Tories: For Your Eyes Only

The Liberal leadership race is obviously going to have a huge affect on Conservative prospects for the next election. With that in mind, we need to do a bit of strategizing here. Everyone knows that Grits troll Tory blogs for info to use against them. Therefore, instead of speculating who would make the best leader, let's use reverse psychology. We'll promote the worst ones in the context of being the ones we fear may have the most potential to wrest the government reins of power away from Stephen Harper.

With that in mind, I propose my list of "favourite" candidates, and their ensuing virtues:

#1. Scott Brison - Here is a man who ensures that his deep sense of humility does not interfere with his ability to justify his mistakes. As in the Income Trust incident, he can easily turn a faux pas into a plus by reminding everyone how virtuous he is to have come forward with the sordid details, after having been forced to do so by the press. Obviously, this is an important attribute in politics.

#2. Gerard Kennedy - "Idealistic young socialist for P.M." Kinda has a nice ring to it, don't ya think? Give the teachers' unions everything they want and you won't have any strikes under your watch. I've read on some Grit blogs that they think this guy has no baggage! No, of course not. Ontario voters have very short memories and Dalton McGuinty's whole list of broken promises will have no effect whatsoever.

#3. Bob Rae - Please refer to Ontario's short memory from #2 (above).

#4. Hedy Fry - This is the one to promote! Hedy is a woman!!! Womens' rights groups everywhere will love this one. And she's not a shrinking violet. Imagine her in a tete-a-tete with George Bush! All our problems with the U.S. would be solved in a nanosecond. She could even offer to personally scan for burning crosses on her trips to Camp David.

#5. Stephane Dion - Let's rally around this guy for sure, eh? First of all, his command of English is so bad that he should easily woo back those separatist votes in Quebec. They'd probably see him as a vision for a country-wide French-only movement. Western Canada might have an issue with that, but what the heck. They're only a bunch of farmers anyway, right?

I could go on, but you get the idea: Promote the candidates that you think have the least chance of unseating Harper. Then again, it's hard to find a serious contender in this cast of clowns.

Belinda might not be so blonde after all.

A Fundamental Question

To whom should an M.P. be most accountable?

We have a Parliamentary system in this country, in which you elect an M.P. who may or may not belong to a political party. The majority of M.P.'s elected from a particular party forms the next government, and their leader becomes the next Prime Minister. Seems simple.

But in fact, it is quite complex, because the electorate is struggling with the task of attempting to integrate the values of the candidate with those of the party and the leader. Quite often there is a disconnect.

The fundamental question however, is how does that M.P. see their ultimate responsibility and call to accountability? Is it to the constituents or the party and leader?

To me this is a crucial issue, because it so dramatically affects an M.P.'s voting behaviour and their whole mission statement regarding how they approach politics.

For example, there is no question that Garth Turner feels that his primary responsibility is to his riding constituents. My own M.P. is as far away from that view as is possible. As Liberal party whip, she feels she can only vote according to party lines, and has never conducted any sort of survey regarding free vote issues (to the best of my knowledge).

All the others probably fall somewhere in between.

So here I am, essentially a disenfranchised Conservative supporter in the Ontario heartland. I have no voice in Ottawa, save for the generosity of nearby Tory M.P.'s who are kind enough to field my concerns.

Next time you vote, ask the candidate where their ultimate allegiance lies. The answer might influence your decision at the polls.

Grits: Be Afraid - Be Very Afraid!

As a True Blue Tory living in Southern Ontario, I am continually frustrated by the fact that I have no actual representation in Ottawa. Not only is my M.P. a Liberal, but she is also the party whip, which gives her abundant excuses to vote according to party-line, rather than anywhere near where my values are.

The adjacent riding has also seen fit to reinstate a "maverick" Liberal, who unlike Garth Turner, manages to voice his opinion without attracting too much attention other than when we all have to listen to him in Parliament.

Our local paper, the Record ran a story on April 5 highlighting the reaction of Ms. Redman and Mr. Telegdi to the throne speech. The headlines read, "Liberals Turn to Watch from Sidelines"; and "Ottawa: Liberals Worry".

Now, first of all I should make it very clear that Karen Redman is a lovely woman, bursting with the virtues of motherhood and apple pie. Somehow she can never quite make that stretch to vote on moral issues accordingly, but that's another story.

Here are a few tidbits from the article:

"Of equal concern for Redman were references to changing the way health care is delivered in Canada. Harper was born in Ontario but raised in Alberta, where he attended the University of Calgary.

Alberta is allowing private clinics to offer medical services to people who can afford to pay, and Redman fears that philosophy may be creeping into the new federal government's agenda.

The throne speech said the government will support and enable innovative approaches to health-care delivery.

'I lament the vision of Canada Mr. Harper has articulated,' Redman said. 'And I find it very worrisome.' "

There is so much wrong with this statement. First of all, it is an illogical argument. If what she says is true, then anyone raised in any province carries the ensuing policy baggage of that province with no regard for the possibility of original thought. Any new ideas seem to be a concern for Ms. Redman anyway.

Also, never mind that the PM mentioned that everything would be done within the Canada Health Act. More fear-mongering. Sigh.

Finally, Stephen Harper has written to Ralph Klein expressing his concerns about the Alberta plan. That doesn't sound like the actions of someone ready to jump on board the bandwagon.


And from Andrew Telegdi, who is the M.P. for the Centre of the Universe:

"It's sad to see that after all those years there is no mention of post-secondary education in this throne speech," he said. "It's a no-brainer, especially when you are coming from a place like Waterloo Region."

I'm not going to touch that 'no-brainer' comment with a ten-foot Speaker's rod!

"As Telegdi listened to the throne speech yesterday, he was reminded of the 1995-era rhetoric coming from Ontario Conservatives under Mike Harris, the premier at the time.

The law-and-order crowd are back in power, he said, but it didn't work then and it won't work now."

Didn't work then? If memory serves me correctly, Mike Harris called for boot camps for young offenders, rather than coddling them and giving them zero consequences for their actions. I sure don't remember that being a failure. Anyway, the old argument of comparing a federal government to a previous provincial one is irrelevant.

The diatribe continues:

Telegdi says the youths terrorizing some poor and predominantly black neighbourhoods in Toronto are Mike Harris' "children." The provincial Tories slashed social spending and crime-prevention budgets and cancelled alternative programs that saw some offenders serve sentences in the community under supervision.

"It just didn't make sense because the alternative, jail, is very expensive," Telegdi said.

Oh, o.k. So we'll just slap their wrists and let them serve a sentence at home with their violent, X-rated computer games - Or we'll make a young thug pick up paper off the street. Give me a break.

"Illegal immigrants should be given work permits, and after a couple of years citizenship, as long as they don't have a criminal record, Telegdi said."

So if you break the law and come here illegally that's fine. There are no consequences... This is the kind of thing I have to put up with!!!


However, Karen Redman is astute enough to see the writing on the wall:

"Canadians don't want another election right now," Redman said. "They sent out a very clear message that they are willing to give the Conservatives' a test drive."

What she and all her cohorts should worry about is that Canadians might like that new car smell so much, they'll take out a full-term majority lease.

Tilting at Windmills?

Lately I have come across a bit of flack that some of my fellow bloggers are receiving in response to their efforts to expose MSM inaccuracies. Dave from Plattytalk has been especially diligent in trying to ferret out the truth from both CTV and CBC. Since media accountability is one of my personal missions, I feel the need to explain our apparent obsession, and why we are not just "whiners".

When I first exposed the lack of credibility behind the CTV report about the YWCA 'study', I naively expected that MSM would somehow step in and correct the inaccuracies in some fashion. The Toronto Sun was even alerted to this development, but as far as I know, the story didn't get picked up.

Many fellow bloggers stepped in by referencing the story, and several followed up with CTV and the YWCA. Dave went as far as to alert the CRTC which then forwarded the information onto the CSBC.

I began to realize that exposing the lack of substance in a media report is like picking a scab or boil. You can't just leave it festering or else the infection worsens. I started sending out emails to the YWCA, CTV and just yesterday to the CSBC. I don't intend to give this up. I want to hear the YWCA say that they deliberately mislead the reporter with the study results, by means of a press release stating the facts.

