Nearly every week when I go to my Catholic parish, there is the constant invocation to "pray for vocations," that is, pray for people who are willing to become priests, sisters, brothers, and permanent deacons.
I've said this before, but I have to say it again: The way that is said -- pray for vocations -- apparently leaves no room whatsoever for the two other totally legitimate vocations that are available: Marriage and the single life. Married people get the shaft as it is, but it's us single people that really get shoved aside. I'm not the only single Catholic who feels that we're not treated as full members of the Church even though we've been baptized, taken communion, received the rite of confirmation.
Church dances and socials simply aren't enough. There has to be some kind of outreach to us singles to make us feel welcome. Right now, we still don't feel it. So the next time a priest asks us to "pray for vocations" maybe he should pray that us single people can find our place in our walk with Jesus. We're no less Catholic than someone who has taken a vow (real or imagined) of celibacy.
I'll "pray for vocations" when my church gives me six 40 oz. bottles of Jack Daniel's ™ as a going away present.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
We honour all veterans ... or none of them
There has been a bit of controversy lately in this part of the world -- and I suspect it's happening across Canada. This has to do with what privileges we should be giving those who qualify to get veteran's parking plates, specifically what rights they should have to park at parking meters. Some communities are saying yes to all veterans, some are saying not at all. Others, like Hamilton, are attempting to limit the program to vets of the Second World War and Korea.
While we should be honouring our men and women who served us, free parking seems like a less than honourable way to do so, considering the pathetic benefits many of them receive from Veterans' Affairs -- if they qualify for them at all.
Not only that, but how do we determine what war one fought in other than by age? Unlike many US states, where special plates specifically say what war one fought in (World War II, Vietnam, etc) the plates here simply say "Veteran" or "Ancien Combatant" with no specific reference to which war. Also, the plates in Ontario are available to anyone who can prove they fought for Canada or one of its allies, in war or in peace; not only that, the program is also extended veterans of the wartime the Merchant Marine, Mounties who have served in peacekeeping operations, Canadians who have served at least three years in the Canadian forces in regular or reserve duties and may STILL BE SERVING, or any Canadian who volunteered for the US or its allies in the Vietnamese conflict. (Maybe someone can enlighten me as to the rules in other provinces.)
If we're going to honour veterans we should honour all of them or none of them at all. To just pick and choose between those wars which were "right" and those which were "wrong," or alternately to just pick a war to stop the honours is discriminatory -- we honour those who fought in all wars even if we disagreed with some or all of them. We keep forgetting that the 1991 Gulf War, and the current Afghanistan engagement, did then or is now creating hundreds of veterans, many of whom have developed PTSD and will be on LTD for the rest of their lives. They deserve no less credit than those who fought in the Bulge or in Incheon.
And let's go beyond the parking thing -- and my position on this is, all veterans get to park for free at parking meters, not just some of them. It's time to pay veterans the benefits they deserve from federal coffers. They sacrificed a lot and to them we owe a huge debt of gratitude that goes beyond money, but they at the same time need dignity that goes beyond just a simple thank you.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
While we should be honouring our men and women who served us, free parking seems like a less than honourable way to do so, considering the pathetic benefits many of them receive from Veterans' Affairs -- if they qualify for them at all.
Not only that, but how do we determine what war one fought in other than by age? Unlike many US states, where special plates specifically say what war one fought in (World War II, Vietnam, etc) the plates here simply say "Veteran" or "Ancien Combatant" with no specific reference to which war. Also, the plates in Ontario are available to anyone who can prove they fought for Canada or one of its allies, in war or in peace; not only that, the program is also extended veterans of the wartime the Merchant Marine, Mounties who have served in peacekeeping operations, Canadians who have served at least three years in the Canadian forces in regular or reserve duties and may STILL BE SERVING, or any Canadian who volunteered for the US or its allies in the Vietnamese conflict. (Maybe someone can enlighten me as to the rules in other provinces.)
If we're going to honour veterans we should honour all of them or none of them at all. To just pick and choose between those wars which were "right" and those which were "wrong," or alternately to just pick a war to stop the honours is discriminatory -- we honour those who fought in all wars even if we disagreed with some or all of them. We keep forgetting that the 1991 Gulf War, and the current Afghanistan engagement, did then or is now creating hundreds of veterans, many of whom have developed PTSD and will be on LTD for the rest of their lives. They deserve no less credit than those who fought in the Bulge or in Incheon.
And let's go beyond the parking thing -- and my position on this is, all veterans get to park for free at parking meters, not just some of them. It's time to pay veterans the benefits they deserve from federal coffers. They sacrificed a lot and to them we owe a huge debt of gratitude that goes beyond money, but they at the same time need dignity that goes beyond just a simple thank you.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
EU headed to membership crisis?
One could hardly say at this juncture that Europe is falling apart at the seams, but if this past weekend's "emergency" summit of the 27 EU leaders is any indication, there are some big issues to deal with and some huge personality egos to overcome. The leaders rejected a call from Hungary for a €180 billion aid package to assist the central and eastern members in the trade bloc -- but did agree that they should collectively put pressure on the IMF and World Bank to tap into its reserves to help out. Not that they haven't already extended billions.
