Karen's Yammerings

'Liberal' and 'Conservative' News

2012-01-26T12:41:00.003-05:00

I was reading an article the other day that said that Americans only listened to news from “their” side – that is, right-wing people listen to right-wing newscasts and read right-wing papers. Left-wingers do the opposite.

I recognized myself in this immediately. Though not an American I am a (small-l) liberal, and I generally watch the CBC and read the Toronto Star. So today, when someone was handing out free copies of the radically right-wing National Post on the way to work, I accepted one.

At lunch, I read the Star first. I agreed with the way a lot of the stories were presented, as usual. The main story on the front page was entitled “’Moment of truth’ for unions”.

Then I picked up the Post. To be honest, I never made it past the front page.

The title of the lead story was “Would a caveman send a Facebook friend request?”

I have decided I will stick with my preferred news sources.

The Indian Act

2012-01-25T11:21:00.001-05:00

It has come up again – the rights of the Canadian Indians, and the responsibilities the rest of us have toward them. And every time it does, I get irritated. So this time I am going to try to put my feelings in words.

A long time ago, a bunch of foreigners came to this land from Europe and signed treaties with the people who were born here – the “natives” – to allow them use of the land in return for certain payments.

Whether those treaties were fair or not doesn’t really concern me here. What happened in the past is done and can’t be changed.

So today, Indians do not pay taxes. When their houses fall down or their plumbing leaks they call on the government (my taxes) to pay for it. They get payments from oil and minerals found on the land, and can trade across the U.S. - Canada border without customs charges. They can run casinos, and do a number of things forbidden to other Canadians.

All of this, they say, because they are native to this land.

And that is where I feel the irritation start to boil up. Yes, no question, they are native to this land. But so am I. I have white skin, but I was born in Canada, and it is as much my country as it is that of any Indian. All people born in this country should have the same rights – and the same responsibilities – no matter their skin colour or the number of generations their ancestors lived here.

So get rid of the Indian Act, Prime Minister Harper. Throw it out. It is out-dated and racist. It is time to treat all Canadians as citizens of this country.

9/11 - What If?

2011-09-11T10:53:00.001-04:00

Like many others, I am having "what if" thoughts on September 11. 2011, the tenth anniversary of the World Trade Center bombing. But not "what if it hadn't happened?" The Americans had no control over that. No, I am thinking "What if they had had a president other than Bush, who wasn't a war-monger?"

This is what I imagine: the bombing has happened, the buildings have fallen. The country is in shock and the president takes to the airwaves. This is what he says:

"My fellow Americans, we have suffered a horrible tragedy today. A terrible crime. Please believe me that all of our police forces, including the FBI and the CIA, will work together on solving this, and will not rest until any surviving perpetrators are captured and brought to trial.

In the meantime, all of us, as citizens, also have a job to do. We have to let these criminals know that they have not succeeded in their ultimate goal of terrorizing our country. We need to return, as much as humanly possible, to life as normal. We will not fear these disgusting criminals, or let them dictate how we live our lives. Thank you."

Just imagine: no constant wars, with thousands more innocents killed. No "Homeland Security". No arrest without cause and holding people without trial. No torture. No spying on citizens without warrants. Paying passengers on planes would not be treated like criminals. "Customs and Border Security" would still be "Customs and Immigration". No culture of fear.

Would they have captured all of the "bad guys" by now? Possibly not. Last I heard, they hadn't done that this way, either, but they have made a lot more enemies and lost a lot of friends.

One attack could have been just that. Horrible, awful, but confined. If only George W. Bush had kept it that way.

What Would Jack Do?

2011-08-28T11:45:00.000-04:00

In the days since the untimely death of Jack Layton, watching thousands of people come out to honour the man and what he has done for our country, I keep thinking about the long-term effects of his death: will Canada get back on the right track, as we have been promising in the past few days, or will Stephen Harper, robbed of an effective oppostion, use this opportunity to take us even further away from where we used to be, and where most of us apparently want to be?

If we want to avoid the second option, this is the time to start. We need to decide what we want, and we need to work for it. So, in the spirit of the moment, I think it is a good time to consider WWJD – What Would Jack Do?

First, let us get Canada out of other people’s wars. Canada had a proud tradition for many years as a peace-keeping country. We need to return to it. Our soldiers are not defending Canada in Afghanistan and Libya – they are invading and occupying foreign countries. Bring them home. Now.

Second, and even more important in the long term, we need to do our part to keep this planet livable for Jack’s grand-daughter Beatrice, and all of the other children growing up. That means ending our dependence on oil and gas, and moving to energy sources that do not warm the planet. Even if that causes us some short-term discomfort (though that is actually not likely).

Next, we need to take care of the people we are keeping alive. That means reasonable salaries for everyone, improved health care services, and increased benefits for those who require them. A smaller difference between the richest and the poorest, and fewer in either category. Countries that fit these parameters show the healthiest and happiest populations.

So how do we do all this? We currently have a majority Conservative government led by Stephen Harper. He is not going to implement any of this on his own. All of it is anathema to him and his corporate supporters.

But, powerful as he is, Stephen Harper is only one man, one Minister. 61% of Canadians voted against him. And it is time for us to demand that he follow the will of the Canadian people. Write to him. Write to your Member of Parliament. Copy the press. Tell them what you want, and that you will not accept anything less. It his time for Harper to start running the country for the people, and for us – and Jack - to be proud of Canada again.

Contact Your Government:

http://canada.gc.ca/directories-repertoires/direct-eng.html

Libby Davies and Israel

2010-06-15T20:30:00.002-04:00

I really do not understand the attacks on NDP MP Libby Davies. She stated that the Israeli occupation of Palestine began in 1948. This is clearly supported by history.

The slogan used by Zionists at the time to encourage European Jews to immigrate was "A land with no people is for a people with no land". Except that it was not a land with no people. Israel was built on an existing, populated, country. As early as 1918 David Ben-Gurion said "Palestine is not an empty country . . . on no account must we injure the rights of the inhabitants."1 We all know how well that worked out.