We are working on behalf of Canadians for sure, but also for the good of the media itself. Accountability and transparency are healthy and essential components of a democratic society. If the media does nothing to work towards that goal, it will lose the confidence of the consumer.

Just like the Liberal party, MSM may need a time-out to reassess its priorities.


UPDATE: H/T to Spiderman's Web for pointing out another blatant one-sided story; this time about same-sex marriage. It seems that according to the special interests groups that CTV interviewed, again "most Canadians" feel the issue should be put to rest. Who are these "Most Canadians"???

Was anyone out there included in a survey on this? Maybe it was the same group that wrote the YWCA report.

To contact CTV, try this first: newsonline@ctv.ca
Please let me know if you get any response. Thanks.

Jenny Gems

I am currently working on a follow-up to the CTV-YWCA reporting fiasco. Meanwhile, I finally got around to going over something I had taped from A.M. radio a few weeks ago.

Shortly after the YWCA report was released in March, our local talkshow station (570 News) invited study director Jenny Robinson to discuss the findings. I managed to tape some of the interview, and have spent considerable time transcribing some of the pithier edifications.

Please note that I have tried to be as accurate as possible, but since I did it totally by reviewing and writing the statements by hand, there may be tiny inaccuracies, but it is as close as humanly possible. Now does MSM give THAT kind of disclaimer before any news or editorial article?

Gems from Jenny:

-On Minister Diane Finley declining to attend the Toronto conference:

"...we're more than willing to have a dialogue, you know, because we really think that political posturing is one thing and partisan politics is another; but childcare really needs to sit outside of that realm and that we really need to consider what's good for our families and children across the country..."

Sure, Jenny, and there certainly weren't any partisan politics involved in your report or news release, right?



On the need for an 'equality-based' society:

"...and we still (women), you know, generally are the caregivers in our families and that is a position that we hold, and now we're also expected to be in the workforce in large numbers, um, to support the tax system we have, so there's a double whammy..."

Wow, is that why women go to work? To support the tax system? I thought it was to feed and clothe their families!! And btw, if we didn't have such a money-sucking, bureaucracy-heavy, socialist system in the first place, our taxes wouldn't be so high and more women could afford to stay home with their kids!!!

That's just about all I can stomach right now, folks.

-More to follow.

"Have you got Blogging on your Mind?"

Thanks very much to Blue Blogging Soapbox for choosing Joanne's Journey as this week's Blogging Tories Site of the Week. (I'm a little concerned about being #13, but I'll get over it). My efforts to track down and expose a misleading CTV report about the YWCA 'study' were given special attention.

As in the famous Gary Puckett song, I sometimes have problems getting away from this blog. It's almost like having a pet - If you go away for a few days, you wonder if it will be alright by itself, or should you put it in the "Comment Moderation" kennel?

But it takes no effort to write. For me it is as necessary as breathing and eating. Last year I sent out hundreds of letters to MSM, and had well over 35 of them printed in various papers such as the Post, Globe, Star, Sun and others.

This blog is now where I am directing most of my creative energy. There is never a shortage of things to write about. My only constraints are time, my family's indulgence and how much I want to aggravate my carpal tunnel syndrome.

There could be worse addictions, though. I have an outlet to vent my frustrations and to challenge others. To me, that's healthy.

And don't worry, Blue Blogging Soapbox - I'm not done with the YWCA story yet either. Stephen Harper isn't the only one with "steely resolve".

A Possible Solution

As part 2 of this series, I would like to draw your attention to the Conservative Life post "Opening of the Baby Human Hunt". However, I must warn you, it is not for the faint of heart (or stomach). Graphic images are displayed, so proceed with caution. If you don't want to take a look though, I have to ask you why not? Those tiny babies went through a lot of trauma and pain before they died. Surely you can suffer through an uncomfortable glance for a moment.

Anyway, Ferret has made some excellent points in his comment section. You may have to wade through some rough language to get there, but it's worth the read.

Some more salient points: "If you murder a one week old baby that was born two weeks prematurely it is murder. If you murder 40 week old fetus that is technically older than the one that was born before being killed than it is acceptable. THAT IS INSANE."

Just think about that one for a while. To me it defeats that whole 'when is the fetus a person?' argument.

After I complimented Ferret for having the courage to write this he said, "It really doesn't take any courage to do this. Being critical of muslims takes courage because you might lose your head. Being hit with stupid comments from liberals who don't understand the absurdity of their stance is par for the course. I have a steady stream of idiot liberals who come here to showcase their ignorance. Good work getting your letter published in the National Post!"

The latter is a reference to my letter drawing a similar comparison to the seal hunt debate, which I included in an earlier post, (Live and Let Die). The whole thing drew some great comments.

Now, what I've been building up to here is a possible solution, as presented by a Post reader (Letters, March 30, "With a Viable Fetus, Rights Change". The writer is actually Margaret Somerville from the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law in Montreal.

She feels that the whole issue shifts once a fetus is viable, i.e. could be kept alive as a premie if allowed to live. At this point, isn't it murder to kill the baby once he would be theoretically able to be kept alive using modern technology?

Ms. Somerville further argues:

"Abortion is based on respect for a woman's right to control her body, including to not use it to gestate a fetus against her wishes. That right can be honoured by recognizing her right to evacuate her uterus. It is a further, separate question whether a woman also has a right to have the fetus killed when that is avoidable.

Late-term abortions are usually carried out by a lethal injection of potassium chloride into the heart of the fetus, which is then delivered dead. In Canada, no law prevents doing that to any fetus. If the same fetus were born alive and killed, the crime would be murder. The Princeton philosopher Peter Singer recognizes the inconsistency in this approach and, therefore, argues for the legalization of infanticide as well as abortion. The alternative path to consistency is to ban late-term abortions, unless they are required to protect the woman's life or health. Or we could just ban killing a viable fetus, but allow its delivery."

I'm not going to copy any more of the letter here, because you should have been subscribing to the Post all along, right? (See, I'm not totally against MSM).

So, in the case of late stage unwanted pregnancies, let's rid the poor woman of her horrible burden, and still allow that human being an opportunity to live and be loved in a good home with parents who are desperate to have children.

Or else it should be legal to snuff out anyone's life when they cause us some inconvenience.



Update: Just discovered two more great links to debate on this subject:

Try Celestial Junk, "The Debate Nobody Wants", and The War Room, "Partial Birth Abortion".

Obviously, democracy still rules in the blogosphere.

Does Freedom of Speech Include the "A" Word?

There is a spirited debate going on in the National Post right now, unlike anything you'll hear in the Canadian political arena.

People are actually talking about, (quiet now, close your doors and windows...) abortion... *gasp*.

That was an absolute taboo subject in the last election, and the mere whisper of the word would bring shrill shrieks from womens' rights groups. Indeed Paul Martin used this issue to pillory Stephen Harper even though the Conservative party agreed in a policy convention that this would not be an election issue.

Actually, I'm surprised the word abortion is still in the Canadian dictionary. There have been a lot of words eradicated lately - like 'husband and wife' for example.

Back to the Post - Jonathan Kay courageously reopened the debate in Monday's column, "Canada Needs an Abortion Law". He points out that most, if not all other countries have some degree of restriction against open access to abortion.

Mr. Kay states, "Secure in the basic right to abortion, voters recognize that some restrictions are a moral necessity, and that the nature of those restrictions presents exactly the sort of issue that should be the meat of politics."

Why aren't we discussing this? How have we allowed ourselves to be so intimidated by radical special interest groups that this not even allowed to be raised in the political forum? How many people are actually in agreement that there should be no law at all regarding this issue in a supposedly civilized country?

I guess 'equal rights' don't apply equally.

Truth or Dare

Over the past few days, I have received some glowing accolades for my investigative efforts involved in disclosing some of the junk science and shoddy MSM reporting behind the misleading claims of the YWCA study. I have also received a lot of flack from outraged bloggers who think I'm letting reporters like Alicia Kay Markson off the hook too easily.

What concerns me the most however are the comments from various sources that seem to be looking for someone to interpret the truth for them.

Just like the Garth Turner episode, I am merely trying to give you another side of the story to consider. If you want to do something with your anger, look for constructive outlets that might actually help improve things.

For example, you could:

• -sign Brian's petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/111327/petition.html
• -contact the YWCA and ask them to issue a press release to correct the distortions.
• -Write to your M.P. (especially if she happens to be Carolyn Bennett!)

