Too Cynical for Comfort

The general election of 2011 for Canada's 41st Parliament is over and done with. Whew! And we've attained a majority government. Whew again!

Four years at the least where the government may govern for the good of the country without the constant threat of the opposition parties forming a common front to remove the minority from power. Installing themselves in the process. And infuriating the voting public because what they insist is perfectly legal is still insulting to the democratic process.

After all, if the opposition parties appealed to the electorate as potential governors of the country they would have been voted into that position. People like to think that their effort in attending the polls and voting as they see fit counts for something. It enrages them to think that their vote can be treated so cavalierly.

And in all likelihood the constant threat of the opposition ousting the minority government and installing a coalition helped to elect the current Conservative majority government.

There were some shocks, to be sure. This was an unusual election. With an increased voter turnout. And the truly puzzling lemmings-over-the-cliff phenomena in Quebec, where the horribly irritating and nationally useless Bloc was thrown out on its collective ear, and the NDP which positioned itself as a powerful ally to Quebec's dream of nationality, was given a thorough sweep.

So now there is a 19-year-old Member of Parliament sitting for Quebec, and a woman who couldn't be bothered to campaign and spent her time outside the country instead; only two of many college students and other casual picks who were astounded to find themselves handily elected on May 2nd. The event seemed feckless and foolish, but the voters have spoken.

And that seems to be why most people are inordinately affronted; that should be amended to clarify that the media are offended, the NDP is offended, and several provincial premiers are offended, that Prime Minister Stephen Harper, he of the majority parliament who may now rule as he will, has done just that.

It is no compliment to the voters who rejected three Conservative candidates, only to see them appointed (and, as the case may be, re-appointed) to the Senate. What could Mr. Harper be thinking? Well, for starters, stacking the deck.

Too cynical for comfort.

Practising To Deceive

What is it that motivates high-powered alpha males who consider themselves to be so entitled that they cannot maintain their most intimate personal relationships intact? They claim and possibly believe that their love for their mates are absolute, yet they are unable to forego the piquancy of the pursuit. Sexual conquest and gratification seems to overcome all other needs, urging to be fulfilled.

It is a human enough trait to succumb to inner urges, but the adult in us also cautions against excess and the destruction of vital relationships.

There is a choice; to maintain what is of emotional stability and deep value, or to knowingly, through the compulsion of emotional adventure and satisfactions derived from the thrill of achieving illicit relationships, to charge their atmosphere with the potential of destruction of a marriage. The urge seems irresistible to men who consider themselves to be elevated above the concerns that instruct most men although it is certainly not commonly unknown among the general population.

And, of course, women are as susceptible as are their male counterparts to forging relationships outside the confines of their marriages that will, in the end, destroy their marriages. Sometimes deliberately, sometimes because of a course of events that can no longer be restrained. The scenarios and the events themselves are as varied in circumstance and reason as the reflection of human dynamism and individual emotions and needs fulfillment.

Men and women search for intimate companionship, love and sexual gratification in monogamous relationships, then tire of the monotony and predictability and look elsewhere for additional uplifts. It seems to be men, largely, whose predator's instincts draw them toward destroying their intimate partnerships and with them, often enough, their public careers. Since it is high-profile public figures that draw the attention of the curious.

From politicians to socialites, sport figures to entertainment celebrities, aristocrats to the fellow living around the block, peoples' fallibility in maintaining constancy and the obligations of protecting and valuing special relationships seem to fall casually by the wayside of impetuous desires fulfilled. Women can find it in them to overlook casual errors in judgement, often enough.

But when it is revealed that their trust has been betrayed over a prolonged period of time, the sting of betrayal, that what they represent in the deepest possible emotional terms has not been sufficient to satisfy the cravings and the satisfaction of their partner represents a rejection of their value as partners. To discover that one's husband has maintained a long-standing affair under the radar of discovery represents a monumental blow to elemental self-esteem.

It represents a hard blow to the belief that a deep love and trust and understanding has been equally shared. It is destructive of not only the relationship but the psychical sense of self-worth. What woman would view with equanimity the revelation that her husband of a quarter-century fathered a child with another woman at the very same time that he impregnated her with their youngest child?

It is an unforgivable affront to the dignity of the relationship, a betrayal at the deepest level of the trust and love inherent in such a relationship. The deep and lasting harm that people do to one another through these secret alliances cannot be ameliorated by any kind of remorse after the fact. The deed is done and the pain is lasting.

"Another guy gov admits 2 cheating on his wife. Maybe we need more women governors. Guys: Keep ur pants zipped, for Pete's sake." Jennifer Granholm.

It is only the public figures, the politicians and the socialites,the entertainers and the high-paid sport figures that cause a scandal when salacious reports of details are revealed through the media. But these scenarios with various squalid and disappointing details occur all too often within the lives of the general public, disrupting family life and leaving children to cope with deleterious emotional upheavals.

"This is a painful and heart-breaking time. As a mother, my concern is for the children. I ask for compassion, respect and privacy as my children and I try to rebuild our lives and heal." Maria Shriver

It is not possible to confine the damage to one's inner sphere. Gossip on a grand scale, as in regularly updated media reports as details emerge occurs and the public is agog with disbelief at the status of those involved in the fall from public grace - revealing as in the case of those like John Kennedy, Tiger Woods and Arnold Schwarzenegger that the emperor lost his dignity in a series of tawdry affairs.