This is 2010. Israel now exists, and Davies was not calling for it to be eliminated. We need to deal with the situation as it stands today, and give the Palestinians as well as the Israelis peace, freedom, and enough to eat.

However, anyone who denies that Palestine was occupied in 1948 is ignoring reality. Israel was built on someone else's land, after throwing out the people who were already there. For some reason it is considered at best impolite, and at worst anti-Semitic, to mention this.

Libby Davies should not lose her job for stating a fact, no matter how much Stephen Harper dislikes it.

1 http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story638.html

America: Walk a mile in my shoes

2010-03-31T15:59:00.001-04:00

Hillary Clinton has been in Canada for a few days. So far she has told us that we should include abortion in health care we provide for women in poor countries, we should keep our armed forces in Afghanistan past our official 2011 pull-out date, and we didn’t invite the right people to a conference on the Arctic.

I tend to agree with the first opinion, disagree with the second, and don’t have any strong feelings on the third. That isn’t the point. The point is that I happen to dislike a foreigner coming into my country and telling me, unasked, what to do.

If this was a one-time thing, or even rare, I would let it go, but what is it with Americans? They seem to have a national inability to understand how other people feel. I can only assume it is massive egotism that makes them incapable of walking in someone else’s shoes. How would they feel if a foreign politician came to their country and told them that they needed to improve their education system, or their health care, or to get out of Iraq?

And that is far from the worst of it. Americans complain about “having” to be the world’s policemen, without bothering to ask whether that is what the world wants.

What would their response be, I wonder, if a foreign country decided (either now or during the previous presidency, take your pick) that the United States needed a “regime change”, and went in with guns blazing to provide it, murdering their president and thousands of innocent civilians. Would they be greeted with open arms? You decide.

Americans seem to truly not understand (many of them, not all) that other people are, indeed, people, with the same hopes, dreams, and patriotic feelings that they have. People who get defensive when they and their country are attacked, verbally or otherwise.

So the next time, Mrs. Clinton, before you use your visit to my country to tell me what is wrong with it, ask yourself one question: “How would I feel if someone said this to me?”

Why I won't be going to the U.S.

2010-01-06T18:43:00.001-05:00

I have an invitation to visit friends in the United States this February. It sounds very tempting: trading in the cold and snow of Toronto for the sun and warmth of southern California. I have declined, however. The reason is U.S. “security”.

No, I do not fear a terrorist attack. According to this report I am 225,409 times more likely to die on the road on the way to the airport, and I am not afraid of that, either.

I refuse to spend hundreds of dollars to be treated like a criminal.

I had accepted – reluctantly – taking miniature liquids in a plastic bag, taking my shoes off, walking through a metal detector and having my luggage screened and sometimes searched. The price of flying in the modern world, we tell ourselves.

Now, however, I could not bring my computer, because we are not allowed carry-on bags, and I certainly won’t trust it to the baggage handlers. And I would have to pray they don’t lose my luggage, because I would be left without so much as toothpaste and clean underwear.

If they decide I look suspicious, I get a choice: a virtual strip search or a very invasive pat-down.

Once I am on the plane, I cannot have a blanket if I am cold, and I cannot go to the bathroom if I have a full bladder or an upset stomach in the last hour of the flight.

I am not a terrorist, or a criminal being moved from one prison to another. I am a vacationer paying for this trip.

I have a choice, and I choose not to accept this treatment. If this is what is required to travel to the United States, they will have one less tourist. Maybe they won’t care. Or maybe, if they lose enough of us, they will return to treating travellers like human beings again.

The Christian Shooter at Fort Hood

2009-11-10T09:33:00.001-05:00

Much is being made of the fact that the man allegedly responsible for the mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, is Muslim.

I can’t help wondering what the reaction would have been had his name been John Matthew Smith, born in the U.S. but the child of British immigrants, and a practicing Christian who had once, years ago, attended the same church as Timothy McVeigh for a couple of years.

I suspect it would have been a mass shrug, followed by a “So what?”

And let’s take it one step further. What if he, John Matthew Smith, was, in fact, religiously motivated: a Christian fanatic attempting to bring about the apocalypse through mass murder? Would all of the Christian groups in the country be required to defend themselves, to say “he doesn’t represent us”? Of course not.

The public and the media would be saying that Smith was a troubled man who misinterpreted his religion to suit his illness. Someone who had done something horrible, certainly, but a lone actor, not representative of anything.

Smith. Hasan. A lot is in a name.

A Fair Price for eBooks?

2009-07-17T14:18:00.000-04:00

There is a lot of discussion, with eBooks and eReaders in their infancy, of what constitutes a fair price for an eBook.

Large publishers, for whom printing is a small part of their cost compared to publicity, distribution and royalties, feel that eBooks should cost the same as “regular” printed books.

Small publishers, who pay a larger percentage of their costs for printing, think eBooks should be cheaper.

I am neither a large nor a small publisher, but a reader – in fact, an incessant reader. As such, no one has asked for my opinion, but I am presenting it anyway.

I like eBooks: they take up much less storage space, are easier to carry around (my little eReader holds hundreds), and are better for the environment. Despite these benefits, I am well aware of their deficiencies, and the fact that I am getting much less for my money.

If I buy a wonderful print book and want to re-read it 20 years from now, nothing will stop me from doing so. With an eBook, particularly now, with a dozen different formats around, chances are a book I buy today will not be readable 20 years from now.

Then there is sharing. If I enjoy a print book that I buy, I can pass it on to a friend when I am finished, or I can trade it at a used book store for another book. Not so an eBook. Thanks to DRM technology, the eBook will only work for me. If my friend wants to read it, she has to buy her own copy (unless I lend her my eReader as well, which presents obvious problems if all of my books are on there).

Are eBooks worthwhile? Absolutely. Are they worth the price of a new, hardcover, print book? Not to me, and not, I suspect, to many others.

