raise funds until he or she registers his or her nomination papers; nor it seems can they spend any money on the campaign either. If that's the case, Eisenberger could be disqualified from the ballot by the mere act of running a beta test on a dummy website to see if it was working before he had his press conference.
Does this actually mean one cannot register a website, say he or she is going to get a website, even do some surfing or calling an ISP to see how to set one up, without filing a candidacy first? If so, this gives a potential third party (who doesn't have to register at all) plenty of time to squat a preferred web address that winds up criticizing the original candidate.
It's a violation of freedom of expression. And the City of Hamilton should so rule. Let Eisenberger, DiIanni and perennial candidate (and pothead) Michael Baldasaro duke it out in cyberspace as they wish. A window of three to five days to get things started should be fair. Actually fundraising on a website before becoming a candidate should, of course, be illegal. Running a website itself should not be.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Dumb criminal of the day (2006-09-07)
Once again, the authorities in the UK have proven that closed-circuit television (CCTV) works, without violating the civil liberties of law-abiding individuals. Only this time, they caught a really, really stupid person on the wrong side of the law.
A guy in Manchester, England, was scared out of his wits when a photo radar flashed as he drove by it. Sitting on a few demerit points already (or as they say in the UK, his licence was "endorsed") he feared a speeding ticket would lead to a suspension, which would mean he'd lose his job as a welder. So a few hours later he returned to the scene of the crime and destroyed the camera with thermite, one of the materials he uses on a daily basis.
In reality, the flash was a dud -- it only flashed to act as a warning to drivers. It was never meant to actually give out tickets. But it did have a CCTV camera inside of it that caught the guy destroying the "evidence." Police headquarters caught the whole thing on tape from a remote location. Yesterday, Craig Moore, 28, plea bargained out to wanton destruction of public property and agreed to a four month prison sentence.
Imagine, out of fear of losing one's ticket to ride for speeding (a misdemeanour) which wasn't going to happen anyway, he commits a felony and gets a rap sheet. And we thought only Americans and Canadians were capable of becoming dumb criminals.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
A guy in Manchester, England, was scared out of his wits when a photo radar flashed as he drove by it. Sitting on a few demerit points already (or as they say in the UK, his licence was "endorsed") he feared a speeding ticket would lead to a suspension, which would mean he'd lose his job as a welder. So a few hours later he returned to the scene of the crime and destroyed the camera with thermite, one of the materials he uses on a daily basis.
In reality, the flash was a dud -- it only flashed to act as a warning to drivers. It was never meant to actually give out tickets. But it did have a CCTV camera inside of it that caught the guy destroying the "evidence." Police headquarters caught the whole thing on tape from a remote location. Yesterday, Craig Moore, 28, plea bargained out to wanton destruction of public property and agreed to a four month prison sentence.
Imagine, out of fear of losing one's ticket to ride for speeding (a misdemeanour) which wasn't going to happen anyway, he commits a felony and gets a rap sheet. And we thought only Americans and Canadians were capable of becoming dumb criminals.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Why don't they rename Hamilton, Juravinski?
This is not meant to be a personal swipe at Charles and Margaret Juravinksi. They built a family business -- Flamboro Downs -- from the ground up, and pumped tons of their own money into was a barely break-even operation. They finally won the fruits of their labour about ten years ago, when the provincial government allowed both off-track betting (something that was once only available at Woodbine) and slot machines on site. Both proved to be a bonanza for Hamilton, netting about 10 million a year in royalties. And it made the Juravinskis power players in Hamilton. A couple of years ago, they were bought out by Frank Stronach of Magna for a huge amount of money -- we don't know how much, but enough that Chuck and Peggy had too much on their hands.
Rather than hoard it for themselves -- like Lord Conrad Black or Donald Trump -- they decided to give back to the community. First, they gave a pretty piece of change to get four new radiation bunkers the local cancer clinic badly needed; and the grateful board renamed the building the Juravinski Cancer Centre. However the adjoining hospital, Henderson General (on the edge of the Hamilton Escarpment), is in bad need of repairs -- $250 million dollars worth. In fact, nearly the entire site will be torn down and redeveloped by the Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation (which also operates the Hamilton General in the North End, Chedoke on the West Mountain, and the McMaster University Medical Centre). The Juravinskis decided, oh what the heck, we'll give the hospital $43 million as a down payment. As gratitude, HHS is renaming the entire compound -- both the cancer clinic and the hospital -- the Juravinski General Hospital.