The idea here is to assimilate information from all different sources, and then make your own decision. We have been so brainwashed by the Liberals into assuming we need to rely on Government for assistance from cradle to grave, that we have even relinquished our responsibility to objectively evaluate what is going on around us. We have turned into a nation of lemmings!

Well I, for one, am not going to do your thinking for you.


UPDATE: Please check out Strong World for more Daycare Wars!

An Offer I Couldn't Refuse

A few days ago I was invited by Stephen Taylor to join Blogging Tories. This was no slouch offer. I knew that it was a huge opportunity to get my message out there, but due to technical problems at the time, I reluctantly said I'd have get back to him.

Well, my IHTG ("In-House Tech Guy" who inhales the groceries before they even reach the fridge) spent a lot of time helping me out, and the issues were somewhat resolved. I contacted Stephen to reveal the good news, and my IHTG did the rest.

This all coincided with my breaking story about the YWCA propaganda report (see previous post), so it's all somewhat of a blur. That was a busy day - phone calls to media, attempting to resolve annoying technical issues and then finally trying to get out a coherent story.

But it was all worth the effort. I would like to express my gratitude to Stephen Taylor for his marvellous invitation and helpful advice; to Joan Tintor and other fellow bloggers for their glowing references to my piece; to my patient husband who tolerates stacks of newspapers and notes all over the place, and to countless others who have left so many encouraging comments on my blog.

Ms. Markson, I appreciate that you took the time to tell me your side of things. In a sense, you too are a victim in the relentless pressure to get one story out and then rush to the next. Maybe we're all to blame with our insatiable appetite for news.

And a special note to my IHTG - I couldn't do this without you. Thanks.

Innocence Lost

I thought that once I got to the bottom of this YWCA Daycare Report fiasco, I would either feel angry or triumphant.

Instead, I just feel sad.

We all grew up placing our trust in authority figures, and that included our parents, teachers, police, religious officials and even the media (but never politicians). When there is a breach of trust though, it is something that can shake you to your very core.

So let me give you a brief recap. I voluntarily undertook the assignment on behalf of some of my fellow bloggers, such as Sara and Prairie Voice, to try and track down the data that led to CTV's statement that "most Canadians would prefer a national day-care program over a federal cash payout", as it related to the YWCA's recent media circus over their report, "Building a Community Architecture" in support of universal daycare.

I simply wanted to know what facts supported the data; a simple question, I thought. After all, this Parliament could fall on the daycare issue, and the politicians' beliefs about Canadians' opinions in this regard could be the tipping point. I never realized how persistent I would have to be to ferret out the truth.

You can read some of my previous posts to discover how much digging I had to do to climb up the chain of command at the YWCA National office. Nobody seemed to know much about this report. Even the co-author, Fahreen Beg had to direct my enquiry to Jenny Robinson, Director of National Initiatives, who apparently coordinated the project and report.

At this point I was getting a little suspicious. The co-author didn't know anything about it?

Several more emails were sent out to Jenny asking how CTV came to the conclusion from the report that 'most Canadians would prefer a National Day Care Program...'

In reply, I simply received form letters referring to the study.

At this point, saner people would have given up, but I tried a new approach: Go back to the source. So I looked up that original CTV report again, and noticed it was written by an Alicia Kay Markson, with files from the Canadian Press. I tried all kinds of ways to get her email address - google; CTV website; I even tried contacting their "Whistleblower" site to suggest lack of credibility in the media as a topic! Needless to say, they didn't bite.

O.K. Then I faced my least favourite alternative as an unpaid investigative journalist - long distance. I called the head office and asked if I could be put through to Ms. Markson's voice mail.

A man actually answered the phone. Yikes! I wasn't prepared for that! What do I say?

I gathered my wits and asked for Alicia, but I was told she wasn't around at the moment.

"Oh, could I please leave a message?"

-Well, you could, but she likely wouldn't call back, because she is VERY BUSY.

"Right. Well, could I leave it anyway please?"

-What's this about?

So I launched into my little diatribe without sounding too threatening; like just saying that I'm interested in a story she did about the YWCA report. Then I asked if perhaps he could help me?

-Sorry, I don't think so.

"Um, do you think I shouldn't be asking about all this?"

That threw him off! He mumbled something I couldn't quite make out.

Finally, I was able to at least get him to take my name, phone number and email address.

File 13. End of story.

But wait! About a half hour later the phone rang. Blocked call. The hair on the back of my neck stood up.

"This is Alicia Kay Markson calling. May I please speak to Joanne?"

Yes, you sure may, Ms. Markson!

I told her I was trying to understand where that statement in her story came from; that I had searched the whole study and still didn't see any evidence to support it.

She assured me that it was in the report. I replied that I had poured over every word, and the closest I could find was "Canadians agree that universal child care is a necessity", (which was suspect in itself), but I didn't find the word 'most'.

Well, I could tell she was getting a bit impatient with me now, and asked me what my 'interest' was in all this?

"Well, I'm a blogger, and I'm doing a little investigative journalism".

I could hear the amused tone in her voice - 'Really?'

"I'm a Conservative blogger, and there are a lot of us out there trying to get at the truth in main stream media. I want to give you the opportunity to tell your side of the story".

-Uh-huh...

Well, to her credit, the conversation didn't end there.

She candidly explained that she didn't really read the whole report.

What? Pardon me?

I took the opportunity to give her a brief summary; explaining that the participants from the four cross-Canada focus groups were hand-picked and therefore could hardly be considered unbiased.

She replied that she got the statement from the National Coordinator.

Ah, well that explains it! Good ol' Jenny Robinson.

I thanked her kindly for her time and assured her that I was very grateful.



Well, as I sit and digest all this, I'm thinking that reporters probably are rushed off their feet, and likely don't have a lot of time to dig into facts before they stand in front of a camera. So, I'm willing to give Ms. Markson and the Canadian Press the benefit of the doubt.

But if this is representative of how MSM reporting works, then it really is 'Buyer Beware" when it comes to being a media consumer. I give Ms. Markson full credit for her honesty and candor.

But my rose-coloured glasses are now in the trash.

Please Do Not Adjust Your Set!

Playing around with the template, etc. Please be patient. My tech guy is trying some stuff.
Thanks.

UPDATE: Does anyone have any idea why some templates work in both Explorer and Mozilla, but others don't? My in-house tech guy is stumped, and this doesn't happen very often. Specifically, he can't figure out why the links appear in Mozilla but not Explorer when using the blue or pink templates. Grey seems o.k., but that's not me. Thanks!

Meet Ya Outside at High Noon, Garth!

Halton M.P. Garth Turner and I have been having a little feud over on his blog, the Turner Report. Things were getting heated - I called him 'disloyal' and he threw a few words like 'absurd' and 'dysfunctional' in my direction. Well, the fur was flying, and then he finally asked me to take it outside (the blog, that is). He goaded me with his phone number and even suggested I call collect.

It's easy to hide behind a computer and criticize, but to actually make a phone call and talk to the real person requires a bit more courage. I thought about it for a while, and then decided to take him up on the offer. After all, how often does an M.P. beg me to call? (Usually, I'm the one chasing them, and in the case of my own M.P., I've pretty much given up because she either ignores me or sends form letters. Thanks, Karen. I've got them all memorized. No need to bother anymore.)

Now, back to Garth. He's been characterized by the 'radical right' as we've been called, as everything from a maverick to Harper's worst nightmare. I remember Garth back when he wrote terrific financial columns for the Sun I believe, so I knew that he couldn't be a total write-off.

He answered the phone very politely and thanked me for calling. Then he proceeded to give me his perspective on life as an M.P., and his frustrations trying to deliver his constituents' ideas to the higher-ups. He explained that a public forum seemed like a reasonable alternative.

While listening to Garth explain his side of the story, I went from wanting to lynch the guy to wishing that I lived in his riding so I could vote for him! This is an M.P. who does actually care, and believe me, he wants the best for the party too. Winning the Toronto area vote is key and voters there will need to feel that they are being heard.

So if anyone out there is still upset with Garth, I suggest you give him a call. There are always two sides to every story and Garth will give you his with a candor you won't likely hear from many politicians.