Amazon appears to realize this, though their standard $9.99 price for Kindle eBooks may only be short-term, a way to draw people to a new technology. As they only sell in the U.S., their effect is limited.

Sony, the other big eBook company at the moment, tends to have slightly higher prices, though still below what the publishers want them to charge.

The major publishers need to get on board. If they want the public to invest in eBooks, they have to consider what the reader is getting, and price accordingly.

Why Tiller did what he did

2009-06-02T12:34:00.001-04:00

Following the murder of Dr. George Tiller I have read a number of different reports. Most have lamented the murder of a human being, while a small group (all “Christian”) claimed that it was no more than he deserved for performing abortions.

There are some good people, however, appalled by what happened, who are also uncomfortable with the fact that Dr. Tiller was one of the few people who was willing to perform late-term abortions. And it is them I wish to address.

Most of us are bothered by the idea of a fetus that is nearly to term, nearly a baby, being forcibly aborted. What kind of person, we wonder, would do such a thing, or would have it done?

What is often not understood is that the vast majority of late-term abortions are not by careless or lazy women who “put it off” until the last possible minute. Virtually all of these people want their babies, and have every intention of having them until something goes terribly wrong.

I learned to accept late-term abortion with the pregnancy of a friend a few years ago. She and her husband were thrilled to be pregnant, and looking forward to welcoming their new life into the world. Then came the test results. The diagnostic term, at least back then, was “anencephalic monster”. A cyst had formed at the top of the spinal cord, and the baby had no brain. It was being kept alive inside the womb, but would die as soon as it was born.

My friend did not have an abortion. She carried the baby to term, and went through his birth and death. But late-term abortion was one of the options she considered, and I was right beside her. If she did not want to carry what was in essence a dead baby for the rest of the pregnancy, she had my full support.

And that is what late-term abortion is about. No, it isn’t nice, but neither is it frivolous. These people have thought – and cried – long and hard about what they are doing, and deserve the right to make that choice.

350.org - Saving our planet

2009-05-17T16:27:00.002-04:00

I am sure I am not the only one who rolls my eyes in utter frustration at the response of governments worldwide to climate change.

At first, of course, they simply denied it. If it didn't exist, they weren't required to do anything about it. That was easy. By now, however, even the governments with their heads most deeply in the sand have had to accept that the climate is changing at a rapid rate, and this is being caused by human behaviour.

Having reached that conclusion, it would appear that the next step would be obvious. We need to do something about it before the damage become so severe as to endanger human (and other) life on the planet.

That is precisely where the frustration comes in. Because although the governments agree in theory that this is necessary, there are always other "more important" things that take precedence: the economy, unemployment, war, etc.

Now, some level of idiocy may very well be required in anyone who is called to join the world of politics. The rest of us, however, must realize that the budget and the unemployment rate will mean very little if we have no food growing and our houses have been destroyed by storm and flood.

The condition of the earth must be our primary concern, because without a functional planet nothing else matters.

A group in Australia - where they have been experiencing radical droughts, heat waves and fires the past few years - has started an international group of the people to fight climate change. The group is called 350.org, based on the 350 ppm that scientists have identified as the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere.

They are trying to get people - not governments - all around the world to take a stand on climate change.They have the support of scientists and "big names" from around the world.

Can they make a difference? They can, if you join them. Watch the video, check out the web site, participate in the Global Day of Climate Action on 24 October.

We only have one planet. We need to look after it now.

The myth of Canadian terrorists

2009-04-24T09:46:00.001-04:00

Why is it that myths have a longer lifespan than truth? Another myth has raised its ugly head again, and again Canada will no doubt suffer the consequences.

The CBC’s Neil Macdonald was interviewing U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and he asked her to clarify comments she had made previously that the Canadian and Mexican borders must be given the same treatment. Her response:

"Yes, Canada is not Mexico. It doesn't have a drug war going on; it didn't have 6,000 homicides that were drug-related last year," Napolitano said.

"Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it's been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there."

Macdonald asked if she was referring to the 9/11 attackers. She stated: "Not just those but others as well."

Now according to the 2004 report of the 9/11 commission all of the terrorists flew into major U.S. airports from outside North America, carrying documents issued by the U.S. government. None came from Canada. Yet this story has persisted since the time of the bombing, and shows no signs of going away any time soon – especially if it is being repeated by the head of Homeland Security (am I the only one who thinks that “Homeland” has a Nazi sound to it?)

Why does it matter? After all, it’s just a silly story. Except that people in power in the U.S are using this lie as an excuse to further lock down the border between the countries, making trade and travel ever more difficult.

A few generations ago, there really was an open border between Canada and the U.S. I have relatives in Michigan, because a great-uncle (or maybe two “greats”) went across the bridge at Sarnia to work, and settled there.

I don’t expect that today. The world has changed a lot. But there is no need for the fanatical policing of the borders that the U.S. has started recently, with both physical and virtual fences, and unmanned drones watching from the air.

Canada is not the enemy. The guns that come north across the border are more dangerous than the imaginary terrorists that go south. Please, see someone about the paranoia. And stop telling lies.

One seat, or two?

2009-04-20T18:22:00.002-04:00

I read a news story this weekend stating that United Airlines was planning to force obese passengers to pay for an extra seat, or wait for a later plane if there was no extra seat available.

It wasn’t the story itself that bothered me, as much as the responses. There were dozens of comments, and almost everyone thought this was a wonderful idea. Virtually without exception, they took the point of view of the person sitting next to the obese passenger, who prefers not to be made uncomfortable.

While I don’t fall in the two-seat category – I can put down the arm-rest and buckle my seatbelt, which are the tests – I am a larger person. Maybe that is why I see it from the other side as well.

Imagine you have a vacation planned. You and your partner have splurged and bought expensive tickets to somewhere exotic. You get to the airport, packed, excited and ready to go, only to be told you have to buy an additional ticket. You can’t afford another ticket. You are humiliated, and your vacation is ruined.