"After leaving the governor's office, I told my wife about this event, which occurred over a decade ago. I understand and deserve the feelings of anger and disappointment among my friends and family. there are no excuses and I take full responsibility for the hurt I have caused. I have apologize to Maria, my children and my family. I am truly sorry." Arnold Schwarzenegger

And on the micro-level, young children are bewildered as their parents no longer resemble the adults they know and have depended upon for emotional security and stability. They see their modest homes with for-sale signs and strangers trampling through for inspection, as the neighbours talk quietly among themselves expressing society's collective sadness at yet another human failure.

Each The Other

The man has defied medical opinion and has vastly outlived the diagnosis of an early expiration to become one of the world's most respected authorities as a theoretical astrophysicist. His very name evokes respect for his mind, encased as it is in a frail shell of a body that has succumbed to the dire effects of a degenerative motor neuron disease - utterly brilliant in his ability to conceive theories.

He is of the ilk of Leonardo da Vinci, albeit far less a master of so many disparate qualities and enterprises in the understanding of science, engineering, human physiology and the plastic arts. Perhaps Albert Einstein's brilliant theoretical mind more reflects the kind of inheritance that Stephen Hawking's represents. In any event, he is capable of conceiving scientific, natural notions beyond the capacity of most professionals in his field.

He is a theoretical genius.

One supposes that he has something in common with another theoretical genius. Moses, for example, who 'understood' that there is but one God, not a panoply of gods to represent all that nature presents to awe humankind. Stephen Hawking may implicitly and with confidence understand time and space and the natural elements that inhabit the heavens.

But this genius who was Lucasian professor of mathematics at Cambridge University, a position held long before him by another genius, Sir Isaac Newton, also knows of a certainty that it is Nature alone that is responsible for the existence of all that is known and everything unknown. There is no God, he tells those who have no wish to hear his pronouncement.

"I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first. I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. there is no heaven or afterlife for broken-down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."

"We should seek the greatest value of our action." Raising the affronted ire of the faithful who bridle at his arrogance at speaking of what he knows not. If it takes a great leap of faith to believe in what we cannot see in nature, but which is theorized to exist and which propels existence, why not that faith that exalts in the belief of the Almighty?

Ah, because science and theology are not twinned, though others declare that they are but a reflection of each the other.

Till Irritation Do Us Part

Cool, polished, civil and civilized. To agree between a married couple that although they still like one another and perhaps even respect one another, it is time to part. For the elemental reason that their interests do not converge, perhaps never did. They are too unlike in their values and priorities to continue living together in harmony. And if the investment has been only three years, why then, parting is not all that difficult.

Couples make that kind of decision all the time. To part, that is. But rarely is the parting agreeable in nature. More often each blames the other for not living up to a psychological agreement that each would make an effort to respect one another's differences and appreciate what they have in common. The effort sometimes becomes too onerous and either one or both decide the experiment was a failure.

Sometimes it's an inattentive partner, or a philandering one that causes the anger to mount. Sometimes it's an attitude of incurable arrogance that causes one to feel he/she is superior to the other, and the alpha runs the show. Then there's the possibility that the physical attraction has evaporated. Or one of the tandem isn't wholly invested in matching the bacon the other brings home.

Whatever the reasons, what usually results is rancour and vituperation. One of the brace may be thunderstruck by the announcement of the other that it's time to call an end to the duo. One may still love the one who now denies there ever was love to begin with. The longer the irritation of living together continues before the final break, the more urgent the passion of disharmony becomes.

Unlike the oyster, irritated by the tiny grain of sand that he keeps oozing nacre over to eventually produce a pearl, the couple headed toward divorce seldom produce a pearl of acceptable behaviour toward one another. Separation and divorce are heralded by angry and ugly denunciations.

That's how most marriages end, in blame and anger, whatever the cause. But then, if someone has limitless wealth and a more blase attitude toward life, augmented by a balanced personality and a large social following, things can be done differently. A three-year marriage between a young, attractive woman and an older, moneyed man can result in invitations to celebrate a divorce.

As has been done by Charles and Bonnie Bronfman, who have invited their circle of friends to a night of cocktails and party chatter in New York City. Their invitation signs off with "fondly, Bonnie and Charles"; with the explanation that they look forward "to continuing these relationships with everyone."

Just not quite so intimately with one another.

Flood Watch

Trying to conceive of the concern and misery of people desperately attempting to fend off the ravages of floodwaters ruining their fields, their homes, vast acreages of farmland, threatening the safe security of farm animals, is not quite possible. We tend to divorce ourselves from the reality of the details, the anguish being suffered by people who see their homes and their dreams being destroyed by a force of nature that human ingenuity cannot possibly control.

Of course it is well known that it is a risky concern, building on a flood plain. Municipalities are logically supposed to deny permits to those seeking to build on flood plains for the very good reason that there is always a danger of flooding; this is why those low-lying areas in river basins are called flood plains. But there is something inordinately attractive to people about living in close proximity to running water; to lakes and rivers.

The view is irresistible, the recreational opportunities magnificently compelling. And people habitually think of the positive, the pleasures involved in building where it seems attractive to do so, rather than lingering on thoughts of the negative and potentials for dismal disaster. Nature may never, we reason, threaten the land we will build upon, and if it does, it will be manageable. Human ingenuity will provide.

But then the catastrophic occurs, and no amount of human ingenuity quite manages to challenge nature's indomitable will to do as she will with the climate, with the environment, with the puny lives and plans of mere humankind. Having said which, the richest soil is often alluvial, and planting agricultural crops on that rich soil, and having a close source of water for irrigation makes good, practical sense.

