On writing and reading

As the only member of my family without children, and the one that actually enjoys research, I started to look into our family history several months ago. Digging up our past as my contribution to our future, you might say.

It has been a fascinating, if occasionally frustrating, experience. I found out family secrets no one left alive even knew about (such as Great-Grandmother’s parents never bothering to get married!), and learned what events brought my various relatives to where they could meet one another.

This has required a great deal of looking through old records, of course, most of which were hand-written. I frequently admired the beautiful writing that most people had at a time when it was vital that it be legible. My grandfather, born in 1900, was the last person I knew of with that glorious script. Once official records were typed, much less time was spent on teaching children to write well, and it showed.

And now I discover that I may be part of the last generation that is able to do the research I have been working on, because, with everything moving to computers, they are no longer teaching cursive writing at all in many schools. Printing and keyboarding, the school boards say, is sufficient. This means that young people not only will not be able to write, but they will be unable to read hand-writing – unable to decipher the generations of records compiled before the 20th century.

I recently saw a news program in which they asked several young teens to read some simple written words. The teens, who no doubt have no trouble with the shorthand that makes up text messages, were unable to do it.

I find this sad and unnecessary. Not so long ago much of the population was illiterate, signing official documents with an “x”. Just as we have reached a time when education is freely available (at least in the west), it appears that the next generation, too, will be unable to sign their names.

Of Seals and Men

There are three top stories in the news today: Israel has murdered almost 300 Palestinians; yet more Canadians have been killed in Afghanistan; and the government is changing the rules to make seal hunting more humane.

Now for once I sympathize with the government. They have little choice, as Europe is planning to ban the import of seal products in 2009 if changes are not made.

Certainly the environmentalists have been extremely successful in drawing attention to the seal hunt, and getting people on their side. I happen to disagree with them - personally I think the seals have a much better life (in their native habitat) and no worse death than your average cow or chicken - but that is not my point.

What I would like to know is where are these people, with their graphic photographs, their tales of cruelty and their famous faces (yes, Paul McCartney, I mean you) when it comes to the suffering and death of hundreds or thousands of their fellow human beings? If they can convince the world that the hakapik (spiked club) is an evil weapon, surely a bomb would be child's play.

If the cruel death of a seal pup is worth protesting over, surely that of a child should bring out many times the numbers of complainants.

Yet what happens? Europe threatens to ban seal products. Then they shake their collective finger at Israel and Palestine and say "Now, now, play nice." And we go on to the next news story.

I will start worrying about the manner in which we kill animals for food and clothing once we stop killing each other.

The Prime Minister is a Liar

There is only one thing that makes me angrier than the lies promulgated by the Conservative government these days, and that is the ignorance of the Canadian people about our own country that allows them to be accepted.

Harper’s latest line comes as he fills 18 Senate seats that he certainly has no moral right to touch at this juncture, whatever the legal position.

"If Senate vacancies are to be filled … they should be filled by the government that Canadians elected rather than by a coalition that no one voted for," Harper stated in a news release.

The only people that voted for Stephen Harper are (some of) those few people in his riding. And no one voted for him for Prime Minister. That is not the way our electoral system works.

We vote for a Member of Parliament for our riding. If one party receives a majority of seats in the Parliament, it becomes the governing party, and the leader of that party becomes the Prime Minister. If there is no majority, one of two things can happen: the party with the largest number of seats can try to run a minority government (usual in Canada), or two or more parties can form a coalition to create a majority, and the coalition can rule (common in some other Parliamentary democracies). Either is perfectly legal. A coalition, is, in fact more representative of the people than a minority, not less.

So Harper is simply lying when he claims the people of Canada voted for him and the Conservatives rather than a coalition, and he is well aware of it. Unfortunately many of those in his audience, raised on American television, are not. And he is taking full advantage of this.

The media, who print Harper’s quotes without explanation, are failing in their job. An impartial media should be explaining the system to the people, and pointing out that the governments' remarks are incorrect.

Our eduction system is apparently also failing, if the population needs to have this explained. Most of us know how the American electoral system works, yet apparently do not understand our own, which is shameful.