Or you have a business meeting. Your company buys you a plane ticket. You go to board, and discover that not only will you need an extra seat, which your company won’t pay for, but there is no extra seat available on this flight, so you will have to wait for one that has two free seats – and you will miss your meeting.

The cost, the humiliation, the lost time – how would you feel if it was you?

I know all of the arguments. “If my luggage is overweight, I have to pay more. It’s the same thing”. You can choose to pack less. You can’t just slice off a chunk of yourself in time for the flight.

“Why should I be uncomfortable?” Well, I like to be comfortable, too, but on public transportation it doesn’t always work out that way. Babies scream, seatmates won’t shut up, or drink too much. That’s life.

“They can lose weight if they want to”. Maybe they can, I don’t know. But not by the time the flight leaves, so it isn’t really relevant.

The Canadian Transport Agency ruled in 2008 that airline passengers here would pay one fair per person. Carriers are expected to accommodate all passengers. I consider that fair. In the United States and other countries, however, this is not the case. They can make extra money from someone’s problem, and many have chosen to do so.

It would certainly make me think twice before flying with them, even if I did get a comfortable seat.

Rights and Freedoms?

2009-04-12T16:24:00.002-04:00

Abousfian Abdelrazik is a Canadian citizen. According to both the RCMP and CSIS he has no links to terrorists, and has committed no crimes. Under Section 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as a citizen, he has a right to enter Canada. Yet he is stuck in Sudan, camping out in the lobby of the Canadian Embassy in Khartoum, where he has been for the past year after going to the country to visit his mother.

The issue, says the government, is that Abdelrazik is on the "no-fly" list. This list - which requires no proof of any wrong-doing - apparently supersedes his rights as a Canadian.

Ottawa has denied him an emergency passport, citing a section of the Canada Passport Order that allows them to "refuse or revoke a passport if the minister is of the opinion that such action is necessary for the national security of Canada or another country."

Remember, no one claims this man has committed any crime.

International rules, even ones which require no supporting evidence whatsoever, would appear to be more important to the government of Canada than the rights of Canadian citizens. Gee, it sure is nice to know that your country will be there to stand by you when you need them.

Abdelrazik has a team of lawyers, who are currently working on having him returned home. I suspect they will succeed. That isn't the issue.

The Conservative government has also refused any help to Ronald Allen Smith, an Albertan held in an American prison and awaiting the death penalty, until they were literally forced by a court order on March 4 to continue the clemency appeal started by a previous government.

The government is supposed to work for the people in a democracy, not the other way around. But since Stephen Harper's Tories have been in power, it would appear that being a Canadian only guarantees you the rights that they see fit to allow you.

That is not what I want for my country and its citizens. This is just one more reason to get rid of the Conservatives - before they get rid of us.

Getting Old

2009-04-08T11:31:00.002-04:00

My Dad died when he was 38. I saw a lot of death as a kid, and for a long time I thought that dying young was the worst thing that could happen. When my grandmother would have trouble standing up and tell me “Don’t ever get old” I would joke with her, and say it beat the alternative.

Lately I have started to wonder. I don’t qualify as “old” yet, but my parents and their friends are in their 70’s now, and a lot of it isn’t pleasant. Forget the whole “golden years” myth. My step-father was just diagnosed with prostate cancer, and his best friend’s wife has lung cancer and Alzheimer’s.

Every time I talk to my mother, someone else they know is sick, dying or dead. And rarely did they die peacefully in their sleep. There is a lot of suffering going on.

It just seems wrong. After a life spent working hard, raising a family and taking care of others, retirement and old age should be a time of vacations to sunny places and taking up hobbies. And I suppose for some it is. For so many, though, it is a time of pain, memory loss, helplessness, dependence and, of course, death.

I know that life isn’t fair. I got over that fantasy a long time ago. But it seems that there should be more to look forward to at the end than arthritis.

I'm not sure what the answer is. I am certainly not recommending mass suicide (or euthanasia) for everyone over 50. I guess I feel that we just need to appreciate the time we have more, and not put things off until "when I retire". Because who knows what will have happened by then?

I will end with a quote from Pernell Roberts, who is now about 80, but said this when he was much younger: "I find life very precious. I find it very immediate. I do not have a long-term point of view. I may be dead tomorrow. So it's very important that I do now what I want to do."

War and women in Afghanistan

2009-04-02T13:39:00.001-04:00

I have to be honest: I was against the war in Afghanistan from the beginning. Before all of the deaths. Before it seemed as though it would stretch on forever. I just don’t believe in war as a way of solving disagreements.

But it seems to me that those who did support the war (like, say, our government) have now lost their last argument. How many times have we been told that all of the death and destruction in Afghanistan was for a higher purpose – that we had to help women in that country have the freedom they do here, and help girls get an education?

Well, the new law passed by the government we support in Afghanistan is about as far from that as you can get. To start with, it legalizes rape within marriage – that’s right, a husband is entitled to sex four times a week, whether or not his wife agrees. Women are also not allowed to leave the home without permission of their husband.

True, at the moment this law applies only to Shia women, which comprise approximately 15% of the population. But isn’t this moving in exactly the wrong direction? We were told Canadians were losing their lives (and taking those of Afghanis) so that women would have more freedom, not less.

The politicians on all sides are expressing their unhappiness with this law, and discussing what they might be able to do about it. There is one thing Canada can do, without winning the support of Hamid Karzai first. We can leave Afghanistan. Now.

Even Stephen Harper has admitted we cannot “win” a war there. It is now obvious we are not having other successes either. Let the Americans stay and add more troops if they so desire, but the best thing Canada can do, for everyone, is bring our soldiers home.

Bed-in ... for what?

2009-04-01T19:57:00.004-04:00

75-year-old Yoko Ono is in Montreal this week, commemorating the “bed in” for peace she celebrated with husband John Lennon 40 years ago.

It was 1969, and war raged in Vietnam. The newly-wed Lennons had a message to share with the world: war is over, if you want it. They rented a room at the Queen Elizabeth hotel in Montreal, got into bed, and invited the world into their room. They talked, and sang, and used John’s fame as a Beatle to get their message across. “All we are saying is give peace a chance.”