With farmland comes farmhouses, and if the farms are established there, then why not small towns as well, where the watershed can also provide potable water for the use of the nearby residents? Let's face it; human beings have always chosen to build their settlements along the banks of lakes and rivers; it made for easy availability of a water source, and for transportation.

It is a tragedy that once in a while, flooding occurs that transcends what people normally anticipate year-over-year in a tradition of manageable, nuisance flooding. When minimal risk becomes maximum liability and everyone rushes to try to manage as best they can, hoping that somehow, a miracle will occur, and the worst possible scenario will not, after all, result.

The agonizing suspense of watching and waiting and hoping and praying is a dreadful way for people to have to live.

• 
• 
• 

  Members of 2nd battalion Princess Patricia's Light Infantry help load sandbags onto helicopter slings to be transported to weak sections of the dike running along the Assiniboine River some 25km from Portage La Prairie, Man. Thursday, May 12, 2011.(THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jonathan Hayward)

• 

  Brandon Sun Civic employees wait to deliver sandbags on a dike set up on John Avenue, Thursday afternoon. May 12, 2011(Colin Corneau/Brandon Sun)

Standing On Principle

It is sad, and rather unfair to see a good man who had contributed much, exit the scene. Politics is a hard game that claims victims during times of elections when no one can quite predict, despite the over-use of polls and focus groups just how the electorate, that volatile beast, will cast its votes. Who could have predicted that the Quebec electorate would toss out the Bloc, and replace it with the NDP?

Perhaps it's feasible enough that French Canadians were fed up with the performance of the Bloc Quebecois in Parliament, with its constant posturing and prodding and percolating demands. Deciding in its stead to vote for a nation-wide party that would represent their interests. Pity that their interests do not quite mesh with those of the rest of Canada.

On the other hand, this past election of 2011 did demonstrate something very useful; that a majority government could be brought to office without the support of Quebec voters. A refreshing realization, one that has been too long in arriving on the scene. Quebec's national arrogance, and its entitlements and its rashness will come back to haunt it.

But it should never again be permitted to think of itself as the most important province in Confederation, one that could go on forever challenging the federal government for its favour, and believing that it held the key to government for any party that it deigned to favour. Quebec voters spurned the Conservatives but in the final analysis they have harmed themselves.

Out of spite a Member of Parliament whose function and performance was beyond reproach has been left out of this 41st Parliament. In his place a neophyte politician with a quaint attraction to medieval arms, a government employee with no past experience. Who won Lawrence Cannon's seat - the past Minister of Foreign Affairs - with a handy 9,000 vote advantage.

"I wouldn't change one iota from what we did. We stood on principle. Our overriding goal was to protect and advance the prosperity and the security of Canada and Canadians and to promote freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law around the world. That is a difficult, sometimes even dangerous, mission, but it is a noble and important one." Lawrence Cannon

Pageants and Circuses

It's a nice event on the social calendar, to be sure. British royalty at it again. Those magnificent and outrageously grand ceremonials with all their pomp and regal presence are irresistible to many people. Representing celebrity at its utmost elevation. Queens and Princes and the commoner who is living the fairy tale of being selected by a real, live prince. Who may, if succession proceeds as planned, take the throne in the near-to-distant future.

Europe has plenty of royalty and those photographs of pomp and ceremony, brilliant smiles and lavishly extravagant gowns and festivities are always captivating in their way, at least for a brief period. But the amount of space taken up in the news media with details of the forthcoming marriage at Westminster Abbey, and preparations for the grand event tend to be somewhat gagging.

When is enough just that? Just about now.

This brace of young people who have spent the last eight years of intimacy together are now to be formally wed. There's a departure that the last generation has brought to tradition. And the memorabilia that will flood the market; everything from fine porcelain cups, to look-alike dolls, commemorative coins and tea towels with the photographs of the happy pair in pre-connubial bliss.

And then there's that shabby little bit of information that of the royal guests one member of that family has not received an invitation. Two of the Queen's grandchildren, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie will be in attendance along with their father and all others. But not their mother. Quite so that Sarah, Duchess of York is a shabby character herself, but she is their mother.

All manner of foreign dignitaries, ambassadors to Britain from various countries of the world, including those in fairly questionable odour, have been invited, however. Diplomats who represent autocratic, tyrannical and dictatorial, theistic governments who oppress their people. Libya, however, is definitely out; no invitation for them, but Syria's all right.

Cool News, Sweet Anchors

All that fuss for another news channel that only promised to present as a 'balance' to the usual fare that assure they are neutral but whom many viewers see as otherwise. So, to restore balance to the interpretation and presentation of news stories, the CRTC permitted the presence, albeit more muted than the usual networks, of Sun News Network.

The hysteria is done and over with. Sun News is now a current reality. Their presence offers Canadians another choice, another angle, another perspective. It's still news. People can take from what is being presented what they will. Or leave it where it is. Some, having visited out of curiosity, have decided it's simply not for them.

The emphasis on casual clothing for the attractive young female news anchors appeals to some (women, of course) as downplaying the intelligence of women. It isn't at all seemly, they feel, to see lissome young women baring their arms, sporting short-short skirts. Too distracting, too demeaning. Bare arms?

Seems that every time we see Michelle Obama, First Lady of the great United States of America, no intellectual lightweight herself, a fully capable professional, her firm fairly young arms are bare. No one thinks of her as being flighty and mind-addled as a result. She simply has her personal sense of style. Apparent when she is seen in public.

Why slight attractive young news anchors on Sun News Network, as though their garb diminishes their capabilities to produce thoughtful presentations? And what's really wrong with a little light-hearted exchange of observations now and again among them and their professional peers?