There's also apprehension that the wealthier EU states are bailing out their own industries, for example France has extended to car companies in that country about €6 billion in lines of credit -- possibly a violation of trade rules which are supposed to give equal treatment to companies across the trade zone and not just in one country. The whole beggar thy neighbour scenario looms large. While the leaders are saying they're in this together, I'm beginning to wonder.
From where I view it across the pond, it's not just a case of those countries in Euroland versus those out -- after all, the UK, Sweden and Denmark are getting hammered by the recession too. It's also continued resentment that there are actually two classes of EU citizens right now. Sure, the passports throughout the EU are stamped "European Union" right at the top and technically one who is a citizen of any state has the right of travel in all the others. But the right of abode is another matter: Those who joined before 2004 can live anywhere in Europe. The countries that joined in or after 2004 have restricted residency employment rights until 2011, and for Bulgaria and Romania who joined most recently, 2013. It's a double edged sword: Those in Eastern states may want to get jobs in the West in these tough times, those in the West of course want to give employment to their own and are quite apprehensive about what will happen when the gates fully come down.
Also, it is inevitable that the remaining states out of Euroland will join, although perhaps not as soon as those countries initially thought. The efficiencies of a common currency are far too numerous to mention. But many of the poorer states will have to undergo even greater shock therapy than they are right now, and the three odd men -- the UK, Denmark and Sweden -- are probably going to resent even more bailing out their neighbours than they are right now with their own respective currencies; let alone what will happen when they do finally adopt the Euro and the shots are all called from Frankfurt. Even without a bailout, the currency will naturally devalue as some weaker members join in -- a target range of $1.10 to 1.15 isn't entirely out of the question compared to the roughly $1.27-1.35 range it is at now.
In the end, I think the EU will hold together; and contrary to what many televangelists prophesize, the UK will still very much be a part of the zone. But this recession will fundamentally alter what the zone has been until now, and there will be great pressure to brings things back to what the idea was in the first place -- the four freedoms of people, goods, services and capital with common rules and possibly open borders; but a much reduced bureaucracy and return of power back to individual states. More than now "subsidiarity" -- bringing decision making back to the closest level to the people -- is needed, and that went out of the window more than two decades ago. The EU is a remarkable success story, but getting back to basics may be the only way to preserve the union.
In short: Slash back the number of Eurocrats. Give the European Parliament real power, including the right to name its own Europe-wide President (rather than have one forced upon them by the PMs). Make the Union a real union, not the UFC. Again, I'm not a Euroskeptic but it's time to go back to basics. Keeping it short and simple will get rid of a lot of the red tape, which there is too much off even in the best of times; and a government of bureaucrats can be as potentially dangerous as that of an absolute monarch or president.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
There's also apprehension that the wealthier EU states are bailing out their own industries, for example France has extended to car companies in that country about €6 billion in lines of credit -- possibly a violation of trade rules which are supposed to give equal treatment to companies across the trade zone and not just in one country. The whole beggar thy neighbour scenario looms large. While the leaders are saying they're in this together, I'm beginning to wonder.
From where I view it across the pond, it's not just a case of those countries in Euroland versus those out -- after all, the UK, Sweden and Denmark are getting hammered by the recession too. It's also continued resentment that there are actually two classes of EU citizens right now. Sure, the passports throughout the EU are stamped "European Union" right at the top and technically one who is a citizen of any state has the right of travel in all the others. But the right of abode is another matter: Those who joined before 2004 can live anywhere in Europe. The countries that joined in or after 2004 have restricted residency employment rights until 2011, and for Bulgaria and Romania who joined most recently, 2013. It's a double edged sword: Those in Eastern states may want to get jobs in the West in these tough times, those in the West of course want to give employment to their own and are quite apprehensive about what will happen when the gates fully come down.
Also, it is inevitable that the remaining states out of Euroland will join, although perhaps not as soon as those countries initially thought. The efficiencies of a common currency are far too numerous to mention. But many of the poorer states will have to undergo even greater shock therapy than they are right now, and the three odd men -- the UK, Denmark and Sweden -- are probably going to resent even more bailing out their neighbours than they are right now with their own respective currencies; let alone what will happen when they do finally adopt the Euro and the shots are all called from Frankfurt. Even without a bailout, the currency will naturally devalue as some weaker members join in -- a target range of $1.10 to 1.15 isn't entirely out of the question compared to the roughly $1.27-1.35 range it is at now.
In the end, I think the EU will hold together; and contrary to what many televangelists prophesize, the UK will still very much be a part of the zone. But this recession will fundamentally alter what the zone has been until now, and there will be great pressure to brings things back to what the idea was in the first place -- the four freedoms of people, goods, services and capital with common rules and possibly open borders; but a much reduced bureaucracy and return of power back to individual states. More than now "subsidiarity" -- bringing decision making back to the closest level to the people -- is needed, and that went out of the window more than two decades ago. The EU is a remarkable success story, but getting back to basics may be the only way to preserve the union.