Such a simple message. Yet, forty years later, what has really changed? The war is in a different country. Millions more have died violently, including Lennon. Nowhere is there any indication that peace is any nearer than it was in 1969.

It saddens me to see people like Ono, or 89-year-old Pete Seeger, still out performing for peace. Not only have we not achieved an end to war, we don’t even have younger people willing to take up the work.

I do understand why. I was one of the tens of millions around the world marching to protest just before George W. Bush went into Iraq. The result? Bush remarked: "Size of protest — it's like deciding, well, I'm going to decide policy based upon a focus group", and continued to do exactly what he had planned to do. If the voice of millions doesn’t matter, why bother?

But of course it does matter, even though that is hard to see sometimes. We can have a peaceful world, despite the Bush types, if we are determined enough.

I have a quote from John Lennon that I use on some of my email: “When we say ‘War is over if you want it,’ we mean that if everyone demanded peace instead of another TV set, we'd have peace.”

How many TV sets do you own?

Galloway and the risk to Canada

2009-03-24T13:52:00.001-04:00

Once again my country is embarrassing me. Okay, technically it isn’t my country, it is the Harper government (what else is new?), but on the international news they only report what “Canada” is doing.

It seems that George Galloway, a British MP for 23 years, an anti-war activist who spoke in Canada last year and is currently in the United States, will not be allowed to visit Canada on a scheduled speaking tour because he is a “security risk”.

Galloway has no criminal record, no history of violence, but is considered a threat to Canada because he is a supporter of Hamas – who, I might point out, is a democratically elected government that has never threatened Canada in any way.

The opinions Galloway holds about the Israeli/Palestinian land – that it should form a single state in which Jews, Muslims and Christians would live as equals – is not popular with the Tories. But they say this is not an issue of free speech. It is strictly the danger he poses to the country.

Now, if he were someone who had attacked foreign countries for no reason, committing war crimes and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, I could understand some hesitancy in allowing him within our borders. But George W. Bush was just welcomed with open arms.

It makes me uncomfortable when warmongers are welcomed by my government while those who oppose violence are considered a threat. Stephen Harper, it would appear, considers me a danger to my own country. But then, I feel the same about him, so I guess it is only fair.

Probably a bigger concern is the one that the Conservatives say is not an issue: free speech. In a minority position they are keeping out foreigners who say things they don’t like. What they might do if they ever win a majority is truly a scary thought.

Microfinance, Kiva and You

2009-03-20T14:04:00.002-04:00

Although many people in these days of recession have all they can do to look after themselves and their families, there are always some with a bit to spare, and many of those want to help others.

There are many ways to help, and I would never rate one above another. Anything we can do for those in trouble is valuable. What I would like to do is introduce another way to help that many people may not be familiar with.

Some of you may have heard the term “microfinance”. Simply put, it is the process of providing very small loans to people, often in the developing world, who would not qualify for a loan through a regular bank. These people, many of them women, have no collateral, but want to get started in a small business.

The idea is believed to have started in 1976 with the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, which still provides microcredit to impoverished women there. It has helped many families climb out of desperate poverty.

Very interesting, you are saying (or maybe not), but what does this have to do with me? I’m not a bank.

Well, I was looking into a way to help people that would not cost more than I could afford, and I came across www.kiva.org. This organization allows individuals to get involved in microfinance.

It works like this: a woman in Ghana wants to borrow $500 to expand her food stall. Kiva organizes loans of $25 each from 20 different lenders to make up the amount, provides the money, sets up a repayment schedule, and collects the payments. Their default rate is 2.1%.

You, as the lender, do not make any money. The interest charged goes to run the organization. But when you get your $25 back, you can lend it to someone else, and use the same money to help several people.

If you have $25 to spare, give it a thought. You get to choose the people and projects your money helps, and receive reports on their progress. Who knows - you just might change some lives.

Getting rid of the gangs

2009-02-27T10:52:00.001-05:00

When I heard that Stephen Harper was going to “deal with” the gang violence in Vancouver, I assumed it would be a typical conservative solution. Unfortunately, he didn’t surprise me.

Punishment, and yet more punishment, to “deter” the bad guys. Tougher drug laws. An automatic first degree murder charge for any gang-related killing.

There is one major problem with this: it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because the killers never intend to get caught. They never think “I could get life in prison instead of 25 years if I get caught for this, so I won’t do it.” Ever. Harsher laws have been tried before, over and over, and they have failed every time.

So what is the solution? First, leave the murder law as it is. Most gang killings are already pre-meditated (first-degree) murders, so nothing needs to change there.

Second, legalize drugs. That’s right: marijuana, cocaine, heroin, all of them. Make them legal, sell them through legitimate retailers similar to the Liquor Control Board, and tax them heftily.

This would solve several problems. It would remove the main purpose of most of the gangs, causing many to disband. It would eliminate, or at least minimize, disease and death caused by badly cut drugs and dirty needles. It would add tax money our economy could certainly use. And studies in the few countries that have done this have shown that it does not cause an increase in drug addiction.

Finally, some of that additional tax money can be used to fund programs to give kids things to do with their time other than joining gangs – sports, after-school programs, etc.

It may not be as obvious a solution, or as fulfilling in the short term as throwing people in prison, but if we want to prevent crime and not just punish it after it is too late, this is the way to go.

Rights vs. Fear

2009-02-16T15:24:00.002-05:00

I think I am going to start stocking up on rotten tomatoes to use on the next person who uses the word "terrorism" as an excuse to attack basic freedoms.

I have known one person in my life who was killed in a terrorist attack. That was a horrible situation, and one that I would prefer never happen again.

However, everyone I know has been affected by the attack on their rights and freedoms by their own governments under the excuse - and that is all it is - of preventing terrorism.

Everything from disallowing a tube of toothpaste in a carry-on bag on a plane, to intercepting telephone calls without a warrant is done under the claim that it will stop terrorists. It won't. What it will do is complicate the lives and remove the freedoms of innocent people. The terrorists, if they are out there, will find a way.