The only part of the hospital that will still be called Henderson will be the 90 wing, the most modern part of the place and the area in least need of repairs. This is an insult to Nora Frances Henderson, a long time member of the Hamilton City Council and the first woman to sit on a city Board of Control. She was as much of a trailbrazer in Canada as Jeanette Rankin was in the States (one of the first women, if not the first, to sit in the US Congress, at a time when most states didn't even allow women the right to vote).
The Juravinskis have every right to spend their money as they wish, and that they're doing some good in the community is a good thing. But does everything have a price? Hamilton already got an example of that a few years ago when Hamilton Place -- so called because it was built with public donations -- was renamed the Ron Joyce Centre when the Tim Horton's kingpin plunked down $10 million for renovations. Are we facing a future where we'll visit the Sun Life National Arts Centre; the Irving Oil Montréal Fine Arts Museum, the Hudson's Bay Stanley Park, or the Dunkin' Donuts Parliament of Canada? Heck, the 407 is owned by a multi-national consortium, too.
The other problem is that donations like this actually discourage both common folk and most of rest of the high-heeled from contributing themselves. For the little people, they figure, the rich will take care of it so why should I make a pledge? Most rich people can't be bothered either -- they see family wealth as for their famiilies only and see other rich people who give so generously as either fools or sellouts.
At the rate things are going, they'll soon have to rename the City of Hamilton, Juravinski. For all intents and purposes, my alma mater McMaster University is really DeGroote College, given all the buildings on campus named after the former head of Laidlaw.
Rather than hoard it for themselves -- like Lord Conrad Black or Donald Trump -- they decided to give back to the community. First, they gave a pretty piece of change to get four new radiation bunkers the local cancer clinic badly needed; and the grateful board renamed the building the Juravinski Cancer Centre. However the adjoining hospital, Henderson General (on the edge of the Hamilton Escarpment), is in bad need of repairs -- $250 million dollars worth. In fact, nearly the entire site will be torn down and redeveloped by the Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation (which also operates the Hamilton General in the North End, Chedoke on the West Mountain, and the McMaster University Medical Centre). The Juravinskis decided, oh what the heck, we'll give the hospital $43 million as a down payment. As gratitude, HHS is renaming the entire compound -- both the cancer clinic and the hospital -- the Juravinski General Hospital.
The only part of the hospital that will still be called Henderson will be the 90 wing, the most modern part of the place and the area in least need of repairs. This is an insult to Nora Frances Henderson, a long time member of the Hamilton City Council and the first woman to sit on a city Board of Control. She was as much of a trailbrazer in Canada as Jeanette Rankin was in the States (one of the first women, if not the first, to sit in the US Congress, at a time when most states didn't even allow women the right to vote).
The Juravinskis have every right to spend their money as they wish, and that they're doing some good in the community is a good thing. But does everything have a price? Hamilton already got an example of that a few years ago when Hamilton Place -- so called because it was built with public donations -- was renamed the Ron Joyce Centre when the Tim Horton's kingpin plunked down $10 million for renovations. Are we facing a future where we'll visit the Sun Life National Arts Centre; the Irving Oil Montréal Fine Arts Museum, the Hudson's Bay Stanley Park, or the Dunkin' Donuts Parliament of Canada? Heck, the 407 is owned by a multi-national consortium, too.
The other problem is that donations like this actually discourage both common folk and most of rest of the high-heeled from contributing themselves. For the little people, they figure, the rich will take care of it so why should I make a pledge? Most rich people can't be bothered either -- they see family wealth as for their famiilies only and see other rich people who give so generously as either fools or sellouts.
At the rate things are going, they'll soon have to rename the City of Hamilton, Juravinski. For all intents and purposes, my alma mater McMaster University is really DeGroote College, given all the buildings on campus named after the former head of Laidlaw.
Wednesday, September 6, 2006
Memoirs of a mock election
When Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote for US President back in 1992, a lot of people in the media thought it was a fluke; that the software billionaire was simply able to take advantage of a situation where he could run up the middle between two generally dislikeable candidates: the elder George Bush and Bill Clinton. But his numbers showed that maybe -- just maybe -- America was ready to embrace a new progressive party that was socially liberal but fiscally conservative.