The sober-sided Liberals seem to like the new network. They've lavished their election advertisements on the network. "Scary Harper" ads are there in living colour. Sun News must, then have the approval of the Liberals. The Conservative network's presentation doesn't seem to unduly bother them.

A few Liberal MPs even presented for the first, introductory news cycle. And they do appear to have some serious journalistic talent in there, with their political program. So there, one and all, take a deep breath, exhale, relax.

Getting On With His Life

Thank you for the feedback. Report another imagePlease report the offensive image. CancelDoneHow does this sound? French rock star Bertrand Cantat, in a raging drunk, beat Marie Trintignant to death. Beating her with his bare hands he caused mortal brain damage to the young woman who was his girlfriend. That brutality, where the young woman suffered fractured facial bones through 19 strikes upon her face and head, cost Mr. Cantat four years of his life behind bars.

He had been convicted in a Lithuanian court and sentenced to 7 years in prison, but having served half his sentence, was released for good behaviour in 2007. The man is in the throes of reviving his illustrious career as one of France's most famous stars. Famous, then infamous, and striving once again for the mantle of fame.

He has been tapped by a personal friend, the Lebanese-Canadian playwright-director Wajdi Mouawad - whose origins accustomed him to violence and the need to get over it - to compose the score and sing, as part of the chorus in a rock adaptation of three Greek tragedies by Sophocles at the Theatre du Nouveau Monde, scheduled to open a year May.

Word does get out. Mr. Cantat's reputation has preceded him, angering theatre-goers and groups who work with abused women. They, if not the theatre communications director and others willing to forge ahead with their plans, can hardly believe that all can be forgiven in a spirit of theatrical "the-show-must-go-on" bravado since, after all, Mr. Cantat 'paid his dues' to society.

But as a convicted felon under Canada's Immigration Laws, anyone with the background that Mr. Cantat boasts is forbidden entry on a visa or by any other means to Canada, unless a sponsor persuades a Minister of the Crown to issue a special permit. And it is highly unlikely, if a Conservative-led government comes back to power, that any such special Minister's permit would be issued.

Despite that Mr. Cantat's friend is eager to aid with his rehabilitation: "Wajdi considers that it is also an opportunity for his friend to exorcise the horror of the act he committed .... To make amends in a show that denounces violence against women." (Theatre du Nouveau Monde director Lorraine Pintal)

Is that not too precious for words?

Missing Spine Recovered!

"It is not the privilege of any group to threaten to stop the work of the university. If any individual or group does not like the result of the serious deliberations of these bodies, there remains the right to make this point of view known in a respectful and peaceful fashion." Carleton University President Roseanne Runte

Finally, a response to the juvenile hysterics of student protesters on the campus of Carleton University. Students Against Israeli Apartheid insist that they be treated respectfully, their views and values taken into account by the university administration to the extent that the board of governors not only respect their motion for the university to divest funds from companies that do business with Israel, but to adopt and act upon that motion.

Their conclusions and remedies for a complex international situation to be taken seriously, respectfully, and instantly acted upon. Nothing more, nothing less. To do otherwise, as the university administration appears set on doing in their obviously misguided belief in fair judgement, is to invite further noisily nauseating disruptions in administration processes.

A week earlier, the university's board members were physically blocked from attending a scheduled meeting by several hundred protesting students representing campus groups Students Against Israeli Apartheid and the Graduate Students' Association. Who had taken umbrage at the administration decision to admit a representative few of their group in a chamber where the board meeting was to take place which could not accommodate the several hundred students who insisted on their right to attend the board meeting.

Consequently, the board meeting had to be cancelled. And the business that was to have been conducted could not proceed. "This must not occur again", an email from Carleton's president informed the student groups. "Those who have said they will interrupt meetings until they have their way are participating in inappropriate bullying tactics."

Those involved in preventing access or refusing to follow the thoughtfully outlined guidelines represented by campus security could anticipate being charged in future under Carleton's student code. Penalties, the email advised, could include suspension of privileges, inclusive of campus access, a monetary fine, or loss of academic status.

Finally, a clear and decisive instruction to students challenging the authority of the university administration that they are expected to proffer respect before they receive it; mutual accommodation. The tail should never be permitted to wag the dog. The two campus groups should understand clearly that they may endanger their student status and their academic credentials.

Nice to see the university administration standing resolutely tall and straight.

Capricious Fate

Patrick Chareka, a quiet man, not much like his ebullient wife. They were both scholarly individuals, well educated and employed at St.Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, Nova Scotia. They were both originally from Zimbabwe. Otillia Chareka was a village girl determined to become educated. From a poverty-stricken family and village she stubbornly did receive an education.

First of her small village's clan to finish high school, first to attend university, obtaining a master's then a doctorate. When she arrived in Canada in early 1990 her teaching credentials were not recognized, so she furthered her education at the University of New Brunswick, paying her way through work as a hotel maid.

She thought of Canada as a country full of opportunities. She had a dynamic personality. "She was always laughing. In any type of situation she laughed. She entered a room with light." And she exited life with the darkness of an evil act.

For her husband, Patrick Chereka, father of the five daughters that Ottilia Chareka brought into the world, murdered his wife. He was an instructor at St.Francis Xavier's math department until his arrest on a charge of first-degree murder. No previous records of domestic violence in the home were on the books.

Professor Chereka was described by some of his students as "entertaining", "passionate", a "stylish dresser" and hard to "understand". To the entire town and the many people who knew and admired Ottilia Chareka, "understanding" Patrick Chereka and what drove him to murder his wife is a true dilemma.