In short: Slash back the number of Eurocrats. Give the European Parliament real power, including the right to name its own Europe-wide President (rather than have one forced upon them by the PMs). Make the Union a real union, not the UFC. Again, I'm not a Euroskeptic but it's time to go back to basics. Keeping it short and simple will get rid of a lot of the red tape, which there is too much off even in the best of times; and a government of bureaucrats can be as potentially dangerous as that of an absolute monarch or president.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Where's our f***ing bailout?
The Dow took another big hit today, dropping below the 7000 level for the first time in twelve years, after news the troubled insurance company AIG has had to be bailed out to the tune of another $30 billion and its loss for 2008 was $61.7 billion. It's already received $150 billion in taxpayer injections just to stay belly up.
Enough is enough. It's not the policyholders' fault that executives made bad business decisions, and the policyholders' policies are guaranteed to be taken over by other companies anyway in case of failure. It's time to pull the plug on this monster. When we the people get a bailout, then corporations can get theirs.
If you are looking for life insurance -- if you can still get it -- don't get a policy that forces you to share in the company's risk. Dave Chilton was right, get a non-participating policy if you can.
Meanwhile, oil dropped about $4 a barrel today. Don't expect to see the price of gas drop four cents per litre until -- June.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Enough is enough. It's not the policyholders' fault that executives made bad business decisions, and the policyholders' policies are guaranteed to be taken over by other companies anyway in case of failure. It's time to pull the plug on this monster. When we the people get a bailout, then corporations can get theirs.
If you are looking for life insurance -- if you can still get it -- don't get a policy that forces you to share in the company's risk. Dave Chilton was right, get a non-participating policy if you can.
Meanwhile, oil dropped about $4 a barrel today. Don't expect to see the price of gas drop four cents per litre until -- June.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Paul Harvey 1918-2009
Now we do know the rest of the story -- although it was never really quite completed.
It is very hard to imagine a world without Paul Harvey, a conservative voice but a nice and respectful one, not unlike the batch that has given us the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Gordon Liddy and so forth. In addition to his twice daily round-up of news and thoughts, including his daily "for what it's worth" weird news item; he would as well serve up "the rest of the story" -- anectodoes about real people or events with an unusal twist defying conventional wisdom.
He was also one of those on the right who actually took marriage seriously, unlike the hypocrites that dominate the timeslots devoted to so many televangelists. He and Lynne (who produced the show) were married 69 years before she died last May. How many wives has Limbaugh gone through? Whose boyfriend of the week Ann Coulter is on? My point exactly.
"The Rest of the story" will likely live on, probably through his son Paul Jr. who has written them, and hosted most of them as of late ... but it won't be the same without the big guy. This one, from a few years back, has to be my favourite:
Thanks, Paul.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Hypothetical question #2
Just when you thought the story about the woman who gave birth to octuplets, after she already had six children, could not get any more bizarre ... a major adult filmmaker in Hollywood, Vivid Entertainment, has offered Nadya Suleman $1 million plus a year of free health insurance for the family. That is ... if she agrees to start in a pornographic film, probably filed under their increasingly popular category of MILFs. (Google or Yahoo it if you don't know what that means.)
She may be tempted -- the hospital is still refusing to release the eight children until she can provide evidence she can provide them with an adequate place to stay, and as it is her present home is facing foreclosure for being behind about $23,000.
Whatever choices this woman has made -- and I am in no place to judge her -- she needs her children, she needs prayers, and she needs gifts, lots of them.
But -- and if I may be blunt -- this was not my idea of a "pearl necklace," if you know what I mean.
It's been a while since I asked my last hypothetical question (about sleeping with the boss or the boss's opposite sex significant other to get a long overdue promotion) -- so, folks: If the only way you could keep your children from going into foster care was to expose yourself to potentially millions of discerning men and women, both singles as well as crazy couples trying to spice up their lives -- and if you are already a mother -- would you take the money?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
She may be tempted -- the hospital is still refusing to release the eight children until she can provide evidence she can provide them with an adequate place to stay, and as it is her present home is facing foreclosure for being behind about $23,000.
Whatever choices this woman has made -- and I am in no place to judge her -- she needs her children, she needs prayers, and she needs gifts, lots of them.
But -- and if I may be blunt -- this was not my idea of a "pearl necklace," if you know what I mean.
It's been a while since I asked my last hypothetical question (about sleeping with the boss or the boss's opposite sex significant other to get a long overdue promotion) -- so, folks: If the only way you could keep your children from going into foster care was to expose yourself to potentially millions of discerning men and women, both singles as well as crazy couples trying to spice up their lives -- and if you are already a mother -- would you take the money?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Will Armageddon start at the North Pole?