In practice, it never really panned out that way because the Donkey and the Elephant quickly adapted. Clinton, as a direct result of Perot's insurgency, was forced to balance the budget much faster than he had anticipated -- but he did. Something his successor hasn't been able to do, even once. Additionally, Perot's US Reform Party turned out to be a flash in the pan, electing only one significant candidate to public office: Jesse Ventura to the Minnesota governorship.
However, with recent poll numbers showing immense dissatisfaction with both Republicans and Democrats -- both getting disapproval ratings in the high sixties -- the question has to be asked, is there an opening for a real Third Way? I think there is. And I think back to my pre-teens as an example.
During the 1985 Ontario election that saw the Conservatives dumped for a Liberal-NDP alliance, my elementary school decided to hold a mock election concurrent with the real campaign. Most of the students grouped themselves into the three "normal" camps, based largely on answers the then party leaders gave to The Catholic Register. Not satisfied with any of the parties, I dared to run as an independent. Not sure what to call my platform, I adopted the moniker TLC -- Tender Loving Care. (Seriously.) When the count was taken of all the students from fifth to eighth grades, I finished in a strong second place, just behind the Liberals. Even I was surprised by this and wondered if it had something to do with the fact my colleagues just felt sorry for me, or if I was trying to prove a point I wasn't like anyone else -- or that all three party leaders (Miller, Peterson and Rae) were full of shit.
The real election was later that night, and the next day we all pretty much concluded that Frank Miller was toast. (He was, a month later, in a non-confidence vote.) But also inherent in our discussion was the point I was trying to make; that the parties at the time represented no one but themselves.
I've mellowed out over time, but in the intervening years I was extremely volatile. From an undeclared, I went to Liberal, then NDP, then Reform, then Liberal, Progressive Conservative, Liberal, Green and finally Liberal where I am now -- and hope to stay. But what I felt back in 1985 is what I still feel now; and that is the process excludes a lot of people who might otherwise want to get involved. With the Liberal "Super Weekend" for delegate selection coming up, I have narrowed down the choices to about three or four, but am still not ready to endorse a particular candidate because I still haven't been able to get an answer to my biggest question; and that is who will both be a "Big Tent" nominee for Prime Minister as well as someone willing to dig in for a long haul, maybe a couple more election cycles before the Grits get back in power again. I'm realistic about this; Stephen Harper will use every trick in the book to ensure he stays on for at least one more term. (Such as his proposal to basically make it a crime to be a Liberal delegate if he or she has already made a donation to the Party during this year. The current contribution limit is $5000 but he wants to cut it to $1000, and the fee for attending the convention is $995.)
The ideal candidate is someone who will defend Canada and keep America on a tight leash, but also have cordial relations with our neighbours to the south. He or she is a Third Way person like what I mentioned above -- a tax and spend Trudeau clone is not acceptable anymore. He or she will promote a strong Defence Department, but not at the expense of our role as an honest broker between conflicting parties. And that candidate will actually make us proud to be Canadians, whether we like him or her -- or not.
If kids ran this country, they'd tell the parties to take a hike. And with just cause. That's the message I sent (and got) twenty-one years ago, and I suspect it's still true today
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
In practice, it never really panned out that way because the Donkey and the Elephant quickly adapted. Clinton, as a direct result of Perot's insurgency, was forced to balance the budget much faster than he had anticipated -- but he did. Something his successor hasn't been able to do, even once. Additionally, Perot's US Reform Party turned out to be a flash in the pan, electing only one significant candidate to public office: Jesse Ventura to the Minnesota governorship.
However, with recent poll numbers showing immense dissatisfaction with both Republicans and Democrats -- both getting disapproval ratings in the high sixties -- the question has to be asked, is there an opening for a real Third Way? I think there is. And I think back to my pre-teens as an example.
During the 1985 Ontario election that saw the Conservatives dumped for a Liberal-NDP alliance, my elementary school decided to hold a mock election concurrent with the real campaign. Most of the students grouped themselves into the three "normal" camps, based largely on answers the then party leaders gave to The Catholic Register. Not satisfied with any of the parties, I dared to run as an independent. Not sure what to call my platform, I adopted the moniker TLC -- Tender Loving Care. (Seriously.) When the count was taken of all the students from fifth to eighth grades, I finished in a strong second place, just behind the Liberals. Even I was surprised by this and wondered if it had something to do with the fact my colleagues just felt sorry for me, or if I was trying to prove a point I wasn't like anyone else -- or that all three party leaders (Miller, Peterson and Rae) were full of shit.