Their daughters, all five of them, Praymore 23, Patience 18, Patricia 16, Primrose 14, and Prisca 3, will miss their mother dreadfully. Doubtless they will also miss their father. They are now, effectively, orphans. Their mother, who lectured as an associate professor of education, sent funding to a small village in Zimbabwe for medication and clothing for the indigent.

The girls have been left a legacy of unparalleled virtue. The town has been left to care for five young women instilled with the promise of their mother's character and the memory of their father's failure.

Forbidding Vulgarity

Really, it can be so annoying when a newspaper picks up a story say, from Agence-France Presse, and then doesn't bother to do a follow-up. In the sense that the story, as published, alerts the reader to a substantive issue, lays out in some detail what a certain country's lawmakers are grappling with in their attempts to serve the finer interests of their nation and their countrymen, and you're just left dangling.

There's no conclusion. There are no further stories, no updates, nothing to alert you to the reality that the issue has been resolved. Now, is that fair? Doesn't it make sense that if a story is worth news-time, if it's worth reporting on, of being published, and picked up by various newspapers in various countries of the world as an item of interest, then surely they and the reader have invested something in it?

Curiosity must be salved...

The issue becomes theirs too. They become curious. They want to know what occurred in that particular parliament. What on Earth happened to the issue? Doesn't the reading public have a right to know? Our interest has been aroused, and we're left dangling, as it were. That surely is not right.

This issue, for example: Malawi has a law that states:

"Any person who voluntarily vitiates the atmosphere in any place so as to make it noxious to the health of persons in general dwelling or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing along a public way, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

"Guilty of a misdemeanor", now that sounds impressive. And the delicacy of that wording: "Any person who voluntarily vitiates the atmosphere..." Forgive our ignorance, but what might that mean? Ah, here it is: vitiate: vitiated - corrupted: ruined in character or quality. Someone then, who corrupts the atmosphere. By cursing? By behaving badly?

Ah, now it becomes clear. Soiling the air by intemperate passing of gas.

The debate in Malawi was all about a farting ban. There, it is said. A farting ban. "The government has a right to ensure public decency. We are entitled to introduce order in the country", said Justice and Constititutional Affairs Minister George Chaponda. "Would you like to see people farting in public anywhere?", he further added.

Why, no, we would not, and yes Mr. Chaponda, you do have a serious issue there. And President Bingu wa Mutharika's government has a legitimate concern over Malawians' incapability or unwillingness to control their farting: "They should go to the toilet instead of farting in public. Nature can be controlled ... it becomes a nuisance if people fart anywhere."

No, this is serious business. This cannot be seen as acceptable behaviour, soiling the atmosphere in such a manner. One wonders, are Malawians great bean eaters? Regardless of which, the country's Democratic Progressive Party (thank heavens for progressives everywhere) has a majority in their parliament that means to pass an amendment to the law first passed in 1929.

The amendment would make farting in public an offence. And so it should; the penal code should reflect such egregious odiferous insults to the public weal. Let's hear it for the good people of Malawi; they deserve better. They most surely do.

Polite social convention will triumph!

Canada's Welfare

There he said it and he means it, Michael Ignatieff has no intention of forming a coalition opposition as soon as the election for the 41st Parliament concludes, if the Conservatives manage to garner only sufficient votes for yet another minority government. When Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Layton and Mr. Duceppe can present as a viable, unvoted-for-alternative to the voter preference, to the Governor General.

He said it, and he means it for the present. Because he has been pressed to state just where he stands. Knowing full well that his distaste for a coalition could very well fall into the wastebasket of intentions if push comes to shove. But of course stating it has saved him from appearing to be evading a reality. The reality being that the electorate is in no mood for yet another coalition of the willing.

Mr. Ignatieff stands firmly on his ground for the time being: "Let me make it more clear: If you vote for the NDP, if you vote for the Greens, if you vote for the Bloc, you'll get more of this and Canadians are saying enough", as he firmly stated to the press. He knows of a certainty that Canadians are saying enough, obviously, but enough of what?

Enough of the juvenile antics taking place in Parliament assuredly.

Canadians are, however, unwilling to allow Mr. Ignatieff to "...create a Liberal alternative to the Conservative government". Canadians have had far too many Liberal governments in the near past and they were fed up to the teeth with the elaborate corruption schemes of the Liberal governments feeding rich at the public trough.

Come to think of it, the NDP too have done likewise, given the exorbitant expense and travel claims of Jack Layton and Olivia Chow. A coalition-type government where the Liberals think they can govern with the NDP and the Bloc snapping at their heels, blackmailing for their agendas at variance with the best interests of the country isn't what most Canadians envisage.

Nor can they foresee a near future with Jack Layton and the NDP achieving the kind of success that the leader of the New Democrats sees in his technicolour dreams: "I'm running for prime minister. I'm running to lead the largest party in the House of Commons, and then to work with the mandate that Canadians give me, reaching out to other parties as required". In his dreams, only.

And not to be outdone, in chimes Gilles Duceppe offering the Bloc's version of what best reflects Canada's needs: "This government also presents a backward narrow ideology that doesn't represent the values and interests of Quebecers. The Harper government has turned its back on Quebec". Thank heavens the Harper government exercised the discernment to understand it was not in the interest of the country to fund a professional-level sport arena.

But there remain all the funding for other social welfare programs unique to Quebec, funded by transfer payments from the rest of Canada, like affordable (as in cheap, subsidized) day care, university tuition, dentistry, and other perquisites that people in the other provinces can only dream of.