A rather nasty confrontation last week as some Russian Tupelovs were dancing around in the High Arctic. It's not clear whether the planes actually entered Canadian airspace or were going to be in a holdover pattern -- in any case, two Canadian F18's intercepted the Russians and turned them back. Naturally, the Russians denied they were anywhere near our airspace. The timing, just before the Obama visit, was more than just curious.
This has been going on for quite some time but it is one of the rare ocassions we've heard anything about it. Is Stephen Harper just playing tough guy, saying we're here to defend our land -- land which most of the world, including the US, says is in international waters?
Or could this be the beginning of a potentially larger and more serious confrontation? Either way, we need to be very careful. We definitely have to defend our land -- but this is a case where it's better that the provocatoins be kept to a minimum. As it is, right now the Arctic nations are mapping out their ocean continental shelves and could declare any extensions to be their sovereign territory. The Russian had a claim which was rejected but is being resubmitted, meanwhile Canada has until 2013 to assert its claim.
If the Arctic Ocean beyond the 200 mile limit of all states was, as was Antarctica, international territory, then there wouldn't be an issue -- and making it nuclear free would require some long range missiles to be reprogrammed to go around countries' latitutdes, not longtitudes; making them less of a threat and giving more time to respond in case of a false alarm or launch.
Of course, hail to the good men and women who brave subzero temperatures months at a time to be our first line of defence. Let us pray they never have to take down an enemy in anger.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
This has been going on for quite some time but it is one of the rare ocassions we've heard anything about it. Is Stephen Harper just playing tough guy, saying we're here to defend our land -- land which most of the world, including the US, says is in international waters?
Or could this be the beginning of a potentially larger and more serious confrontation? Either way, we need to be very careful. We definitely have to defend our land -- but this is a case where it's better that the provocatoins be kept to a minimum. As it is, right now the Arctic nations are mapping out their ocean continental shelves and could declare any extensions to be their sovereign territory. The Russian had a claim which was rejected but is being resubmitted, meanwhile Canada has until 2013 to assert its claim.
If the Arctic Ocean beyond the 200 mile limit of all states was, as was Antarctica, international territory, then there wouldn't be an issue -- and making it nuclear free would require some long range missiles to be reprogrammed to go around countries' latitutdes, not longtitudes; making them less of a threat and giving more time to respond in case of a false alarm or launch.
Of course, hail to the good men and women who brave subzero temperatures months at a time to be our first line of defence. Let us pray they never have to take down an enemy in anger.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Fighting the drug wars, Harper style
Yesterday the Conservatives announced more stringent minimum sentences for gang-related activities, including a minimum four year sentence for merely firing a gun during a drive-by shooting. It also wants to introduce harder sentences for selling drugs related to gang operations. The opposition parties have said they'll go along but they want more done.
There is no question in my mind that we should be getting tough on organized and gangland crime, and for those who commit the crimes they should do the time. But once again, we're throwing a sledgehammer without attempting to deal with some of the root causes. There are kingpins who are incorrigible but many people turn to crime because they have no alternative means of making an income -- that doesn't make it right, of course; but it's like the old story about a man stealing bread to feed his family. Should he get the same punishment for doing the right thing as someone who steals a million bucks from his employees' pension fund?
It is good to see that first time offenders will have the option of going to drug treatment -- but kind of programs will be developed?
There's no mention of ending the two-for-one credit suspects get on sentences for pre-conviction custody. Some cases take so long to get to trial that the sentence is time served. Not acceptable.
Finally, what about fixing the "Broken Windows"? This is a bold and proven strategy to reducing gang activity, albeit a bit controversial. Why won't the Conservatives at least give it a try -- it's not like no one has tried it anyway. So once again, it's tough on crime, but not tough on the causes of crime. Cracking down on the latter is not a conservative or liberal issue -- it's a Canadian issue.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
There is no question in my mind that we should be getting tough on organized and gangland crime, and for those who commit the crimes they should do the time. But once again, we're throwing a sledgehammer without attempting to deal with some of the root causes. There are kingpins who are incorrigible but many people turn to crime because they have no alternative means of making an income -- that doesn't make it right, of course; but it's like the old story about a man stealing bread to feed his family. Should he get the same punishment for doing the right thing as someone who steals a million bucks from his employees' pension fund?
It is good to see that first time offenders will have the option of going to drug treatment -- but kind of programs will be developed?
There's no mention of ending the two-for-one credit suspects get on sentences for pre-conviction custody. Some cases take so long to get to trial that the sentence is time served. Not acceptable.
Finally, what about fixing the "Broken Windows"? This is a bold and proven strategy to reducing gang activity, albeit a bit controversial. Why won't the Conservatives at least give it a try -- it's not like no one has tried it anyway. So once again, it's tough on crime, but not tough on the causes of crime. Cracking down on the latter is not a conservative or liberal issue -- it's a Canadian issue.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
"The government approved it."