The real election was later that night, and the next day we all pretty much concluded that Frank Miller was toast. (He was, a month later, in a non-confidence vote.) But also inherent in our discussion was the point I was trying to make; that the parties at the time represented no one but themselves.
I've mellowed out over time, but in the intervening years I was extremely volatile. From an undeclared, I went to Liberal, then NDP, then Reform, then Liberal, Progressive Conservative, Liberal, Green and finally Liberal where I am now -- and hope to stay. But what I felt back in 1985 is what I still feel now; and that is the process excludes a lot of people who might otherwise want to get involved. With the Liberal "Super Weekend" for delegate selection coming up, I have narrowed down the choices to about three or four, but am still not ready to endorse a particular candidate because I still haven't been able to get an answer to my biggest question; and that is who will both be a "Big Tent" nominee for Prime Minister as well as someone willing to dig in for a long haul, maybe a couple more election cycles before the Grits get back in power again. I'm realistic about this; Stephen Harper will use every trick in the book to ensure he stays on for at least one more term. (Such as his proposal to basically make it a crime to be a Liberal delegate if he or she has already made a donation to the Party during this year. The current contribution limit is $5000 but he wants to cut it to $1000, and the fee for attending the convention is $995.)
The ideal candidate is someone who will defend Canada and keep America on a tight leash, but also have cordial relations with our neighbours to the south. He or she is a Third Way person like what I mentioned above -- a tax and spend Trudeau clone is not acceptable anymore. He or she will promote a strong Defence Department, but not at the expense of our role as an honest broker between conflicting parties. And that candidate will actually make us proud to be Canadians, whether we like him or her -- or not.
If kids ran this country, they'd tell the parties to take a hike. And with just cause. That's the message I sent (and got) twenty-one years ago, and I suspect it's still true today
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Tuesday, September 5, 2006
Robert Tilton: He's baaaaaaaaaack
After nearly a decade of running endless reruns of his controversial "Success N Life" program in the wee hours of the morning on BET, disgraced televangelist Robert Tilton finally aired a new original episode of his show a couple of weeks ago; coming from of all places Honolulu -- with his current wife (is it number three or four?) in tow.
Wittenburg Door has a video clip (this link takes you to the newsletter, then scroll down). See how you react when he talks about why "those Jews are so darn rich " I'm glad I got my gag reflex mostly under control -- except for when I see the dentist.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Wittenburg Door has a video clip (this link takes you to the newsletter, then scroll down). See how you react when he talks about why "those Jews are so darn rich " I'm glad I got my gag reflex mostly under control -- except for when I see the dentist.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Second time's a charm on the smog test
With my birthday next week, my renewal for my plate sticker was due. As is the case every other year, I also had to get an emission test for my trusty Oldsmobile -- still managing to go on the road after nearly 19 years. So last week I took my car to a certain chain shop, best known for a certain auto part -- by far the leader in quality in North America -- but with a rather uncertain reputation for other repairs. I flunked the test -- big time -- but still had to pay the mandatory fee of $37.10 -- and then asked for an appointment to see if my car needed repairs or just a retest. The counterperson told me the diagnostic would cost $114.95, payable even if nothing was wrong with the car; and there were still no guarantees that it would pass a retest.
Given the cap on repairs of $450, this actually gave me some pause.
So the next day, I decided I needed a second opinion and called the dealer where my parents bought the car so long ago. I went in for the test. And I passed, marginally but still within the parameters set by the government as being a "clean" car. Ten minutes later, I got my sticker for next year.
Is it just me, or do people have better luck with car dealers (or to be more exact those with the dynamometers required for the test) when running the smog test as opposed to "the other guys," meaning aftermarket parts and repair shops? I probably should have gone to the dealer in the first place, but maybe it was just my unlucky day last week.