None of which ever is perfectly satisfactory in the minds of the Bloc and those who consistently vote them back into office to sit in Parliament and lobby for Quebec.

For all these partisan-and-paltry reasons the official opposition saw fit to cast a non-confidence vote for Canada's 40th Parliament. It is not the welfare of the social contract for Canada that concerns them all, but the ouster of a political party that they detest. One that has, throughout its five years of governing, adopted many of the demands of the opposition, and which has acquitted itself very well indeed, overall.

But a committee that recommended that the government be found in contempt of Parliament for allegedly withholding the purportedly complete and entire costs associated with prison reform and the purchase of F35 military planes, trumped reason, thanks to the simple expedient of the opposition parties holding a majority on that committee.

So much for intelligent judgement, reasonability and concern for the welfare of a great country.

Shaming the Senate

The Senate of Canada has a black eye. Not that it hasn't incurred one on earlier occasions, when some senators have been high-lighted as collecting their rather munificent salaries and rarely turning up for Senate sessions. Along with other malfeasances. It's just that Raymond Lavigne managed with great aplomb and entitlement to milk the system to his extensive advantage right royally, while delivering no value to his seat in the Senate.

Found guilty of fraud and breach of trust, he was still drawing his salary as was considered his due. The Senate, as a repository for gifting the party faithful with a distinguished executive occupation overseeing the business of the Nation as the Chamber of Sober Second Thought, no doubt seats many whose determined and earnest work on behalf of the country is invaluable.

But it does also lodge within its venerable walls self-availers with no thought of serving the country, who are involved solely with benefiting their own bottom line. And this is precisely what this Jean Chretien-appointed Liberal bag-man did, in spades.

He was found guilty on March 11 in Ontario Superior Court of defrauding the federal government in false travel claims. He abused his office by ordering his staff to work overtime on his personal property. He filed $315,355 in travel expenses in the space of 3 years, over and above his $132,300 salary. And he billed his Senate office for all manner of expenses while he was suspended from the Senate.

His sentencing hearing is to take place on May 10. If the full extent of his malfeasance is taken into account, he could face up to 14 years in prison. He claimed, after having been found guilty as charged, that the judgement was 'unfair', as he stormed out of the courtroom, shoving a reporter out of his way.

The government subsequently planned to introduce two motions; one to remove his salary, the other to remove him from the Senate and a new Montreal-area appointee named in his stead.

And then, a mere half-hour before the Senate was poised to vote on stripping him from office, which would have had the effect of also stripping him of his pension, he took the initiative and resigned. His resignation, effective immediately, has the effect of protecting his $79,000 annual pension.

So this crafty malingerer and leech off the public purse has managed to effect a procedure that will see him continuing to collect federal money supplied by the taxpayer of Canada.

Something that even Gilles Duceppe declares he finds "shameful".

Professional creme de la creme

How about that, a highly credited secret service that flat-footedly performed in the most embarrassing manner. These credentialed professionals were so awkward in their experienced conduct that a rag-tag group of civilian protesters turned rebels contemptuously took them into custody as they flagrantly demonstrated their talents for an amateur-hour performance.

Wrong place at the wrong time, chappies. Come back some other time when the nascent civil war has been concluded.

Oh, it's a mission. A rescue mission. Yours for the purpose of spiriting a British diplomat out of the country because of the dangers inherent in remaining there. So, why didn't you leave a calling card, state your official mission, ask permission to cross the border, present as a legitimate group of professionals whose task is to be respected.

After all, fellas, a whole lot of others have preceded y'all, dontcha know.

"The reason they were arrested was that they came into the country unofficially and without any arrangement with the Libyan authorities. Libya is an independent nation, we have our borders [and] we should expect them to be respected by everybody." Got that? A spokesman for the rebels' National Council, no less.

He and they may detest and abhor their current government and its tyrannical head, but they do respect the autonomy of their sovereign state, chum. Call before you drop in, it's common courtesy. Even in a chaotic, incoherent situation like what prevails in Libya at the moment, where the protesters are rather politely stating their goal and government forces are bashing the hell out of them.

No fewer than seven SAS soldiers and an MI6 officer. (The glorious, legendary MI6!) Coming in on a helicopter. Over rebel positions. What did you expect them to think? They are, after all, being bombed by government troops. You presented as possibly more of the same. True, you persuaded them you were unarmed and thus to be trusted.

But you were armed, and thus not to be trusted. What kind of stupid moronic idiocy is that for an operational performance? Practising for what, amateur hour at the local pub?

Splendid Holiday!

This one is different. Quite so. It is meant to pique the interest of the jaded traveler. Those who have been there, seen it all, done it all. Who crave bold new adventures in places where none are likely to have gone before. Places, for example, that are well-known-to-notorious as sites, but hitherto unknown as possible destinations.

This beats an ocean voyage and a cramped seat in a little submersible to dive down to the site of the Titanic. Or a long, tedious, freezing, heart-thumping, lung-bursting, brain-addling haul up Mount Everest. Nowhere near as expensive, either. Just get yourself to Ukraine, and the government tourism board will do the rest.

For a paltry $150, you too can indulge in a truly exciting, heart-palpitating day-trip to a "dead zone". A geography roasted by deadly nuclear radiation. Also featured is a side-trip to the town that held hundreds of thousands of people, workers in the USSR's nuclear industry at Chernobyl and their families, pre-nuclear-eruption.