There are bank losses, and then there are bank losses. Today, the Royal Bank of Scotland, one of the biggest banks in the world (and one of the printers of currency -- or really promissory notes tied to pounds sterling -- in Scotland), announced a loss for 2008 of £24.1 billion -- or about USD 34.8 billion. Even more strangely is the former chair of the bank Sir Fred Goodwin, who is widely blamed for the record loss, is refusing to give up his £693,000 annual pension for life, claiming "the government approved it."
I don't know about you, but if a bank bleeds that much money, then the first thing affected are pensions -- and I think in that situation executives should be the first to pay their benefits back. It is simply wrong to make the employees or customers of a financial institution pay for the mismanagement of the bigshots. Especially, when the London government has loaned RBS £25 billion and agreed to carry about £325 billion in its bad debts ...
I don't know how some of these bank executives sleep at night. Oh yeah, "on a big pile of money, with lots of beautiful women."
As for the "government approving it" -- well, such a government should get fired.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
I don't know about you, but if a bank bleeds that much money, then the first thing affected are pensions -- and I think in that situation executives should be the first to pay their benefits back. It is simply wrong to make the employees or customers of a financial institution pay for the mismanagement of the bigshots. Especially, when the London government has loaned RBS £25 billion and agreed to carry about £325 billion in its bad debts ...
I don't know how some of these bank executives sleep at night. Oh yeah, "on a big pile of money, with lots of beautiful women."
As for the "government approving it" -- well, such a government should get fired.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
No commitment to local television
Good morning ... unless you're in Wingham or Windsor. Yesterday CTV announced that stations in the two communities -- part of the A-Channel net -- will shut down later this year. It's not clear whether the transmitters will go off the air all together or if they'll just become repeaters of the signal and newscast in London, but it's obvious that there is no commitment to local television anymore from the Conservative TeleVision Network. The excuse made, that the CRTC's decision last year to deny networks the right to demand carriage fees from cable and satellite, is just pathetic.
CTV is also threatening to shut down a station in Brandon, Manitoba that is owned by CTV but operates as a CBC affiliate. CBC says it will no longer pay its competitor to carry its programming, and would rather have a repeat transmitter to carry the Winnipeg signal.
Both, simply put, are unacceptable. The lack of commitment to community program is bad enough, but to tell people of an entire region that they no longer can have their fix of the state broadcaster they pay taxes into -- even temporarily -- is just plain wrong.
Not that CBC is any better, of course -- they're ending their suppertime newscast in Swift Current, Saskatchewan. Just as bad, in my opinion.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
CTV is also threatening to shut down a station in Brandon, Manitoba that is owned by CTV but operates as a CBC affiliate. CBC says it will no longer pay its competitor to carry its programming, and would rather have a repeat transmitter to carry the Winnipeg signal.
Both, simply put, are unacceptable. The lack of commitment to community program is bad enough, but to tell people of an entire region that they no longer can have their fix of the state broadcaster they pay taxes into -- even temporarily -- is just plain wrong.
Not that CBC is any better, of course -- they're ending their suppertime newscast in Swift Current, Saskatchewan. Just as bad, in my opinion.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Québec pension loss: 40 big ones
Pension plans have certainly taken a beating. But this is huge. The Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, which manages public service pensions in the province as well as the trust fund for workers' compensation and automobile accident benefits -- and most significantly, the Régime des rentes du Québec (RRQ), had a huge loss last year -- $39.8 billion, or about 25% of its book value.
Perhaps most Canadians outside of the province have never heard of the Caisse, after all they pay into the Canada Pension Plan and not the RRQ as Québecois do. But the Caisse's investment strategy is behind a lot of the success of industries of all sizes and all sectors, primarily in the province but also across Canada. To be fair, it has made some of the same basic investment mistakes that private sectors plans have; but to lose that much public money so fast is quite embarrassing. And while current payments are of course protected, one has to wonder about the status of future benefits.
Some have repeated the accusation today that Jean Charest called the early election in the province last year to get ahead of what was going to be a nasty announcement. I highly dispute that -- most people in a minority situation would want to get out of it as soon as possible, no matter what the warning signs were outside the political realm. Also while the board is appointed by the Cabinet it does operate at arms' length and no one wants to be seen as being too interventionist when it comes to pensions. There has to be a lot of questions asked and it is good that they are going to be in a public inquiry.
But it's worth remembering that if someone tried to lose $40 billion on purpose in pension money in the private sector, those responsible would go to jail. I'm not suggesting criminal intent here, but I don't expect the SQ or the Mounties to be raiding Caisse headquarters any time soon.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Perhaps most Canadians outside of the province have never heard of the Caisse, after all they pay into the Canada Pension Plan and not the RRQ as Québecois do. But the Caisse's investment strategy is behind a lot of the success of industries of all sizes and all sectors, primarily in the province but also across Canada. To be fair, it has made some of the same basic investment mistakes that private sectors plans have; but to lose that much public money so fast is quite embarrassing. And while current payments are of course protected, one has to wonder about the status of future benefits.