Time for a Change!!!

In case you were worried by the title, no I'm not wanting to bring down the current government. Au contraire. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not the Liberal Joanne that has been commenting on fellow Conservatives' blogs.

Apparently, this is causing some problems. Both Molarmauler and ChuckerCanuck have noted the confusion.

So in the interest of a move toward more transparent blogging, I have officially changed my display name to "Joanne (True Blue)". I think the reasons are obvious.

Now I'm Mad!

(Sorry about the lack of formatting in this one, folks. Having some technical problems. -Jo)


O.K. That does it. Now I am fuming!!!

I had been patiently following up with the YWCA National Office regarding their self-indulgent report, "Building a community Architecture..." As I stated in an earlier post, I was somewhat skeptical of the claim that "Most Canadians would prefer a national day-care program over a federal cash payout", as reported on CTV so I sent numerous emails to various levels of the organization to attempt to ferret out the truth.

Originally I sent an email to the National Office, asking for some details regarding the report, and was referred to the press release on their website.

I then asked, "Am I correct that you extrapolated the finding that 'Most Canadians would prefer a national day-care program over a federal cash payout' from the comments of your task force representatives? If that is the case, I am having trouble finding how many there were in your survey, and how they were selected."

The prompt response was, "I'm not into the project so I forwarded your message to Farheen Beg who's the project assistant and one of the writers of the report. I'm copying her here. Please contact her directly with all your questions. Thanks."

(Did you catch that? "I'm not into the project". No, I bet a lot of people aren't.)

So, I dutifully shot out an email to Ms. Beg, "...Is this information from the comments of the four community task forces? If so, how was that sample derived? Random selection? How was the question phrased? How would that be representative of most Canadians?"

Reply:

"Thank you for your email. I have forwarded your question to Jenny Robinson, Director of National Initiatives. She coordinated the project and report and can answer any questions you have. I have asked her to get back to you. She will do so at her earliest convenience."

Sent several follow-ups, and finally received this:

Joanne,

Sorry for the delay. We have been inundated with over a hundred media calls as well as information requests from numerous supporters. Below are the answers to your questions.

(- Really? Please tell me if YOU can see the answers to my questions?)


FYI - You can find the full report and background information on our website at www.ywca.ca.

First you have to understand that it was not a poll, it was a participation action research study that involved four representative communities across Canada. The study was funded by Social Development Canada. The purpose of Building a Community Architecture for Early Childhood Learning and Care was to develop effective models for the care and education of young children. This work took place in - Halifax, Nova Scotia; Cambridge, Ontario; Martensville, Saskatchewan; Vancouver, British Columbia. Task forces of key stakeholders (parents, child care providers, and representatives from education, health, special needs, aboriginal organizations, labour and business) were established to build community models of integrated early childhood learning and care (ECLC).

These task forces were asked to:

a) Consider how existing community resources can be organized to serve as a strong foundation for new Early Childhood Learning and Care (ECLC) investments;

b) Develop a community consensus on early childhood service delivery models that would:

• Provide children with early learning opportunities at the same time parents are supported to work/study and parent effectively

• Be accountable to governments and communities

• Make efficient use of limited public resources

• Better respond to the needs of children, families and communities

• Improve outcomes for children and families

The groups met five times over the course of 8 to 12 months. These day long meetings were well documented and facilitated by a community coordinator who also provided support to the groups and consolidated the findings. At the end of there work together the communities each created a ‘blue print’ of their plans. The four case studies were then used to produce the final report. We have also produced a guide that other communities can use if they want to undertake a similar planning process.

Thanks for your interest in our work.

Regards,
Jenny Robinson
Director of Advocacy and National Initiatives
YWCA Canada
-------------

Mmmmm...... Looks like a form letter; smells like a form letter. Could it be? Actually it is worded very much like the responses I used to get from my M.P. way back when she bothered to reply to me, and I wasn't black-listed. They must have the same assistant.


I reply:

Hi Jenny,

Thanks for your extensive reply. I appreciate that a lot of time and effort went into your study.

I am simply trying to find out how CTV came to the conclusion from your report that most Canadians would prefer a National Day Care Program over a federal cash payment, as detailed below.

There must have been some kind of statistics that were used to support this statement.

Thanks very much,
Joanne
---------------

Well, I never received a response to that one for a few days, so after several more letters, Jenny finally sent me this beauty:


I have already responded to the best of my ability. JR
------------

Oh, man!!! I can feel the venom from here! This lady is not a happy camper. I questioned her precious report and she can't defend those statements! When people are caught in a situation like this, (as I noted in an earlier post), they either fight or run. I'm guessing she has decided to retreat into the protective custody of outraged indignation.

My question is, could somebody please tell me who these "Most Canadians" are???

If I hear one more unsubstantiated report about "Most Canadians" or "Studies show", I am going to explode!!! And studies show that most Canadians would agree, it would not be a pretty sight.

Bloggers Rights?

Wow! Published writer, Adam Daifallah who shared the limelight with me in yesterday's Sun "Best of the Blogs", is somewhat upset that he was not consulted for permission to quote some material, even though due credit was given.

We are now debating the whole situation on his excellent blog.

Personally, I think it's like the Wild West out here in cyberspace, but perhaps there should be some standards of courtesy and law regarding copyright issues, if there aren't already. If MSM wants to quote something from a blog, it would be difficult to get the author's permission if an email address is not provided on the site (of course in this case, Adam's is available on his website).

My favourite radio talkshow host often reads "Letters to the Editor" from the local paper. Should he be making an effort to (a) get the newspaper's permission first and (b) checking with the letter writer as well?

I think if you put stuff out there, be prepared to have it quoted. Copying material and using it as your own is a whole different thing.

Ironically, today's blog spot in the Sun is quoting Norman Spector referring to European media reports about a story on Brigette Bardot. So we have a MSM quoting a blogger quoting MSM, and here I am referring to all of it. I'm getting a headache!

Last December, my letter that the National Post had published about Belinda Stronach, ended up on Norman's blog as his pick for 'Letter of the Day' ("The Politics of Shoes"). I was quite flattered, but only happened across it by accident when I was googling my name (yes, I do that too...) Nobody asked my permission, and that letter was reproduced in its entirety.

What should we do? Form a union and go on strike? Lobby the government for better pay and working conditions?

The first thing I'd better do is contact Adam about referring to his blog!

Sun's "Best of the Blogs"!

Wow, I feel like I just won the Stanley Cup or the World Series of the Blogosphere!

The Toronto Sun mentioned my blog today in their Best of the Blogs series (What's Hot and on the Web)!! To be recognized by MSM is amazing. As much as we bloggers criticize television and the press, it's awesome to have this kind of publicity. The Sun is one of my favourite papers, because their sardonic editorial perspective doesn't pull any punches.

The National Post is another must-read, because of solid news coverage and a balance of opinion. They also tend to publish my 'Letters to the Editor' more than any other paper. (One friend remarked that I seem to have a regular column in the Post.)

The Sun, however, is certainly ahead of the pack with their regular blog-recognition site available under Comment. Newspapers that ignore the wealth of opinion in cyberspace will be left in the dust.

Oh, and a little note to G.G. Michaelle Jean: Now you're not the only one who's "Hot".

Take a Flying Leap, Dalton!

Excuse me while I digress to provincial politics for a moment.

Ontario Premier Dalton McWimpy, oops, sorry, McGuinty is defending his Liberal government's $150,000 grant to study the 'sex lives of flying squirrels'. Apparently this is a global warming issue. Well, yeah, I guess if there are lots of squirrels having sex in a dense area, things could warm up a bit...

Anyway, another study has apparently been funded to investigate why people pay attention to emotionally expressive faces and how negative faces hold attention more than positive ones. That one will cost us $100,000. Seems like a bargain.

Let me tell you something, Dalton. I can save you a lot of money and give you the answer to that last one right now. Negative faces hold attention more than positive ones because when people see an angry face, for example, they have to decide whether to run or fight. Just have a look at the taxpayers in Ontario, Dalton, and you will have an excellent case study to draw from. I would suggest you run far away.

Aw, you're all nuts anyway.