Consider, however, that after the GST (gotta love the fact Harper gets a cut on the deal!) the 35 dollar fee is split -- with the shop getting 20 bucks and the provincial government 15. The average labour rate in auto shops these days is about a hundred bucks an hour. So on a twenty minute test, the tester, (dealer or otherwise) actually loses money on the proposition unless they get a lot of cars flunking. There's something else; nearly 70% of the province -- the area north of Algonquin Park -- is exempt from the smog test on the grounds that bad air isn't really a problem up there.
Oh yeah? I thought they had nickle mines in Sudbury and a huge paper mill in Fort Frances that's the province's worst industrial polluter. And the westward winds blow that stuff our way, eventually, on top of the ambient smog we deal with every day. There may be a rationale for Northerners to pay a lower sticker fee -- after all, public transportation is spotty at best in the major cities and non-existent in the rest of the vast frontier. They should get their cars checked too. A polluting car is a polluting car no matter where its blowing bad smoke.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Comments:
● s ι L v ı є т T α ●
07/09/2006 5:38:42 PM
(http://silviacreixenti.spaces.live.com/)
Hi!
Your space is nice.
And I think Canada is very beatiful!!!
^^
Kisses from Spain*
Given the cap on repairs of $450, this actually gave me some pause.
So the next day, I decided I needed a second opinion and called the dealer where my parents bought the car so long ago. I went in for the test. And I passed, marginally but still within the parameters set by the government as being a "clean" car. Ten minutes later, I got my sticker for next year.
Is it just me, or do people have better luck with car dealers (or to be more exact those with the dynamometers required for the test) when running the smog test as opposed to "the other guys," meaning aftermarket parts and repair shops? I probably should have gone to the dealer in the first place, but maybe it was just my unlucky day last week.
Consider, however, that after the GST (gotta love the fact Harper gets a cut on the deal!) the 35 dollar fee is split -- with the shop getting 20 bucks and the provincial government 15. The average labour rate in auto shops these days is about a hundred bucks an hour. So on a twenty minute test, the tester, (dealer or otherwise) actually loses money on the proposition unless they get a lot of cars flunking. There's something else; nearly 70% of the province -- the area north of Algonquin Park -- is exempt from the smog test on the grounds that bad air isn't really a problem up there.
Oh yeah? I thought they had nickle mines in Sudbury and a huge paper mill in Fort Frances that's the province's worst industrial polluter. And the westward winds blow that stuff our way, eventually, on top of the ambient smog we deal with every day. There may be a rationale for Northerners to pay a lower sticker fee -- after all, public transportation is spotty at best in the major cities and non-existent in the rest of the vast frontier. They should get their cars checked too. A polluting car is a polluting car no matter where its blowing bad smoke.
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Comments:
● s ι L v ı є т T α ●
07/09/2006 5:38:42 PM
(http://silviacreixenti.spaces.live.com/)
Hi!
Your space is nice.
And I think Canada is very beatiful!!!
^^
Kisses from Spain*
Monday, September 4, 2006
Steve Irwin dead
As I flipped channels on the way to the annual Jerrython, I was stunned when CNN was saying that the Crocodile Hunter, Steve Irwin, was killed by a stingray while filming a documentary on the Great Barrier Reef off Australia. I have to admit, I admired the man. He was literally Marlon Perkins on steroids, and in a good way -- he had attitude, he had fun, and he was bottom line a defender of the environment. God bless you sir ... you will be missed.
(Needless to say, I'm going to pass on the "Vote me" feature for ProgBlogs for this post.)
(Needless to say, I'm going to pass on the "Vote me" feature for ProgBlogs for this post.)
Sunday, September 3, 2006
"Whitewashing" the record on the Holocaust?
In a new book about the life of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, author Robert N. Rosen claims that FDR did everything he could to stop the Holocaust. Believing that is like saying Ayers Rock will lift itself from the middle of Australia and dump itself somewhere in the Indian Ocean causing a tsunami to end all tsunamis. It is an utter denial of historical facts.
The facts are simple. The US -- indeed, the whole Alliance against the Nazis -- didn't do a single thing to help Jews and other people interred in the death camps until after they were liberated and even then it came as a shock to fighting soldiers they even existed at all. The MSM in the West knew full well of the existence of the camps and said nothing, because they knew most of their readers were anti-Semitic even though they were otherwise against Hitler. The New York Times, of all publications, only printed the story on page 20 when the first reports came out. Even after it became widespread public knowledge, many people refused to believe the massacre had happened and was still happening because either they didn't think it was possible for civilized people to engage in such conduct, or otherwise "they" got what they deserved because of who "they" were, i.e. they weren't "Christians."