The trip can be considered a worshipful shrine dedicated to the propensity of human beings invested with great technical professionalism tripping up, nonetheless. It's called carelessness, and the results were catastrophic. But the country's emergency situation ministry lays claim to the radiation levels having returned to normal levels.

Something on the scale of "don't worry, be happy". "The Chernobyl zone is not as scary as the world thinks. We want to work with big tour operators and attract Western tourists", a tourism ministry spokesperson expounded. No mention that 450,000 people had been affected by the big blow-up, and many have perished of radiation-related illnesses, aside from those who died instantly.

And the reactor, after all, that blew up, spewing its deadly radiation far and wide, was covered with a huge, thick cement 'sarcophagus'. Ensuring that all that nasty stuff remains inside, no longer able to contaminate the atmosphere, the ground, wildlife, flora. It's perfectly safe, see?

The guide might have other thoughts as he/she leads the tours about: "Let's leave now, it is very dangerous to be here", one of the tour guides on a recent group trip nervously advised her charges. "There are huge holes in the sarcophagus covering the reactor." It is useful, after all, to have a more intimate understanding of the situation.

Visitors anxious for a truly different kind of experience, must sign a waiver the purpose of which is to exempt the tour operator from all responsibility should they later happen to suffer some kind of malady that might be traced to radiation. Which should, actually, be enough to pick up any prospective visitors' antennae. Perhaps for some it presents as a lure.

Visitors are cautioned by their guides to take care not to touch anything. Anything, including the vegetation or the metal structures; in fact anything, ANYTHING! But go on, have a look at the four reactors. Come a little closer, you can get closer to the erupted one. And wow, listen to that Geiger counter: click, click-click, click-click-click, click-click-click-click-click.

Um, better leave.

Right Royally Unsavoury

Those born to power, wealth, prestige and/or royalty appear to gravitate toward one another. They are distant cousins, in a manner of speaking. Having shared immense privileges denied other, ordinary members of society. These are the casually cosmopolitan, those born to the manner and manor royal.

Schooled in diplomacy and exemplary social manners, they flit about the world in a concentrated vortex of extravagance.

It need not be surprising that the second son of Moammar Gadhafi, the socialist-revolutionary king of Libya, who bought a costly but to his family affordable doctorate at the prestigious London School of Economics, might have bumped into Britain's Prince Andrew at any number of posh affairs.

Each had something to sell. Prince Andrew the respectability that comes with doing business with a member of the British Royal family in his position as Britain's trade ambassador. And Saif al-Islam Gadhafi ("Sword of Islam" Gadfly), access to Libya's vast oil fields. Of course former Prime Minister Tony Blair had something to say about that, too.

More than happy to agitate on Col. Gadhafi's behalf, dangling the carrot of access for BP, for the release from Scotland of the architect of the Lockerbie bombing atrocity. If it's good enough for a member of the royal family it's fine and peachy with the government.

That business camaraderie was naturally extended to intimate familiarity. Which led, as gestures of friendship between equals often do, to invitations to come along and abide awhile at the family estate.

In this instance it was Saif al-Islam bed-and-boarding as an honoured guest of the Duke of York at Buckingham Place and Windsor Castle, enabling this son of Libya to meet with senior British cabinet ministers and charmingly wow the socks off everyone.

In view of the rather unfortunate turn that relationship has taken, with Prince Andrew having little option but to publicly disavow any possible personal friendship with a bloody fiend, setting government troops with all their military equipment and might on unarmed anti-regime protesters, a trusty metaphorical shoulder-shrug dismissed it all.

It took another relationship with yet another unsavoury character, a child-sex predator, to get the tch-tch going in earnest. Might it be true? Prince Andrew, Duke of York, son of Queen Elizabeth II, consorting with a pedophilic pederast, visiting him at his Florida home which just happens to be a mansion where, a la Silvio Berlusconi, under-age girls were sexually abused?

Saying it isn't so, doesn't make it not-so. For that did happen: That a man who served 18 months in prison for child sex offences, was entreated successfully by Prince Andrew to personally help pay off his wife Sarah's (the Duchess of York whose legendary debt and her financial travails had her schilling for Weight Watchers) tedious debts.

There now is much talk between government ministers of revoking the prince's position as the country's trade ambassador. He is, let us be frank, rather a huge embarrassment to the government, the nation and his family. Which appears to have developed a penchant for embarrassing itself.

This one, however, is the exemplar of a mangy opportunist.

WOMAN

A woman is but an animal, and an animal not of the highest order. Edmund Burke

O woman, woman, when to ill thy mind
Is bent, all hell contains no fouler field. Homer

Women who are either indisputably beautiful, or indisputably ugly, are best flattered upon the score of their understandings; but those who are in a state of mediocrity, are best flattered upon their beauty, or at least their graces; for every woman who is not absolutely ugly thinks herself handsome. Lord Chesterfield

What is woman? only one of Nature's agreeable blunders. Hannah Cowley

Woman are door-mats and have been, -
The years those mats applaud, -
They keep their men from going on
With muddy feet to God. Mary Carolyn Davies

A lady is one who never shows her underwear unintentionally. Lilian Day

Mark her majestic fabric; she's a temple
Sacred by birth and built by hands divine;
Her soil's the deity that lodges there:
Nor is the pile unworthy of the god. John Dryden

Women are silver dishes into which we put golden apples. Goethe

A woman is a foreign land,
Of which, though there he settles young
A man will ne'er quite understand
The customs, politics, and tongue. Coventry Patmore

Here's to woman! Would that we could fall into her arms without falling into her hands. Ambrose Bierce