It's Fun to Go to the YWCA

I'm having a little trouble swallowing CTV's report about the YWCA study saying that "Most Canadians would prefer a national day-care program over a federal cash payout". I had so much difficulty that I emailed the Y to get the stats on this 'Study'. To their credit, they sent back a link to an extensive document, Building a Community Architecture. The Y's own press release says: "The results give evidence that Canadian communities want a national child care program. They are willing to invest resources and are committed to its full development." I don't remember anyone asking me about this. I emailed them back to find out how they selected their sample and how many people participated. The study talks about four 'representative' community task forces across Canada. Still waiting for a response to my query. Colour me skeptic, but why do I think that sample was largely comprised of union members?

Tic Tag Toe

Yikes! I guess I've finally made it to the blogger big time, since I've been tagged in a Conservative blog on-line anagram game! Thanks Platty. As I said, way to wreck a great Sunday. I usually catch a few zzzz's around now, but how can I sleep with this on my mind?

Well, if you play around with "Joanne's Journey", you get some interesting combinations, like:

- Jay Joe's Neon Urn: A great way to store your ashes; especially if you're a Toronto ball player.

- An Enjoy Joe's Urn: O.K. Anne, get out of there! That's just sick!

- Jay Joe's Reno Nun: Mexican convent/diner.

- Jay Joe's Nero Nun: Same idea as above, but situated in Rome.

Oh, man this is WAY too fun!! O.K. If I have to pick one, I like "Joanne Jure Nosy", since I tend to get involved where I shouldn't. "Joanne June Rosy" is also cool, since it is an anniversary month here.

Now, how am I supposed to sleep??

So thanks, YakPlattt. And Molarmauler. And ChuckerCanuk. And countless unspecting others yet to be tagged!

Like, how about Prairie Voice for Childcare Choice! And maybe Riley's Political Rant? Lots to work with there.

O.K. Guys, you're IT!

A Parent's Right to Choose

Today I sat down at the computer, and checked out my usual fav sites to get plugged into the world via MSM and the blogosphere. Dave's Plattytalk alerted me to a special day of blog focus on Child Care at Sara's Choice for Childcare. BTW, Sara, I love the blog format you chose. ;)

This issue is near to my heart as well, because my husband and I had once made that difficult decision to only have one of us in the work force while the other stayed home. Together we raised two terrific children who grew up to be productive members of society and who now give generously of themselves. We made a lot of sacrifices to do this, but the rewards were awesome!

However, we could have used a little financial assistance and emotional support along the way. Sara is quite right that society tends to look down on women who make this choice to stay home. It is indeed discriminatory to be only helping certain types of mothers. Equal access means equality for all parents; whether out in the work force or at home.

We are all molding the next generation, and that is a daunting task. The aging Boomer generation is going to be relying on youth to bolster our country's economy with solid fiscal and social contributions. We also need to give those kids good values so they won't become trapped in lives of addiction to drugs, pornography or other forms of crime and self-gratification.

Nurturing good future citizens involves more than just parking them at a state-run propaganda-spewing institution. It's in all our best interests to support Stephen Harper in his $1200 a year Child Care strategy.

Commercials You Love to Hate

In honour of the recent termination of the Canadian Tire Couple, I would like to ask what are everyone's most hated commercials?

Certainly that bearded guy was a bit much to take, but his know-it-all wife was way worse. Well, no more having to listen to those two tell us what to buy the whole year long.

Radio commercials seem to be particularly annoying. I guess it's because they have to rely on the audio factor alone, but will someone please explain to me how loud, screaming unintelligible noises are supposed to lure me into buying something when in actual fact, I race to the radio to turn the darn thing off? Somehow that seems counter-productive to what I assume they are trying to achieve.

My most hated T.V. commercial is the "Hands in your pocket" one. This thing is loathsome beyond belief. First of all, how can this guy keep up with all those people he's running after, and still keep his hand in their pockets? Secondly, why is he always putting his hand in guys' pockets only; never a woman's?

I think in the interest of equal rights we should have a woman running after other women putting her hand in their purses or whatever she can grab onto.

Let's throw a few transgendered and transsexuals in there too! We're a diverse community! Equality for all!

Excuse me while I change the channel.

Bloggers Anonymous

Blogging is a curious addiction. You write because it's as much a part of your life as eating and sleeping. Blogging however, allows you to write and perhaps even have someone read your thoughts. If you're very lucky, they may even post a comment, and usually it is complimentary.

Once you start blogging, you begin to look at others' creations. It's kinda like an artist going to another painter's exhibition. But there are a lot of blogs out there! Almost too many.

However, I have stumbled across a few favourites, and here they are. I'm sure I'll be adding to this list over the next little while:

Riley's Political Rant is an excellent political site by Riley Hennessey, a Dalhousie Masters student. His thoughts are well-expressed and from a very objective and philosophical perspective. I look forward to reading more.

At Home In Hespeler is a cute site by a Dad who seems perplexed by his family's antics. Brian hails not far from my home town in Southern Ontario. He also waxed poetic on the art of blogging, and how gratifying it is to have an audience.

I love Plattytalk, although some of Dave's visitors are a bit, shall I say, animated? He should be posting a warning. PG13 at least. But I guess out there in Alberta, it's probably a bit more rough and tumble than here. I hear they have cowboys out there. Then again, that doesn't mean anything these days, does it? Dave's comments are great though. The thing I like the most is that if he gets angry, he does something about it! He writes letters to M.P.'s!! (I used to do that, but I think my M.P. has a filter to block out my name from incoming email.) Dave also did a great post called, "I Blog therefore.." He has come up with a mission statement that I think could be used by bloggers everywhere.

Well, those are three good ones. I need to find one in B.C., and one up in the Arctic somewhere. Then I'll have representation from sea to sea to melting glacier field.

Misinformation Knows No Border

Wonderful letter in today's National Post regarding the Afghanistan debate. A cool counter to the leftist head-in-the-sand approach:


National Post

Friday, March 10, 2006

Re: Readers Debate Afghanistan Role, letters to the editor, March 8.

How fascinating. When it comes to the war on terror, Canadians aren't as different from Americans as they think. Reading these letters, I was struck by how similar -- and misguided -- many of the arguments are.

I am a United States Marine and I've heard the same arguments down here: "Support our troops, bring them home now, keep them out of harm's way," etc. Such logic is absurd. The men and women of Canada's Armed Forces are all adults and volunteers. And guess what: They know that serving in the military is inherently dangerous. They choose to do it anyway. Claiming that they're too valuable to send into a combat zone diminishes the choice they themselves made.

Those serving in Afghanistan believe that bringing hope to such countries is worth the sacrifice of their own well-being. Don't act as if they were somehow duped into joining a dangerous organization and require protection from the leaders that duped them. Be proud that your country still has citizens who understand that military service entails risk, hardship, violence and death, and think it a small price to pay for making this world a better place.

1st Lieutenant Ian Brown, United States Marine Corps, Jacksonville, N.C.
© National Post 2006

Liberal Ethics 101

Liberals have a very curious way of viewing the world - If it's good for the party, then it's good for Canada.

Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro is launching an investigation into the floor crossing of David Emerson. He never worried that Belinda Stronach did the same thing. But of course, Belinda is Liberal. Oh yeah, and Liberal Tony Valeri had some kind of questionable land-deal thing going on, but Mr. Shapiro said he couldn't touch that because it was between house sessions (never mind that the house isn't sitting right now either.)

Then there's Liberal M.P. Scott Brison, who not only is a floor-crosser, but also apparently sent a rather suspicious email to a friend at the C.I.B.C. just before the Goodale announcement on Income Trust.

According to the CBC, Mr. Brison said he wrote, "I think you will be happier very soon ... this week probably," after the bank employee complained to him about the state of the stock market. (Sounds like a fortune cookie, doesn't it?)

But Scott maintains he didn't actually know anything; it was just speculation. Of course, this is one of many such little incidents where Liberal insiders voiced 'pure conjecture' in a vocal manner to selected friends and colleagues, who coincidentally managed to reap huge profits when the Income Trust announcements were officially made public.

So Mr. Brison just felt that he should now do the honourable and transparent thing by publicly airing this tidbit. Never mind that he originally made various denials.

Yes, Mr. Brison says he wants all this out in the open because of course he is considering running for the Liberal leadership, and obviously integrity and honesty is paramount in a leader who could one day become Prime Minister.