But none of this excuses the Prime Minister of the country standing in front of cameras and lying to the people, not once but repeatedly. This man needs to be replaced, either by a coalition or another party, before he can do any more damage.

Virtually Reading

I am something of a bookworm (okay, understatement), and an American friend had been telling me recently how much she was enjoying her new Kindle eBook reader. Since I take public transit daily, and will be taking a fairly long train trip at Christmas, it sounded like it might be worth checking out – a machine the size and weight of a paperback that holds a couple of hundred books.

Don’t bother, fellow Canadians – they are sold only in the U.S., and will only work there.

During my research, however, I discovered that Sony was selling something very similar. It needed to be plugged into a computer to download books, unlike Kindle, but on the upside it can be used in Canada. It is also metal rather than plastic, and has a more attractive appearance (in my opinion). Most importantly, it contains the same “E-Ink” technology that makes the screen almost as easy on the eyes as a sheet of paper.

So a couple of weeks ago I invested $299.00 in a Sony PRS-505. It comes with 100 free downloads from Sony’s eBook store (out-of-copyright books only) to get you started. It has its own format, but can read several others. Additionally, free software is available on the Internet to convert books from one format to another.



So after two weeks what do I think? Well, I got pretty much what I expected. I am not planning to give up on printed books – there is just something comforting about curling up with a good book that hitting buttons on a machine can’t match. But it is a terrific tool for reading on the subway or while travelling, and the screen is much easier to read than a computer. In addition, you can set the font to three different sizes, so if your eyes are getting tired or the light isn’t the best, you can increase the print size at any time.

If you would like to learn more, here is a blogger who has all the details:

http://ebooktest.blogspot.com/

Race and taxes

Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty says that much of the tax money the province should be collecting, but isn’t, relates to illegal tobacco. Half of all cigarettes currently purchased in the province, he says, are illegal.

This can happen, of course, because the Indians (aboriginals, First Nations, choose your term) do not have to pay taxes. They sell tobacco to everyone else for more than they pay, but considerably less than the products cost with tax.

My problem with this goes beyond the $500 million that the province is currently short, although that is certainly serious in this economy.

My family has lived in this country since they came from the United States in 1775. They arrived in North America on the Mayflower. Yet I do not have, nor would I expect, any more rights than a Canadian who gained citizenship last year.

Indians in Canada do not pay taxes, yet they expect the privileges that our taxes pay for: roads, schools, health care, emergency services, etc. In fact, they receive more than most of us. If I live in a bad house or community, no one steps in to move me or build me a new home: I am expected to do these things for myself.

And these rules are based purely on race, something we claim to despise in this country. If you are Indian or Inuit, no taxes.

My mother told me a story a while ago that had me shaking my head. She was in a convenience store behind two little girls, about six years old. One was white, and one was Indian, and they were obviously best friends. They picked out identical chocolate bars, and the little white girl paid first. Then the Indian girl paid, and was charged less (no tax). Her friend turned to her, and asked “How come you don’t have to pay as much as I do?” The other 6-year-old shrugged and said “Because I’m Indian”. Not satisfied, the child repeated her question to the store owner, and got the same answer: “Because she’s Indian”. It is easy enough to see how prejudice starts.

The whole situation abounds with racism: I did not steal Indian land. I wasn’t there, and neither was anyone else alive today. Blaming the white people of today for the actions of people with the same skin colour hundreds of years ago is just as bad as attacking all members of any other group for the actions of a few.

The other complaint I hear is that the Indians and Inuit of today aren’t able to live like their ancestors. Well you know what? Neither is anybody else. It is 2008, and the world has changed rather dramatically in the last few hundred years. Everyone else has had to deal with it. They have to, too.

So what should happen? An end to it. No more reserves. No more tax-free life and government-built homes. They should be treated exactly like everyone else in this country, for better and for worse. Canada is one country and we are one people, whatever our colour.

Heroes?

The front page of the Toronto Star this morning read “On guard for heroes' homecoming”. It was referring, of course, to the bodies of the soldiers who were killed most recently in Afghanistan.