Some have repeated the accusation today that Jean Charest called the early election in the province last year to get ahead of what was going to be a nasty announcement. I highly dispute that -- most people in a minority situation would want to get out of it as soon as possible, no matter what the warning signs were outside the political realm. Also while the board is appointed by the Cabinet it does operate at arms' length and no one wants to be seen as being too interventionist when it comes to pensions. There has to be a lot of questions asked and it is good that they are going to be in a public inquiry.
But it's worth remembering that if someone tried to lose $40 billion on purpose in pension money in the private sector, those responsible would go to jail. I'm not suggesting criminal intent here, but I don't expect the SQ or the Mounties to be raiding Caisse headquarters any time soon.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Joke of a "watershed"
It's just a thought, folks, but here's some brain candy for you -- for those who get SexTV, the sex education and soft-porn channel on satellite and extended cable, has anyone noticed they're now showing the "blue" stuff as early as 9:30 pm Eastern -- which is 6:30 pm Pacific? It used to start about 2½ hours later when it was owned by Moses Znaimer but now that it's owned by CTV ... I checked and it appears the watershed of 9:00 pm applies to all time zones, not just Eastern, and it also applies to cable as well as broadcast television. (Premium services are, of course, exempt.)
Look, not that I have anything against that kind of broadcast material, actually, even if the scenes cooked up are half-baked. But kids are a lot smarter than we think and they know how to get around passwords. In this case, it's often not even necessary to have a password. Maybe teens could have use for the material, but little kids? It's more than just a little worrying, especially since the private broadcaster's "self-regulator" has allowed full frontal nudity (both male and female) during day time as long as it's "non-sexual." Whatever that means.
We need to clarify what is acceptable and what isn't. And no double standards either -- gay male sex should be as permissable as lesbian sex, male genitalia should be as "non offensive" as female. We have enough problems with gay and lesbian bookstores (like Little Sisters and Glad Day) running into trouble with customs over "obscene" books when the same books are sent without question to mainstream stores like Indigo. It's time we were clear about when we can broadcast sex as well.
I'm not saying three in the morning, but 6:30 in the evening is way too early.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Look, not that I have anything against that kind of broadcast material, actually, even if the scenes cooked up are half-baked. But kids are a lot smarter than we think and they know how to get around passwords. In this case, it's often not even necessary to have a password. Maybe teens could have use for the material, but little kids? It's more than just a little worrying, especially since the private broadcaster's "self-regulator" has allowed full frontal nudity (both male and female) during day time as long as it's "non-sexual." Whatever that means.
We need to clarify what is acceptable and what isn't. And no double standards either -- gay male sex should be as permissable as lesbian sex, male genitalia should be as "non offensive" as female. We have enough problems with gay and lesbian bookstores (like Little Sisters and Glad Day) running into trouble with customs over "obscene" books when the same books are sent without question to mainstream stores like Indigo. It's time we were clear about when we can broadcast sex as well.
I'm not saying three in the morning, but 6:30 in the evening is way too early.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Morning notes (2009-02-25)
Today should have been a very happy day in the Mother Parliament, Westminster. They were going to unveil the official portrait for former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher; and the ailing "Iron Lady" was going to be there for the ceremony and to be honoured by today's generation of politicians, perhaps for the last time as she continues to decline from dementia.
But that, as well as today's Prime Minister's Question Time, have both been called off -- owing to the death of the six year old disabled son of Conservative leader David Cameron. Ivan Cameron had cerebral palsy and epilepsy. I suspect the cancellations also have to do with the fact that the PM, Gordon Brown, lost a daughter himself (Jennifer, who was born prematurely and died less than two weeks later) and has a son with cystic fibrosis.
Of course, I offer my condolences. I don't know what it's like to have a kid, let alone a challenged kid, but I know families that do and every single day is a struggle.
Also in the news this morning, an airliner from Turkey crashed as it landed at Schiphol airport in Amsterdam. Breaking up into three pieces it's hard to imagine how anyone could walk away, but the reports are that most did -- about 130 of the 135 on board. This comes one day after Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, who with his co-pilot Jeffrey Skiles made that now famous landing in the Hudson River, told Congress that due to major cutbacks in salary and pensions, and inexperienced pilots getting hired after just 300 hours of flying time (Mr. Sullenberger needed 3000 when he got hired 30 years ago) the next time might not be so fortunate. Even more shocking is that the flight crew has had to moonlight on weekends on a second job just to make ends meet.
A pilot or flight attendant should not have to do that in my opinion. Nor have to give up his or her pension just because of high fuel and structural costs at the airlines.
Finally, a growing number of states are seeing the economics of a death penalty regime as simply just not adding up ... and they are actively considering doing the politically unthinkable, just getting rid of capital punishment all together. Frankly I think the moral argument against far outweighs the cost-benefit analysis but at least someone gets it. They did in New Jersey and now it looks like seven more states -- Colorado, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire and New Mexico (a good mix of "red" and "blue" states) -- may be joining the abolitionist club.