"Petticoat influence" is a great reproach ....
I for one venerate a petticoat -
A garment of a mystical sublimity.
No matter whether russet, silk or dimity. Lord Byron

The man who strikes his wife or child lays violent hands upon the holiest of holy things. Marcus Cato (Plutarch)

As the faculty of writing has been chiefly a masculine endowment, the reproach of making the world miserable has been always thrown upon the women. Samuel Johnson

Women are not altogether in the wrong when they refuse the rules of life prescribed in the world, forsomuch as only men have established them without their consent. Montaigne

Regard the society of women as a necessary unpleasantness of social life, and avoid it as much as possible. Leo Tolstoy

Women, like princes, find few real friends;
All who approach them their own ends pursue;
Lovers and ministers are seldom true. George Lyttelton

Iago: She was a wight, if ever such wight were, -
Desdemona: To do what!
Iago: To suckle fools and chronicle small beer.
Desdemona: O most lame and impotent conclusion! William Shakespeare

Asylum of Lunatic Dictators

The United Nations seems well on its way to becoming a truly perversely evil institution. One that began life with such promise as the League of Nations, determined to lead the world away from institutionalized and systemic racism, tribalism, tyrannies and global poverty, has allowed itself to become infected with the bacterium that gives rise to all those failures of humanity's propensity to social decay.

It is now, unquestionably, the greater preponderance of world leaders and governments that are classified by civil society as representative of traditional monarchies, theocracies, tyrannies, autocracies, dictatorships and their totalitarian fascist ideologies that deny their citizens human rights opportunities, freedoms and justice that are in the ascendancy of power in the UN.

It is they, the vast bloc of like-minded nations and governments who hold sway, who order the agendas, who inhabit the seats of authority in UN-sponsored and -linked councils and groups like the Human Rights Council and others of its ilk. Invariably, those most ill-suited by their established record and reputation who invest themselves with authority, backed by their like-minded cliques.

China, Cuba, Iran, Libya, Russia, are enabled to pronounce judgement, or withhold it, as the case may be, on matters relating to human rights and entitlements, justice and peace-keeping even while they present as some of the worst offenders whose activities imperil those very attributes of good governance in their own countries. They can persecute their own people relentlessly, but pass judgement on the governance of countries dedicated to human rights.

So Libya, which is busily exterminating opposition to its dictator Moammar Gadhafi, is removed from membership of the UN's human rights body, but it may continue to serve on the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice as well as the UN Committee on Information and the executive board of UN Women. Libya under Col. Gadhafi, the King of Kings, is right now exercising its mandate to prevent the crime of overthrowing its tyranny and meting out justice to the criminals who are protesting.

And Iran, which mocks all UN and IAEA efforts to bring its nuclear program into line with international standards, intent on its state program led by the Ayatollahs and the Republican Guard to achieve nuclear advantage in atomic weaponry, remains a respected member of the world body. In a world body whose purpose is dedicated to harmony and respect among nations, Iran remains an influential member, while threatening to exterminate a fellow member nation.

In a perversion of absolute verities of good and evil, evil appears to be triumphing, calling itself good, while good is gradually becoming submerged by evil. In a grand celebration of totalitarian rule of the United Nations, the aggressor nations, the human-rights defilers, the existential national threats to their own people, are in the ascendancy.

In a country like Iran where women are oppressed and their rights repressed, where prison rapes prior to executions take place routinely to ensure that upon death the women are not given the status of virgins and taken up into heaven, the UN has welcomed the country into the Commission on the Status of Women.

Women accused of adultery are stoned to death under a fundamentalist interpretation of Sharia law in Iran. Morality police are sent out into the streets to harass, intimidate and sometimes arrest and beat women whose mode of dress does not reflect sufficient Islamist modesty. Iran is being welcomed - named by acclamation to serve for four years on the UN's Commission on the Status of Women body.

Franz Kafka would have appreciated this hugely, he would have been inspired to write a tome on the insanity of a lunatic bureaucracy invented out of some inscrutably menacing brain gone berserk.

An Ire-Raising Letter

Unctuously soliciting the ethnic vote was always the prerogative of the Liberal Party of Canada. Pragmatic. Overt attempts by the party and its MPs to portray themselves as the assured friends of Canadian ethnic groups. Assiduously attending local ethnic events, ensuring that they be seen to be involved, present and accounted for.

Guess the Conservatives know a good thing when they see it. In terms of acquiring voting blocs, if they can. And surely if anyone could assume to have made some inroads into ethnic groups' consciousness, it's the current Immigration Minister, the truly hard-working, well-spoken, earnest and dependable Jason Kenney.

Still, it's a vote-seeking device that kind of reeks of opportunism. Easily understood why the potential seems so attractive. The Conservative Party of Canada is getting tired of being the perennial bridesmaid, and is reaching on tippy-toe to achieve its aspirational height as the bride. A majority government seems temptingly on the near horizon.

But wasn't that a mite clumsy, not having the good sense to check whose door those aides were knocking on? Those clever young parliamentary administrative aides aren't quite as careful as they should be, obviously. Too many late nights out. They really seem to be scuppering Conservative aspirations rather than advancing them.

Clumsy beyond belief to print a donation-wheedling letter in support of Conservative strategy in targeting ethnic communities on parliamentary letterhead. For this was not government business, but rather political partisan money business. The NDP, Bloc and Liberals must be hugging themselves with glee.

But calling for the minister's head on a platter? Any excuse to raise a ruckus far surpassing the purported reason for indignation over an unsupportable lapse of decorum and tradition will do, though.