Now, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary there are several definitions for “hero” including “a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength”. I assume that the intended meaning here would be “one that shows great courage”.

And this is where I have a problem: exactly what is courageous about getting blown up by a bomb? It seems more like a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Someone who is hit by a car and killed in downtown Toronto is not considered a hero, so what is the difference?

I suspect the response would be that these people gave their lives in defence of their country. Which would be a reasonable explanation if it were true, but it isn’t. They were not defending their country, could not possibly have been doing so, for the simple reason that their country was not under attack.

So if they are not heroes, what are they? Victims? Not innocent ones, certainly, as they were killed in the process of occupying a foreign country that has done us no harm.

“Casualty” may be the most appropriate term. Back to Merriam-Webster: “a military person lost through death, wounds, injury, sickness, internment, or capture”.

I know that the “Highway of Casualties” doesn’t sound nearly as dramatic, but it would be a lot more honest. And being honest with ourselves is a good place to start, if we want to stop producing more “heroes”.

Needed: One New Leader

I don’t feel any dislike for Stéphane Dion. He is an intelligent, well educated man with many good ideas. And his English is better than my French. I am sure he would be – and is – good at a lot of different things. But he has shown over the past few months that he lacks what is needed to lead a party and a country. I am sure that this is a difficult and painful thing to accept, but it will be best for everyone if he does so quickly.

I do not like Michael Ignatieff , primarily because he likes himself too much. I am concerned that he will pull the Liberal Party farther to the right, as that seems to be where his sympathies lie. I don’t see a future for the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition in his hands, and I fear another election that hands the government back to Harper.

All of this being said, I think he is going to win the Liberal leadership. For some reason that arrogant attitude that both Ignatieff and Stephen Harper possess, and Dion lacks, is popular with many people.

I would prefer to see Bob Rae take over. I find him a “happy medium” between Dion and Ignatieff, as well as more to the left and in support of the coalition. But since the “Anyone but Iggy” camp chose Dion over Rae last time, I think it unlikely he will take the leadership now. He would have a better chance with a “grassroots” vote than a caucus vote, which is the reason for the two candidates wanting the voting done differently.

It sounds like Dion will step down now quite quickly and, one way or another, the Liberals will have a new leader by the time Parliament reconvenes in January. What happens then may depend as much on the Liberal leader as the Conservative one.

NOTE: As I completed writing this, I heard that Dion has said that he will step down as leader “as soon as my successor is duly chosen”.

Off-Shoring

The company I work for has recently “off-shored” a section of their work force. Some of them are actually proud of this, smiling happily about how much money they are saving. Most, however, see it as a necessary evil. It is required, they say, to compete in today’s market. After all, everyone else is doing it. It is the only way to be cost-effective.

At the same time I am hearing about this, the media is reporting rising unemployment and a faltering economy.

So here’s a thought: let’s stop sending our jobs to other countries.

No, I’m not being simplistic. I realize that it costs considerably more to hire Canadians than Indians or Mexicans. But think of the advertising possibilities: “We hire only in Canada!”, “Canadian jobs are safe with us”. In poor economic times, the goodwill would be tremendous.

I am sure I am not the only one who gets irritated when I have to call a 1-800 number for some company’s support line, and know that I am talking to an employee in a foreign country while our own unemployment rate climbs. Nor am I the only one who would support a company who decided to “Hire Canadian”, even if it cost me a bit more.

And if looking after our own is not enough, consider some of the foreign workers. For some this is a wonderful change, but for many it means slave wages and 80-hour weeks in sweat-shop conditions.

So if we don’t benefit, and the foreign workers don’t benefit, that leaves only one group: that’s right, big business. (My employer has given small numbers of shares in the company to many employees, in the belief that we will then support this type of move because it will benefit us.)

This is the problem when businesses become too large: they stop being something that help people, and instead people become simply tools to help the business. And we are so used to this that it doesn’t sound insane.

We need to turn this around. We need to convince those in positions of power to hire locally and help our economy, or we will go elsewhere. Stop shopping at Walmart. Let Bell know you want homegrown tech support. We have the power to make businesses “hire Canadian” – if only we are willing to use it.