In Rome, they have a custom of lighting up the Coliseum -- where the early Christians were fed to the lions -- in celebration of each time a country or sub-national jurisdiction gets rid of the death penalty. Wouldn't it be nice if all of the remaining retentionist states did so, so the famous landmark could shine for five weeks straight?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
But that, as well as today's Prime Minister's Question Time, have both been called off -- owing to the death of the six year old disabled son of Conservative leader David Cameron. Ivan Cameron had cerebral palsy and epilepsy. I suspect the cancellations also have to do with the fact that the PM, Gordon Brown, lost a daughter himself (Jennifer, who was born prematurely and died less than two weeks later) and has a son with cystic fibrosis.
Of course, I offer my condolences. I don't know what it's like to have a kid, let alone a challenged kid, but I know families that do and every single day is a struggle.
Also in the news this morning, an airliner from Turkey crashed as it landed at Schiphol airport in Amsterdam. Breaking up into three pieces it's hard to imagine how anyone could walk away, but the reports are that most did -- about 130 of the 135 on board. This comes one day after Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, who with his co-pilot Jeffrey Skiles made that now famous landing in the Hudson River, told Congress that due to major cutbacks in salary and pensions, and inexperienced pilots getting hired after just 300 hours of flying time (Mr. Sullenberger needed 3000 when he got hired 30 years ago) the next time might not be so fortunate. Even more shocking is that the flight crew has had to moonlight on weekends on a second job just to make ends meet.
A pilot or flight attendant should not have to do that in my opinion. Nor have to give up his or her pension just because of high fuel and structural costs at the airlines.
Finally, a growing number of states are seeing the economics of a death penalty regime as simply just not adding up ... and they are actively considering doing the politically unthinkable, just getting rid of capital punishment all together. Frankly I think the moral argument against far outweighs the cost-benefit analysis but at least someone gets it. They did in New Jersey and now it looks like seven more states -- Colorado, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire and New Mexico (a good mix of "red" and "blue" states) -- may be joining the abolitionist club.
In Rome, they have a custom of lighting up the Coliseum -- where the early Christians were fed to the lions -- in celebration of each time a country or sub-national jurisdiction gets rid of the death penalty. Wouldn't it be nice if all of the remaining retentionist states did so, so the famous landmark could shine for five weeks straight?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
US troops coming home, or going somewhere else
Obama is set to announce this week -- maybe even during tonight's address to Congress -- that America will pull out combat troops out of Iraq by August 2010, about three months longer than he said he would have liked to during the campaign. This would leave about 30,000 or so "advisors" who are in any case scheduled to depart by December 2011.
Good news but the fact is the troops never should have been there in the first places. There were many ways to remove Mr. Hussein from power that would not have involved such a massive and reckless military operation that has cost so much that America now has to go cap in hand just to run the day to day operations of the government. And there are so many places in America that need to be guarded, chemical plants, ports and places of commerce -- places that could have benen protected without having to violate posse comitatus.
Imagine if the trillion dollars spent in Mesopotamia had instead been spent building infrastructure in the States ... but alas, hindsight is, well you know. And in any case many of those troops are going to be redeployed to Afghanistan which is becoming an increasingly hopeless campaign.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Good news but the fact is the troops never should have been there in the first places. There were many ways to remove Mr. Hussein from power that would not have involved such a massive and reckless military operation that has cost so much that America now has to go cap in hand just to run the day to day operations of the government. And there are so many places in America that need to be guarded, chemical plants, ports and places of commerce -- places that could have benen protected without having to violate posse comitatus.
Imagine if the trillion dollars spent in Mesopotamia had instead been spent building infrastructure in the States ... but alas, hindsight is, well you know. And in any case many of those troops are going to be redeployed to Afghanistan which is becoming an increasingly hopeless campaign.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
A bit too "Ambitious" for Hamilton? (And Toronto for that matter?)
Hamilton used to be called the Ambitious City. I haven't heard that expression used here in a long time. Now they're trying to get the spark back -- but is this the way to do it?
Hamilton City Council voted 12-3 yesterday, after a marathon debate, to pledge $60 million towards the construction of a new downtown stadium and velodrome that would serve as one of the main facilities for the 2015 Pan American Games, if Toronto wins the bid later this year. The facility would replace the rickety Ivor Wynne Stadium which already needs $20 million in "emergency" repairs and as much as $86 million to be totally refurbished.
That's all well and good, that Hamilton could get a stadium that could actually host the Grey Cup again ... but there are a few problems. First, the money is coming from the "Future Fund," the surplus that was created when Hamilton Hydro was turned into a money making operation after deregulation. It started with $137 million but was quickly tapped into for all sorts of slush projects; this would nearly deplete the fund. It was never meant to be used except for major financial emergencies such as the present recession, and replenished when times got better.
Second, the stadium on paper is a bare bones facility, just enough to meet international standards. A real stadium will require a lot more seats, and a lot more corporate funding -- and right now the money just isn't there.