Why isn't Mr. Shapiro investigating Scott Brison? Oh, yeah, because Scott is a Liberal. Another reason may be that Bernard Shapiro is simply incompetent.

And just like David Dingwall, if we want to get rid of Shapiro we have to fire him and pay a huge severance penalty. And so even with a new government, the old trappings still hang on.

Update: According to CTV, Bernard Shapiro is hanging on for all he's worth (which could be a lot by the time he's done this stint).

You know, come to think of it, maybe we should give Bernie some credit. After all, if he gets fired, he gets a huge severance, and the government looks bad for trying to pre-empt an investigation. He's got nothing to lose by being as obnoxious and annoying as possible. Gotta give the guy credit. He's no dummy after all. Not very ethical, but smart.

Live and Let Die?

I used to be a Beatles fan. I have even spent copious amounts of money on Paul McCartney CD's, DVD's and two concerts. No more.

While watching Larry King last night where Sir Paul and his Lady bashed Canada's seal hunt with misinformation and archaic footage of clubbing methods from decades ago, I became enraged with their sanctimonious pontificating and how they constantly interrupted Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams. And by the way, folks, eye-rolling is very pre-teen. Danny Williams, by contrast, was extremely articulate and dignified while he patiently explained how the McCartneys were being used by various animal rights organizations, and how they were basically uninformed about Canada's side of the story.

And Larry, it is pronounced NEW-fund-land; not New-FIN-Land!!!! Get it right.

And Sir Paul, you were in a studio in PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND; not Newfoundland, as Premier Williams pointed out. Learn your geography people, before you stick your noses in Canada's business!!

I think those baby seals are cute too, but so are baby humans and we have an open season on them in Canada right up until the moment of birth.

As I said in Friday's National Post, Sir Paul and his wife should be paying attention to that slaughter:

Ignoring abortion

National Post

Friday, March 03, 2006

Re: The Issue Harper Can't Ignore, Father Raymond de Souza, March 2.

Father de Souza's critique of Canada's "no restriction on taxpayer-funded abortion at any time during gestation" policy rightly points out that it is probably the most lenient in the world.

Placing some restrictions on access to abortion, or public funding of it, or both, would help stem our declining population in this country and shore up health care in other areas. But quite aside from that, the fact remains that many people see abortion as an unconscionable attack on human life. People like Sir Paul McCartney should at least be paying as much attention to this slaughter as he does to that of baby seals.

So, Sir Paul, unless you're prepared to take up a real cause, "Get back, get back, get back to where you once belonged"!!!

Is Mexico Still in Your Travel Plans?

The controversy surrounding the recent murders of the Canadian couple in Mexico how seems to be centering on Quintana Roo Attorney General Rodriguez Carrillo, who has not exactly had a pristine background. Today's Toronto Star outlines a sordid past of questionable and 'improper' actions, including the hoarding of recovered looted items from Hurricane Wilma. Rodriguez had also headed up the murder investigation of the Spanish/Italian couple near the Mayan ruins at Tulum at the southern tip of the Yucatan. According to reports, that case too had strange anomalies. (Whew! I always have trouble saying that word. Typing is much easier).

Anyway, a Kitchener family was staying at the Barcelo Maya Beach Resort during the time when the Woodridge couple was murdered there. Michael Milloy said they only found out about the murder by reading Canadian news reports on the Internet, according to this morning's Record. Contrary to the official line by Mexican authorities that everyone had been questioned and the resort sealed off, Milloy said nobody mentioned the horrible event to them. In fact, life went on as if nothing had happened. This observation has been confirmed by other tourists there at the time.

The Star website features an interesting link to comments by various Canadians regarding outrageous affair. Some people are adverse to ever travelling there again and others don't see it as a problem. One thing for sure - the Barcelo Maya Beach Resort will no doubt be offering bargain rates for months to come.

The question is, what is the 'tipping point' where the lure of a great vacation bargain can overcome your concern for personal safety? Comments are welcome.

Drawing a Line in the Media Sand.

Carolyn sent me an email this past Saturday with more riveting thoughts which she has allowed me to reprint here:

I just read an article in the National Post this morning. It's on the front page and it's called "Reason To Live". It talks about Singapore's program of using reformed terrorists to challenge the ideology of practising terrorists. So this is a Muslim solution to a Muslim problem. The reformed terrorists "listen" to the practising terrorists and begin to challenge their ideas and their narrow interpretations of the Koran. They called this a Religious Rehabilitation Group. They put together a manual on terrorist ideology and how to confront it. This article shows the importance of challenging the core beliefs of people through a process of re-education. The extremists needed to unlearn a narrow interpretation of the Koran before they could learn to value all human life (non-Muslims). Like people in cults, extremists need to be deprogrammed from their ideology which is: hate non-Muslims, strive to create an Islamic state, engage in Jihad. Back to Canada..I think we have a dilemma..how do we address this need to educate immigrants towards a Canadian ideology when the vogue thinking of Canada is to embrace relativism? When you stand for everything you stand for nothing. In other words our tolerance tolerates the intolerable, and therefore we need to be less tolerant.

This fits in perfectly with something that I read this morning in the Post. "Deeyah, who has been dubbed the "Muslim Madonna," has been forced to hire security guards to protect her in London next month while she promotes a new single and video, according to the British newspaper The Independent."

"The 27-year-old Norwegian-born star has become the target of threats from religious extremists who are angry about the video for her song What Will It Be, which she argues is about Muslim women's rights and empowerment. The video features Irshad Manji, the Toronto-based feminist Muslim writer, ripping off a strip of tape that covers her mouth."

So here is an example of outspoken Muslim women trying to educate their own people about women's rights and so forth, but it appears that some extremists are not very pleased with Deeyah's message. According to the report, some media outlets are now backing away from promoting the video much the same way most Canadian newspapers have been reluctant to print the infamous "blasphemous" cartoons.

So back to Carolyn's point, "...our tolerance tolerates the intolerable.."

Right on. Multiculturalism has failed the very people it was designed to protect. Are we going to take a stand based on principles, or just give in all the time to the greatest pressure and threat? This is our Iraq; right here, right now.

Mexican Malaise

Something just doesn't add up - The Canadian couple murdered in a five-star Maya Beach resort during what should have been the joyful occasion of their daughter's wedding. Throats slashed. Right in their rooms. In Mexico. (I could say, 'I'm not making this up', but I don't want to trivialize the horror, so I won't.)

The Mexican authorities tell us they have everything under control, and they know that the evil-doers are apparently three Canadian women who took a flight home shortly after the gruesome murder.

But the story keeps changing, and Mexican authorities are not giving Canada officials much information. And there are a lot of unanswered questions: Why was there clerical bungling of certain hotel registrations? Was there really a lock-down after the discovery of the bodies? Why were so many of the hotel's guests allowed to leave without questioning? Why are the Mexican investigators so sure that it was these three Canadian women, and that it was an organized crime hit? Wouldn't this have been accomplished much easier with a few guns in Canada? Why travel to Mexico? And three women? Were they Charlie's Devils?

You don't have to be Columbo to get that niggling feeling that something ain't right.

CTV reports that Toronto coroner Dr. David Evans, who will take possession of the remains when they arrive in Canada this weekend, "expects any potential evidence will be contaminated, particularly if the Mexican funeral director has done preparation work on the Ianiero's bodies." That assumes of course, that the rumor that the bodies have already been cremated is false.

I smell a cover-up.

Good Advice from Down Under

Here is a great article from CNS News about how Australia is handling immigration. Blog reader Joe tipped me off on that one.

"The Australians are proceeding as we have discussed on your blog. Identify and promote essential cultural values and make them a requirement for citizenship. Agree to adhere to them, or leave the country.

I'd love to hear such plain, logical talk from a Canadian politician!"

So would I, Joe!!

What Price, Freedom?

I recently received a message from someone very close to me, who is much better apprised of U.S. politics than I am. Her email is as follows:

"As a Canadian it always amazes me to see the disrespect that the U.S. Democrats show for President Bush. Scripture and Abe Lincoln said that a nation divided against itself cannot stand.

It seems to me that the terrorists who are united against America are laughing gleefully as they divide and conquer.

The prima-donnas of the American liberal press are more like Pamela Anderson dancing around a pole, all eyes are to be focused on them.