Why am I talking about this now, when it is essentially old news? Because I had been hopeful that things would start to improve when the paranoid Bush regime was gone from power. Yet I found two new "anti-terrorist" activities in the news just today.

The Americans are launching unmanned (and, for the moment, at least) unarmed drones to fly along the Manitoba border. There goes that whole concept of "the world's longest undefended border" that we were taught about in school.

And in England, the powers that be have decided that people should no longer be allowed to photograph police officers, because the photographers might be terrorist groups taking reconnaissance shots. Not only will there be a lot of disappointed tourists, but this would also mean that bad cops could assault people without the risk of exposure.

When does this stupidity stop? When are people going to stand up and say "my rights are more important than my fear"? Because until we do, the governments are going to use this excuse to do all of the things they always wanted, but were never allowed.

We have more to fear from our own governments than from some threat from the middle east.

The Soap Opera - an endangered species?

2009-02-05T13:37:00.002-05:00

The soap opera has been around for over 70 years, pre-dating television. Even people who have never watched one are familiar with the genre, and very likely familiar with some of the characters. Who hasn’t heard of Erica Kane?

In the early years of TV, soap operas really were sponsored by soap companies, and their earnings helped support the prime-time programming.

But times have changed. Prime-time shows are now the ones that bring in the money, and soaps have decreased drastically in recent years, both in absolute numbers and in ratings. Days of Our Lives, which has run for 44 years, recently laid off stars Deidre Hall and Drake Hogestyn (Marlena and John Black), and other shows have required their top actors to take pay cuts.

Rumours have been circulating for some time that the soap opera is about to go the way of the dodo bird, to be replaced by cheaper talk shows and “reality TV”. The audience of its heyday – stay-at-home mothers who passed their love of the show on to their daughters – is gone, and the networks’ attempts to lure new, young, viewers appears to be a failure.

And it is quite possible that they are right, that we are witnessing the end of an era. But I wonder if this recession, depression, whatever you want to call it, could actually end up saving the soaps.

Every day we hear of thousands more people losing jobs. And certainly many of them will be out looking for more work. But a number, who really don’t need to work, will decide to stay home until things get better. And, since men still earn more than women, and since women are still considered to be responsible for child care, most of those will be women.

This is not a good thing. But it may be a cloud with a silver lining for the soap opera. We could be back to a time when there are women with free time in the afternoon to watch the soaps, and to pass this on to their daughters as our mothers did.

What the networks do with this is up to them. If they fire their best actors and writers, and end up with shows no one wants to watch, it won’t matter. However, if they put together fun, interesting shows, they will have an audience just looking for a little escape and love in the afternoon.

NAFTA and "Buy American"

2009-02-03T15:31:00.001-05:00

I am having mixed feelings about Obama’s “Buy American” program. I can understand why people support it, and if I were an American, I would quite possibly feel the same way. In the short term, at least, it will likely be good for them, although the international anger they are courting will probably come back to haunt them in the long run.

I guess what I find most irritating, other than the obvious fact that Canadians will lose jobs, is the NAFTA issue. I was never a fan of the North American Free Trade Act, but we signed it, and so did the Americans. And I haven’t heard that they have any specific plans to back out of it. And under NAFTA they can’t “buy American” – all NAFTA countries have to be given the same treatment.

We are constantly told here that Canada cannot keep our oil for ourselves, even if we need it. We have to sell much of it to the U.S. under NAFTA rules. The Mexican economy has been devastated by NAFTA. Yet apparently the United States doesn’t even take into account the fact that, under NAFTA, the whole Buy American program is simply not allowed.

I am not sure what I would think without NAFTA. Certainly a large amount of our trade is with the U.S., but keeping things closer to home uses less fuel and decreases pollution. And we are going to have to become less of a consumer society in the future – the earth simply can’t support the strain we have been putting on it. And, of course, protectionism goes both ways – we really could use that Alberta oil.

But I am royally sick of the Americans imposing rules on everyone else, and believing that they don’t have to follow them. I was hoping that had ended with Bush, but I think it is bigger than one government. Maybe they should replace the American Eagle with something more appropriate – an American Ego.

The coalition is dead, long live the coalition

2009-01-29T14:40:00.001-05:00

The news today is full of the “death of the coalition”. Don’t believe it. The coalition hasn’t died at all, it has just changed members: Michael Ignatieff, who never felt comfortable with those left-wing types, chose to climb into bed with Stephen Harper instead.

Ignatieff himself points out many of the flaws in the new Conservative budget: it does not protect the unemployed; there is nothing to encourage conservation and the protection of our planet; it actually discourages pay equity for women and does not contain a plan for getting us out of deficit when things improve. I would add that it depends on provincial and city governments for some of its numbers, as well as increases that were scheduled for 2009 anyway.

Ignatieff was in an extremely powerful position. Both the NDP and the Bloc had come out against the budget. He could bring down the government with one vote. He could have used that power to demand concessions, to require that the Tories fix the flaws, or go down to ignominious defeat. So what did he say? “Okay, but we’ll be watching you.”

The government, he says, is on probation. Isn’t any minority government, all the time? And it would appear that they don’t have much to worry about. Iggy has shown his true colours, and they are Tory blue.

I feel tired and frustrated today. I was hoping that – for once – what the majority of the people wanted would actually matter. 62% of us voted against the Conservatives. We don’t want them in charge, and we don’t agree with their ideals. But apparently that doesn’t matter in this “democracy”. No wonder our last election had the lowest turn-out ever.

Obviously our system needs changes. I don’t know what the answer is right now, but the status quo clearly isn’t working.

Nothing to salute

2009-01-26T18:15:00.003-05:00

Ottawa was too cold today for the 21-gun salute that traditionally opens Parliament. I’m not sure if that means anything or not. The Speech from the Throne lasted 8 minutes, and promised us "a difficult year — perhaps a several difficult years." Maybe there was nothing to salute.