Another Day of Death

More death. Three more Canadians killed in Afghanistan. Three more families learn that their father/son/brother/grandson is never coming home. And for what?

I wear a button on my jacket that says “Canada out of Afghanistan”. Most people who stop me to say anything about it tell me that they agree. But I ran into a very confrontational man on a crowded subway the other day. He told me that if we didn’t fight them “over there”, the Taliban would come here and attack us.

Of course the Taliban are attacking us. We have invaded their country and are trying to kill them. They are not the bad guys here – we are. Who wouldn’t fight if foreigners came into their country and started killing them, and oh-by-the-way, innocent elderly, women and children?

All we need to do to stop the death is – leave. Let the Afghans use the energy they are now spending fighting us to rebuild their own country. They have essentially been at war with one country or another for years. It is going to take time and effort to rebuild, but they deserve the chance.

They have no desire to fight with us. They just want us out. So this has nothing to do with defense on our part. It is an offensive war, and we, along with other NATO countries, are the attackers. I say this with shame. I always thought my country was better than that.

Maybe now, when the government is looking for answers, is the time. Whether you agree that the war is wrong, or are just sick of hearing about more deaths, contact your MP and tell them to get Canada out of Afghanistan.

I didn’t know Stephen Harper when he was a child. Still, I have a good idea of what he was like. If he wasn’t winning, he would quit playing the game. Then he would try to convince everyone else that it was a stupid game, after all, and the rules should be changed.

Harper has looked to the Bloc Québécois in the past for support, and tried to win the votes of their supporters in the last election. Today, however, the Bloc is on the other side, and the Prime Minister has come out viciously attacking the “separatists”.

He has stated in the past that the government should be able to stand up before the Parliament at any time, but as soon as he realized he was going to be defeated, he went to the Governor General and essentially said “I want to quit now”.

I am sorry that she agreed to his request to prorogue Parliament. I have no wish to see this drag out, and have political posters for Christmas decorations. But primarily, I am disgusted by a Prime Minister who does not have the courage to stand and fall by his own beliefs.

Stephen Harper is not going to have changed by January, even if he puts a few concessions in his budget. Whether we have another election or a coalition, I hope we see the last of Tory rule early in the new year.


more animals

Is a coalition the way to go?

The media has latched on to the Conservative term, and everywhere you see the idea of a coalition government described as a “power grab”. Unelected parties want to usurp the authority of the democratically elected government and take over against the will of the people. Appalling!

But is it? Is that what is happening? Stephen Harper is running a minority government, meaning that the majority of the people in this country voted against him – voted, in fact, for the Liberals, NDP and Bloc. A coalition of these three parties, therefore (the Bloc is not an official member, but is supporting the coalition) is representative of the majority of the people of Canada.

Harper dismissed the last Parliament and called an election in the hopes of winning a majority. He failed. He has not, however, allowed that to stop him from governing like he has Presidential powers, sweaters notwithstanding. If he is allowed to remain in office, we can expect more of the same. More tax breaks for big corporations, attempts to destroy the other parties, and more concern over a possible federal deficit than over food, housing and jobs for the people he supposedly represents.

Mr. Harper noted, with disgust, that if a coalition were to take over Canada would be ruled by “socialists and separatists”. He neglects to point out, or attempts to ignore, that these are the people that the majority of the country voted for. Presumably, then, he feels Canadians are not fit to run Canada.

Would Stéphane Dion make a good Prime Minister? Possibly. In any case, his reign will be short-term, and he will have support. I find it unlikely that he will be worse than a man who, in less than two months, has prompted the first serious attempt at a coalition government since WWI.

Harper, of course, says he will do everything “legal” to prevent being removed from office. Canadians should take note that this does not include developing a stimulus package to deal with the economy. It may include proroguing Parliament – shutting down the House without a vote so that he cannot be defeated. That, Mr. Harper, is undemocratic.

It appears that the Governor General, normally a figurehead in this country, may have the last word in this. She must approve a request to prorogue, the takeover by a coalition, or yet another election. Let us hope that she makes a wise decision.