Neville Chamberlain thought by appeasing Hitler they could contain him. Now the extreme peacenik left again are singing the same old refrain, give peace & terrorists a chance.

To do what?

The main stream media is definitely biased against Christians. They would love it if we had no say on anything ever. Because we don't get in their face they think they have neutralized us. Like and elephant we have a long memory when we go to the ballot box."

Well, there are a few issues here. One is the importance of freedom of the press and freedom of speech vs. the importance of presenting an impression of solidarity against the enemy. I would suggest that if there is another 9/11, the leftist media and democrats would quickly get behind George Bush.

However, I think that the very fact that we can openly express a difference of opinion is the ultimate weapon that rankles the enemy.

The thing is though, we all need equal access to that Freedom of Speech. That includes Christians.

Big Vast Wasteland

O.K. Back to real life where things are a bit less controversial...

Is it just me or did T.V. selection take a real nose-dive lately? Maybe it's just because I'm sick to death of reality shows, but I just don't see anything worth watching out there now. Is it because we are the last people on earth to still just have cable? Is satellite that much better?

There used to be some excellent shows that I would look forward to watching faithfully. Then suddenly they just ended. Poof!

I watched the final episode of Third Watch to the end before I realized it was the last one. I mourned the loss of Judging Amy. Joan of Arcadia was just catching on when they pulled that one. Good quality programs. Gone. All that's left are brain-dead comedies that have gay people prancing around or boomer parents trying to look cool while their smart-aleck kids outmaneuver them every episode. And speaking of gay, if I see one more commercial for Brokeback Mountain where those two cowboy dudes gaze romantically into each other's eyes, I'm going to upchuck my popcorn! (Oh-oh.. There I go getting into trouble again!)

Please, is there anything left worth watching? Which shows were you sorry to see end?

Preserving Our "Extinct" Society

The National Post just finished an excellent and provocative series "Canada's Baby Gap", examining the dwindling size of Canadian families. Notable exceptions are the visible minority and native populations, which are still reproducing much higher than their replacement rates. The rest of Canadians seem reluctant to have more than one child, or even opt for no kids at all.

The Post reports that "By the time Canada celebrates its 150th anniversary in 2017, one out of every five people will be a visible minority, the highest proportion since records have bee kept. ...the country's visible minority population is projected to increase by between 56% and 111% between 2001 and 2017, while the rest of the population is only expected to increase by between 1% and 7% in the same period."

This is all going to have a dramatic effect on our culture and the face of Canadian society in the future; not to mention the disparity between the number of aging boomers compared to the lack of youth poised to enter the workforce and support the social safety net, to which we have all grown accustomed.

What the Post didn't say is that the prevalent liberal attitude of self-indulgence and self-centeredness has been so entrenched in our collective psyche that we see children as either a financial drain or just another "thing" to collect along with the electronic toys. One child to decorate that huge house in the suburbs, and then tick that one off the list of achievements. Certainly it is economically oppressive to have very many children, although the current government's plan to give child care assistance directly to parents is a good step in the right direction. And to be fair, some couples do desperately want children and are unable to have them.

It shouldn't be surprising though, that children are so devalued. The family unit itself is fragmented and so loosely defined as to be meaningless. A Canadian "family" today can be comprised of any two or even more persons living together and having some degree of sexual contact with one another, with or without the presence of children in the home. If everything is family, then nothing is family, and that is where we are today. Gay marriage and abortion rights have further trounced the importance of children and the family unit as the vital and cohesive foundation of society.

Furthermore, those that are still procreating at higher rates are going to expect and demand that their values and cultures be strongly represented in our political system, which will ensure more power to change the Christian values which were instrumental in founding this country. Words like "Christmas" will be a distant memory.

I realize I am treading on risky ground here, and can only ask that you think about the implications of this. A multicultural society is enriching, but are we ready to go the route of France and Spain? As Mark Steyn said in his essay, "It's the Demography, Stupid", the very policies that caused a drop in birth rates may ironically come back to bite the liberal zealots when certain ethnic groups achieve such power by sheer numbers, that it becomes an unpopular ethos to condone homosexuality and abortion.

I welcome your views, but ask that you exercise restraint because contrary to what you may read in our Charter of Rights, we definitely do not have Freedom of Speech in Canada.

Things that Make You Go "Hmmmm...."

The local mall is renovating and plans include a fitness centre just for women.

I wonder how, in this age of equality this can be justified? Under what pretext can men be excluded? I believe this is a Charter of Rights issue.

If the rationale has got something to do with women not wanting to be gawked at when they work out, I must ask if lesbians will then be excluded as well. And on that point of logic, should gay men be therefore allowed?

Which brings me to the subject of public washrooms. Should we have four different types of washrooms - gay, lesbian, straight women and straight men? Recently I was having this discussion with some family members (yes, we do get onto strange topics) and the point was made that if we go this route, then there should be private washrooms for each gay or lesbian person, to avoid the prospect of leering and gawking. So we need one for straight men, one for straight women, maybe a few family washrooms, and a whole bunch of private ones. Hopefully the transgendered and bisexual people could identify with one of these options.

Otherwise, let's make that a unisex gym at the mall.

Grocery Store Wars

O.K. Ladies,

The best response I got to my blog was the Red Pepper story. It seems a lot of people can relate; especially women. Do all women go into a grocery store anticipating that everyone is watching them? Am I the only person that breaks into a cold sweat every time I fumble with the plastic bags for the produce? They never want to open!

Here is a trick: Go to the wet produce, and pick them up like you're planning to buy them, then as soon as your fingers are damp, pick up one of those plastic bags and they will open like a charm!!

Just watch out for the Red Pepper Lady!!!! She will definitely have a few words to say..

Anyone else have a grocery store story? Please share!!!

Back To Real Life: Another Discovery in my Journey

Again I am glad I'm not a politician. I really don't think it would be possible to be true to yourself and still stay in the game. Honesty and politics are mutually exclusive.

I know that sounds cynical, but after seeing what Garth Turner and David Emerson went through this past week, I fully understand why women are so lacking in political representation. You need the thickest of skin and the ability to be able to live with yourself; all the while being aware that one slip of the tongue could land you in hot water.

This of course, totally contradicts my world view, which is to live by my own personal code of conduct, and be comfortable in my own skin without worrying unduly about what others are thinking. When you let others define you, you give them power. Then if you don't live up to their standards or beliefs you are scorned and ostracized.

But if you allow yourself the freedom to give up that need to have approval from everyone around you, then you get back the power. That is a wonderful, peaceful feeling. You are accountable to yourself and your Maker only. Everything follows from that. If you can feel comfortable in your own skin, then your relationships with those you care about will be meaningful and authentic. On the other hand, if you constantly need other people to say you're o.k., you will be forever seeking that approval and you will be miserable. Guaranteed. I've had experience in both worlds.

This is a much better place.

Good Strategy; Bad Optics

I've been struggling ever since the Tory Cabinet announcements about how to come to terms with the inclusion of Liberal David Emerson and the non-elected Michael Fortier. This is a classic case of "Cognitive Dissonance", which I studied in my university days.

On one hand, I want to believe that both the party and leader I supported are 100% beyond ethical approach. But something tells me this was not a 'Kosher' decision. (My apologies to anyone who might take offense). In this classic psychological dilemma, one tries to reduce the feeling of anxiety or unease between the extreme dichotomy of the polar opposites. In other words, you try to make yourself feel better.

Well, the best I can offer is that political pundits everywhere can be reassured that this new Government will not be boring; contrary to the previous concerns. There will be plenty of media fodder to chew on.

Messieurs Emerson and Fortier will no doubt enrich the new government's bench strength, and encourage the support of the business sector. Whether or not the entire affair can sustain ethical credibility is another matter. The verdict will be delivered at the next election.

Wonderful Day for Canada!

This morning, at 11 a.m., Stephen Harper will be sworn in as the next Prime Minister of Canada. Apparently he is bringing his own Bible.

The Liberals will just be swearing.

Being Liberal Means "Never Having to Say You're Sorry"

What can you say about a party that thought it was invincible and therefore had no need to be accountable to the Canadian public? Like a cancer festering deep within, the malaise grew until it strangled itself with its own arrogance.