Third, while not much expropriation would be required for the preferred site on Bay Street, it is still a few blocks walk away from the proposed east-west light rail line along Main, and the north-south line on James / Upper James is still a long ways off after that. This has the potential of being a parking nightmare -- just ask the residents in the North End who have to have special permits so they can keep their spots during festivals at Bayfront and Pier 4 Parks.
Fourth, and this is most important, the legacy issue is all too often overstated. City Halls across the region point to the benefits that Victoria and Manchester got after their respective Commonwealth Games. True, but Victoria was already a government town that got icing on the cake with year round training facilities; Manchester had a derelict part of town that was rejuvenated, but now like most of the UK is reeling from the recession.
The Olympics: We know what happened in Montréal, the Big Owe was only paid off in 2006 and is a dinosaur, the adjacent Velodrome has been turned into an environmental museum about pollution in the Americas, and the only thing left worth anything there is an observation tower with jack-high admission fees. The good training facilities cost the provincial government an arm and a leg to maintain. Atlanta -- well that was a joke, it was an international city anyway. Athens -- many of their facilities are already rotting just five years after the games.
And for cities that have hosted Pan-Am Games -- Indianapolis? Winnipeg? My point exactly.
It's great to be part of a major showcase and to host it. But expectations should be made much lower than they are being made. Talk is always about assets being created, but these should actually be booked as liabilities as most accountants do.
And given a lot of A-list athletes actually pass up on Pan Am, saving their strength for the world championships for their respective sports (usually held the same year) and the Summer Olympics the following year, we and the rest of the Golden Horseshoe may very well wind up hosting second stringers. That's not my idea of a world showcase. Get someone like a dream team to play; or get Lance Armstrong or another top cyclist to compete in a real one day event and not a three week "tour" -- you might convince me.
If Toronto gets this thing, and when the facilities wind up half-empty in six years, don't expect me to say I told you so. I still can't figure out why Toronto didn't just go for the Big Kahuna and bid for the Olympics ... if they want this part of the world to be taken seriously; of course, that would have been an even bigger white elephant.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Hamilton City Council voted 12-3 yesterday, after a marathon debate, to pledge $60 million towards the construction of a new downtown stadium and velodrome that would serve as one of the main facilities for the 2015 Pan American Games, if Toronto wins the bid later this year. The facility would replace the rickety Ivor Wynne Stadium which already needs $20 million in "emergency" repairs and as much as $86 million to be totally refurbished.
That's all well and good, that Hamilton could get a stadium that could actually host the Grey Cup again ... but there are a few problems. First, the money is coming from the "Future Fund," the surplus that was created when Hamilton Hydro was turned into a money making operation after deregulation. It started with $137 million but was quickly tapped into for all sorts of slush projects; this would nearly deplete the fund. It was never meant to be used except for major financial emergencies such as the present recession, and replenished when times got better.
Second, the stadium on paper is a bare bones facility, just enough to meet international standards. A real stadium will require a lot more seats, and a lot more corporate funding -- and right now the money just isn't there.
Third, while not much expropriation would be required for the preferred site on Bay Street, it is still a few blocks walk away from the proposed east-west light rail line along Main, and the north-south line on James / Upper James is still a long ways off after that. This has the potential of being a parking nightmare -- just ask the residents in the North End who have to have special permits so they can keep their spots during festivals at Bayfront and Pier 4 Parks.
Fourth, and this is most important, the legacy issue is all too often overstated. City Halls across the region point to the benefits that Victoria and Manchester got after their respective Commonwealth Games. True, but Victoria was already a government town that got icing on the cake with year round training facilities; Manchester had a derelict part of town that was rejuvenated, but now like most of the UK is reeling from the recession.
The Olympics: We know what happened in Montréal, the Big Owe was only paid off in 2006 and is a dinosaur, the adjacent Velodrome has been turned into an environmental museum about pollution in the Americas, and the only thing left worth anything there is an observation tower with jack-high admission fees. The good training facilities cost the provincial government an arm and a leg to maintain. Atlanta -- well that was a joke, it was an international city anyway. Athens -- many of their facilities are already rotting just five years after the games.
And for cities that have hosted Pan-Am Games -- Indianapolis? Winnipeg? My point exactly.
It's great to be part of a major showcase and to host it. But expectations should be made much lower than they are being made. Talk is always about assets being created, but these should actually be booked as liabilities as most accountants do.
And given a lot of A-list athletes actually pass up on Pan Am, saving their strength for the world championships for their respective sports (usually held the same year) and the Summer Olympics the following year, we and the rest of the Golden Horseshoe may very well wind up hosting second stringers. That's not my idea of a world showcase. Get someone like a dream team to play; or get Lance Armstrong or another top cyclist to compete in a real one day event and not a three week "tour" -- you might convince me.
If Toronto gets this thing, and when the facilities wind up half-empty in six years, don't expect me to say I told you so. I still can't figure out why Toronto didn't just go for the Big Kahuna and bid for the Olympics ... if they want this part of the world to be taken seriously; of course, that would have been an even bigger white elephant.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)