For a government that is normally tight-lipped, they have been leaking like a sieve about this new budget. It sounds like they are planning to use the worst financial crisis in years as an opportunity to cut taxes. Big surprise. Apparently they haven’t figured out that when you are forced to run a deficit that is not the time to cut taxes.

I realized the other day that with all this talk of tax cuts, helping the middle class, yadda, yadda, I have absolutely no expectation that things will improve for me. Harper will help his friends because he wants to, and some of the very poor because he has to if he doesn’t want to be replaced, but the ones in the middle will get stuck paying for it.

Jack Layton is already planning to vote against the budget, because it is a Confidence vote, and he has no confidence in the government. That doesn’t seem quite fair, but I do understand. He obviously has the same feeling that I do.

Of course, the budget can, and likely will, go through without him. And Harper will smile that nasty smile of his, and go on playing President a while longer.

I still think a coalition would be a good idea. There would have to be talk and agreement and actual compromise. The politicians would all learn a lot.

Who would have thought?

2009-01-22T17:22:00.001-05:00

Who would have thought, eight years ago, that in 2009 we would be happy and relieved to hear that the United States is eliminating torture, returning to the use of habeas corpus and allowing scientists to present their results freely?

While I am thrilled that Obama is stepping in and making necessary changes so quickly, the fact that they need to be made at all is a frightening reminder of just how close the Americans came to a fascist dictatorship.

Until shortly before the election, in fact, there were those who were convinced that Bush would find some method – a terrorist attack, a war with Iran – to prevent it, and remain in power. Possibly the economic crash prevented just that – we will never know.

But finally there is an intelligent, reasonable man in charge; a man with his hand on “the button” who can at least pronounce “nuclear”. And he is wasting no time in undoing some of the previous regime’s worst deeds. Guantanamo is to be closed, torture outlawed. He has hired real scientists to advise him.

And since this has been done in only a couple of days, it makes me hopeful that there will be continued improvements. An end to illegal wars would be nice, and to spying on people without just cause and a warrant. I would even like to see them turn “Customs and Border Security” (scary) back into “Customs and Immigration” (friendly), as it used to be.

Undoing eight years of Bush rule is not going to be easy, but Obama has already made a good start. Bush took a country that had the love and sympathy of the world on September 11, 2001, and made it a pariah. Hopefully Barack Obama will be able to undo at least some of that, and turn our neighbour back into a friend.

Half want Harper out

2009-01-21T20:52:00.002-05:00

According to an EKOS poll conducted January 15 – 17, a full 50% of Canadians would prefer a coalition government led by Michael Ignatieff over the current Harper Tory rule (43%).

This is particularly interesting given that Iggy himself has not shown any great love for the coalition, though he has agreed to vote against the upcoming budget if it is not what he thinks Canadians want.

While Stephen Harper, with his disrespect for the Parliamentary system and his palpable disinterest in the economic woes of the average citizen, carries much of the responsibility for the desire for change, I suspect that some of it lies with our neighbour to the south.

Harper and George W. Bush got along well (who can forget "my buddy Steve"?), with shared right-wing views. A new, Democratic, government in the U.S. is less likely to work well with the Conservatives. And, since the Americans are our major trading partners, that is a serious consideration.

A coalition headed by Michael Ignatieff could be very beneficial at this time, and apparently the majority of the people see that.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely to come to pass. Harper is not a fool, and will almost certainly put forward a budget, when Parliament resumes, that will win reluctant acceptance. But always keep in mind, Harper: most of us want you gone.

Canada and Obama

2009-01-19T20:13:00.001-05:00

According to several polls done for his inauguration, the majority of Canadians say that they like Barack Obama, but, well, they don’t really trust him.

I can understand those feelings, and share them. While Obama will be a relief for the entire world (except maybe the Bush family) after the last eight years, I fear that those who expect him to solve all of the problems from which we currently suffer will be badly disappointed.

He plans to get out of Iraq, he says, but will then send the troops to the “good war” in Afghanistan. Good war? That would be the one Canadians are dying in, and we are planning to leave (for sure) in 2011. We don’t need the Americans painting it as the good war. (What does that mean, anyway?)

One of his promises was to review NAFTA. Well, all three countries involved in NAFTA dislike it, so that may not be bad. But the economy is not in a good place, and you can bet that the Americans will be looking out for themselves.

Ah, the economy. Bush’s neo-conservatives brought it down; can Obama put it back on its feet? As with Humpty Dumpty, it is much easier to destroy an economy than it is to put it back together. Even a new president with the best possible plan will not find it a simple task to undo the damage that has been done. A recession is unavoidable, with only the length and degree in question. Hopefully he will start from the bottom, with the workers, and build up, rather than start at the top and hope things will "trickle down" as they have failed to do for some time now, but at this point we will not recover without pain.

Will the U.S. become less paranoid under Obama? That is also not likely to happen quickly. "Homeland Security", border walls, lists of people not allowed on planes, all of these developed fairly rapidly, but even if Obama believes them to be unnecessary, it would be political suicide to remove them the same way.

Neither the United States, nor the world around, should expect miracles. Canadians are right to like Obama without expecting too much out of him. But a little is better than nothing, slow improvement better than continued collapse. Hopefully the Obama government is at least the first step in the right direction.

Canadian Shame

2009-01-13T16:56:00.001-05:00

Stephen Harper has done something no other Prime Minister, not even Mulroney, has been able to accomplish: make me ashamed of my country.

I was raised to be proud of Canada, and that was never very hard to do. It has been a peaceful, helpful country, respectful of the human rights of others and respected internationally.

Then Harper’s Conservatives, probably the most fanatically right-wing group to ever lead the country, managed to squeak into power. And I see headlines like the one today: “Canada votes alone for Israel” (Toronto Star). Yep. Out of 47 countries represented on a UN human rights council, Canada was the only one to oppose a motion condemning the attack on Gaza. Makes you feel proud, doesn’t it? In a hide-your-head-in-shame kind of way.