During my visit to the Holocaust Museum in Montréal, I saw an original letter from a group called the Canadian Order of Daughters. It was a letter to Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister of Canada during the war, urging him not to accept Jews as refugees from Europe simply because they were Jewish and would be a "plague" on Canada. Bowing to them and to general public opinion, several ships were turned away from Halifax. The passengers headed right back to Europe and directly into the death camps. So in effect, we were in bed with Hitler even as we fought a war against him.
Even after most churches took a second look at themselves after the war and finally repudiated anti-Semitism, many if not of their worshippers dug in their heels and continued to believe it was their duty as Christians to hate Jews. While most of us are much more enlightened nowadays and see quite the opposite, there are still scumbags like Hutton and Mel Gibson who continue to persist in the old beliefs. Engaging in a debate and taking a fresh look at conventional wisdom is always a good thing; but in the face of overwhelming documentation gathered by the Nazis themselves the record is indisputable. The West did squat to save the Jews. And Eugenio Pacelli (Pius XII), rather than excommunicating Hitler and Mussolini, coddled them, and did nowhere near enough to save as many Jews in Italy as he should have (although he did save some).
Free speech is free speech. But facts are facts. The Holocaust happened, our forebears did nothing to stop it, and their blood is on our hands.
(Incidentally, the WaPo article linked at the top is a good read. It also mentions a controversial new documentary by televangelist D. James Kennedy and his rather twisted view about evolution leading to the Holocaust. For the record, eugenics, on which Nazism largely rested [and which several Canadian provinces actually practiced right through the1970s by sterilizing mentally challenged persons], was a perversion of evolution and had little if anything to do with Charles Darwin's quite faith based approach to the origin of the human race.)
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
The facts are simple. The US -- indeed, the whole Alliance against the Nazis -- didn't do a single thing to help Jews and other people interred in the death camps until after they were liberated and even then it came as a shock to fighting soldiers they even existed at all. The MSM in the West knew full well of the existence of the camps and said nothing, because they knew most of their readers were anti-Semitic even though they were otherwise against Hitler. The New York Times, of all publications, only printed the story on page 20 when the first reports came out. Even after it became widespread public knowledge, many people refused to believe the massacre had happened and was still happening because either they didn't think it was possible for civilized people to engage in such conduct, or otherwise "they" got what they deserved because of who "they" were, i.e. they weren't "Christians."
During my visit to the Holocaust Museum in Montréal, I saw an original letter from a group called the Canadian Order of Daughters. It was a letter to Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister of Canada during the war, urging him not to accept Jews as refugees from Europe simply because they were Jewish and would be a "plague" on Canada. Bowing to them and to general public opinion, several ships were turned away from Halifax. The passengers headed right back to Europe and directly into the death camps. So in effect, we were in bed with Hitler even as we fought a war against him.
Even after most churches took a second look at themselves after the war and finally repudiated anti-Semitism, many if not of their worshippers dug in their heels and continued to believe it was their duty as Christians to hate Jews. While most of us are much more enlightened nowadays and see quite the opposite, there are still scumbags like Hutton and Mel Gibson who continue to persist in the old beliefs. Engaging in a debate and taking a fresh look at conventional wisdom is always a good thing; but in the face of overwhelming documentation gathered by the Nazis themselves the record is indisputable. The West did squat to save the Jews. And Eugenio Pacelli (Pius XII), rather than excommunicating Hitler and Mussolini, coddled them, and did nowhere near enough to save as many Jews in Italy as he should have (although he did save some).
Free speech is free speech. But facts are facts. The Holocaust happened, our forebears did nothing to stop it, and their blood is on our hands.
(Incidentally, the WaPo article linked at the top is a good read. It also mentions a controversial new documentary by televangelist D. James Kennedy and his rather twisted view about evolution leading to the Holocaust. For the record, eugenics, on which Nazism largely rested [and which several Canadian provinces actually practiced right through the1970s by sterilizing mentally challenged persons], was a perversion of evolution and had little if anything to do with Charles Darwin's quite faith based approach to the origin of the human race.)
To vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)