Now we are witnessing a whole gambit of first tier contenders for the party leadership (John Manley, Frank McKenna and Brian Tobin) announcing their reluctance to claim the golden crown of a once proud and viable party that became addicted to power and a sense of entitlement.

Curiously, the next rank of leadership hopefuls have had very little experience in the self-proclaimed "natural governing party". They include floor-crossers Scott Brison and Belinda Stronach, as well as relative political newbies such as Michael Ignatieff and Ken Dryden. Then of course there's one-time NDP Ontario premier Bob Rae! (How is it that the Liberals are even contemplating that one when Mike Harris was always thrown in our faces as an example of poor provincial politics being extrapolated to the federal level? I'll take Mike Harris over Bob Rae any day!!)

Anyway, perhaps it will take someone who hasn't been steeped in the Liberal culture to turn things around. For sure the "Love Story" that the Canadian electorate has had with the Liberal party is not doing well at the box office.

I Now Pronounce You Partner and Partner

As we all patiently wait for Prime Minister-designate Stephen Harper to lose the suffix, my thoughts turn inevitably to the contentious same-sex marriage issue. I think everyone would like this to be settled once and for all, but I don't think it is ever going to happen. Both sides feel much too strongly about it. Any initative from Parliament is unlikely to resolve the disparity.

Social Conservatives were led to believe that Stephen Harper would rescind Bill C-38, but Deputy Conservative Leader Peter MacKay said recently on CTV's Question Period, that "It's not going to be brought back as a legislative initiative to strike down same-sex marriage. It would be brought back to decide whether Parliament wanted to go down that road."

More agitation. More marches. More anger. If openly-gay Liberal M.P. Scott Brison is appointed interim party leader, we can look forward to him advocating for his own "rights" as well as those of the LGBT community. (Sounds like a deli sandwich, doesn't it?)

Here are my thoughts - We first have to distinguish between issues of rights and social issues. I have yet to hear anyone present a solid case to me that this is a "rights" issue. I hear a lot of rhetoric, but nothing substantive. Let's address this first.

If gay "marriage" can be proven to be a right, then we need to deal with it accordingly and ensure that all benefits and entitlements are granted equally. If it is not a right, then we are looking at a social issue, and I personally feel that this should be resolved by a referendum.

Finally, even if we end up proving that gay marriage is a right in Canada, people of various faiths and religious beliefs will still never give up the fight.

Therefore, I think the Canadian government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Let's just have "civil unions" for everyone, performed at an accredited municipal location, and devoid of any religious context. Then, anyone wishing a more traditional and religious ceremony could have that arranged afterwards at the church of their choice. It would be a two-step process, but it would take the word "marriage" out of the hands of the government, and give it back to the individual and God.

I welcome any thoughts and comments on this. My feelings will not be hurt if you disagree!

What is Happening to Me?

As I watched Stephen Harper hold his first news conference as Prime Minister designate, I became aware of an unusual feeling percolating upwards (no, it wasn't gas). It was a strange emotion; barely recognizable and so long suppressed. Finally I was able to define it! Canadian pride! I am proud to be a Canadian again! No more embarrassment or humiliation on the world stage.

I am Canadian!!!

Hey, why does that make me think of beer, eh?

A bittersweet Victory

Well, I’m slowly crawling out of my unexplained funk today. Stephen Harper will be the next Prime Minister of Canada! And yet, I mourn for our local candidate who made such an incredible effort. My daughter and I spent countless afternoons and evenings over the past five months canvassing with him. We were so hopeful, but our riding seems set in its Liberal ways for the moment.

However, when I look at the big picture, I can’t help being amazed that we actually booted the Liberals out of their self-proclaimed entitlement to power! Congratulations Stephen Harper on a job well done!

Mr. Harper and his worthy caucus now have the difficult task of trying to re-establish public trust in government. With the help of the NDP and the Bloc, this task should be facilitated. Liberal corruption will be exposed and punished. I have the feeling that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg on that issue.

Canada now has a truly federal party with a national, inclusive view; one that Quebec can cling to with hope; one that will finally give the west a voice that has been so long shut out.

God Bless Canada! The sky didn’t fall - and it is a glorious shade of blue!

Still Basking in the Afterglow

Actually, I forgot to mention a few things about yesterday. Well, I didn't actually forget, but it was a little strange.

When I was trying to make my way through the dense crowd to the area where Harper and company were exiting, the throng was so thick, I was at the point of turning back. However, I suddenly caught sight of an elderly woman moving in the direction of the exit door, and the crowd was making way for her. I followed close behind and the sea of humanity filled back in behind us. That's when I found myself nose to nose with the RCMP guy.

I don't know what happened to that little old lady, or where she disappeared to or who she was, but looking back on that, wasn't it amazing?

Stephen Harper and the Elusive Mr. Akin

I’m still flying ten stories high! What an awesome afternoon! The Stephen Harper rally in Kitchener at Bingeman Park was incredible. The room was jam-packed with excited supporters. My friends and I arrived well ahead of time, and snagged a few of the remaining chairs that were left. I had brought along a photo of Mr. Harper and myself taken at a media event a few months ago. I was hoping he would sign it, but my hopes dimmed as the crowd grew bigger.

The media started trickling in, and I noticed Globe columnist Christy Blatchford out of the corner of my eye. She was standing on a media riser and chatting amicably with a fellow nearby. I recalled my email to fellow blogger David Akin of CTV that I was going to try to say hi to him, but since he was not in sight, I managed to ask Christy if she knew where he was, and mentioned that I had hoped to see him.

She said, ”Oh, you’re the BLOGGER!”

“Um, yeah!” Wow, who knew? Well, yes, I guess I am, come to think of it.

Anyway, she said she’d watch for him. As the pandemonium rose, and even more people jammed in, I felt a nudge at my elbow. Someone was telling me to look at Christy, who was smiling and pointing back at a very tall good looking gentleman, who I recognized as David Akin. He returned my wave and smiled, all the while talking on his cell. There was no hope of even getting close to him.

Stephen Harper eventually arrived to a thunderous, cheering crowd. He was introduced by the amazing MPP Elizabeth Witmer, and then he started whipping up the crowd into a frenzy! He was awesome! His message of hope for a country so starved for integrity in leadership, was inspiring and uplifting.

As he made his way out towards a side door, I knew it was now or never to try to get my photo signed. I wormed my way towards the departing entourage, and was stopped by the RCMP bodyguards. I held out my photo and silver sharpie with a hopeful look on my face, and I guess I garnered their sympathy, and I was allowed to stay in line.

“Lady with photo to be signed”, I heard one fellow mumbling into his mouthpiece.

Mr. Harper was making his way down the line, but his back was to me as he went past.

“Prime Minister Harper!”, I called out, and he turned around. I held out my photo and pen, and he signed it. Then we shook hands. Awesome.

Afterwards I was looking for David Akin by the media busses, but he was nowhere to be seen. I did however run into Monte Solberg, who I had met once before at a rally for our local candidate, and he remembered my name! Incredible. What a great guy!

All in all, a most amazing day. The crazy part is that it was easier to shake hands with Stephen Harper and Monte Solberg, than with David Akin. Who knew?

A Non-Partisan Plea

I am sending this out into the Canadian Blogosphere on behalf of volunteers of all party stripes who are canvassing in this election: We are volunteers!! That means we do not receive any pay or compensation of any kind for our hours and hours of walking up and down streets, knocking on doors, slipping on ice and trying really hard not to have our noses running when you answer your door. We have encountered all kinds of weather. Our pens have frozen to our fingertips. We have encountered freezing rain, ice pellets, sleet and slush. We are wet, cold and exhausted.

When you answer the doorbell, please don't just glance at our party brochure and slam the door in our faces. We are out here because we think we can make a difference; each in our own way. We care about our country, and where it is going. To those businesses and stores that won't let canvassers use their washrooms, I ask you to consider what price you put on democracy and freedom? Is it not in your best interest to provide your facilities so that our country can continue to flourish and encourage free enterprise? (And by the way, to that great Jamaican restaurant owner - I won't say where - Thanks so much for having pity on two cold and desparate women today!).

And to all those people that actually smiled, and thanked us for canvassing and delivering a message of hope, I say thank you! Your encouragement is what keeps us going. We believe in Canada, and we believe in democracy. But we can't do it without your support. God bless you!