And just in case I thought I could lift my head in time for the next election, Michael Ignatieff, Liberal leader and pseudo-American, agrees with Harper.

I don’t care what Harper and his cronies say when speaking for themselves, but when I hear “Canada says … “ and it is something totally antithetical to my views (the whole peaceful, respectful of human rights thing), I start having problems. I am part of Canada. I don’t say it is okay to massacre children, thank you very much.

I’m waiting to hear from the rest of the country.

Arrests in Bountiful

2009-01-09T09:40:00.001-05:00

Some arrests were finally made for polygamy this week in the B.C. community of Bountiful. Personally, I don’t have especially strong feelings either way about polygamous marriages between consenting adults (more on that later), but I was happy to see the arrests.

There has been a law on the books for over 150 years in Canada stating that polygamy is a crime. Yet it has been going on, quite openly, with nothing being done. This makes a mockery of our justice system. We need to either enforce the law, or decide that it is wrong and take it off the books. The time has finally come to do one or the other.

The two men arrested are planning to fight the law, not the charges. However, I believe that their decision to fight it on the grounds of religious freedom is a poor one. If something is really wrong – rape, murder, theft, assault – then it should not be allowed to some on the grounds of religious freedom. And if it is not wrong, then we should not be spending time and money chasing down perpetrators.

Which brings me back to the “consenting adults” issue. No matter the outcome of the polygamy trial, the fact that some of the wives were reportedly under the age of consent, and thus the victims of statutory rape, at the time of the marriages, is a separate issue. If this is the case, the men should be convicted of this, with no “religion” excuses.

Freedom of religion in our country means that a person cannot be refused a job or persecuted in some other way because he is of a “different” religion. It does not give someone freedom to commit a crime in the name of his god.

Peter Kent and Israel

2009-01-07T20:13:00.002-05:00

A couple of elections ago “celebrity” candidate Peter Kent ran in my riding of St. Paul’s, where he was easily defeated. I have rarely been happier to be able to say I did not vote for someone. The man almost made me lose my breakfast on the subway this morning.

The ridiculous title in this morning’s Toronto Star tells the story: “Israelis hit school, Ottawa blames Hamas”. Kent, who is now the minister of state for foreign affairs, is quoted as saying "Hamas bears a terrible responsibility for this and for the wider deepening humanitarian tragedy. The burden of responsibility is on Hamas to stop its terrorist rocketing of Israel."

Let me spell it out for you, Peter, since you are obviously too dim to figure it out for yourself: Israel bombed a school and murdered 42 innocent people. Israel is responsible for this. Israel has now murdered over 500 people since they broke the truce between the two peoples.

Hamas sending rockets into Israel, which usually hit nothing, is bad. They create fear, and there is always the possibility that someone may be killed. This fades, however, in comparison to the slaughter of Palestinians by the Israeli army.

And guns and rockets are not the only weapons Israel is using against the civilians of Gaza. Those who die from lack of proper food, sanitation, medical supplies and electricity don’t even make the casualty list.

Israel appears to want a ceasefire that returns to the status quo ante, minus the rockets. That is not going to happen. People like Mr. Kent seem so willing to wear the shoes of the Israelis, subjected to rocket attacks, while ignoring the fact that the Palestinians are refugees in their own land, most of them unemployed and dependent on aid, surrounded by Israeli security guards with settlements and fences blocking off more and more of the land that they do have.

Until the inhabitants of Gaza are treated with the minimum of respect due all human beings, they will fight for that. It will be a losing battle against the large Israeli army, supported by the Americans, but they feel they have little choice.

Tell me, Mr. Kent, if your family were trapped and starving in Gaza, what would you do?

Hypocrisy and hate

2009-01-03T15:14:00.001-05:00

Americans can be very interesting people. They are, reasonably enough, completely, totally and absolutely against terrorism. Unless, that is, the terrorism is against a country they don’t like (such as Cuba), in which case they may let the terrorists (Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles) live in their country under government protection.

They are also very firmly in support of democracy; so much so that they have been willing to impose it by force. So when the Palestinians democratically elected Hamas to represent them, one would assume that the U.S. would applaud the success of a fair and free election. Not exactly.

In fact, it seems there is only one thing that the United States does stand completely behind under all circumstances, and that is Israel.

The position of the United States in the current Israeli attack on Gaza is so bizarre that it would almost be funny if we were not talking about people’s lives. On being informed of the Israeli attacks that have taken over 400 Palestinian lives, Condoleeza Rice came out with the following statement: "We are deeply concerned about the escalating violence. We strongly condemn the attacks on Israel and hold Hamas responsible." George W. Bush had similar remarks. Are they watching the same news stories I am?

It is little wonder that the Arabs link the Americans so closely with the Isrealis – the Americans do it themselves. Not to mention the fact that it is American money and weapons that keep tiny Israel going in the first place. And an American veto that stops the United Nations from so much as calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.

Yes, Israel is responsible for this attack on Gaza. In no way am I “letting them off the hook”. However, if not for their powerful friends, the will of not only the Palestinians but the rest of the world would have a great effect in stopping them. That cannot happen as long as they have the unmitigated support of the United States.

If the Americans want to know “why they hate us”, they should take a close look at their position in this massacre.

NOTE: I understand that the position of a government does not represent the will of all individuals in a country. My use of “the United States” and "Israel" in this article refers to the governments of the countries.

On writing and reading

2008-12-30T11:27:00.001-05:00

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

2008-12-28T15:45:00.000-05:00

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

2008-12-23T11:22:00.000-05:00

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

2008-12-15T12:00:00.000-05:00

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

2008-12-11T20:14:00.000-05:00

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?

2008-12-09T14:07:00.000-05:00

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

2008-12-08T14:15:00.000-05:00

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

2008-12-07T16:17:00.000-05:00

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

2008-12-05T20:16:00.000-05:00

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.

2008-12-04T19:48:00.000-05:00

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?

2008-12-03T09:51:00.000-05:00

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.