Letters to the editor

Here are two letters I wrote to the editor of The Calgary Herald, which may be published (but probably not).  It is difficult to write anything critical of natives because political correctness is soooooo rampant when it comes to the subject:

Dear Editor,

It should not be surprising – or even in doubt – that the courts have ruled the BC pipeline can proceed, in spite of opposition from some First Nations.  The Canadian constitution states that projects in the national interest, i.e., railways and pipelines for example, take precedence over provincial and territorial law – including “Indigenous Law”.  

Indigenous people live on Crown Land given for their exclusive use.  However, such lands are not “owned” by the Indigenous peoples.  All Crown Land – Indigenous or otherwise -- is owned by The Crown and subsequently delegated for use as the Canadian government and its citizens decide.  With more than 600 Indigenous tribes in Canada, allowing some to restrict development would severely impede any project deemed in the national interest.  If “Hereditary” chiefs are included, numbers double.  Were every band, every elected chief and every hereditary chief to decide to block or obstruct every project, chaos would cripple progress.

That is not the way forward, given Alberta’s gloomy economic forecast.

__________________________________________________

Dear Editor,

For the B.C. Coastal GasLink pipeline project to have received approval, the company would have had to have met every stringent legal and environmental condition and regulation imposed upon it.  Otherwise it would not have been approved by the courts.  For the Wet’suwet’en First Nation to continue to oppose this project ignores the fact that oil and gas generate much of the wealth required to fund Canada’s First Nations. 

In other words, what’s in the ground is where the money comes from.  You have to get it out to convert it into funding.

The kid was 11...

...but he knew all about Jackie Robinson.  What the......?!!  We were watching a baseball game at lunch and a black kid was intently watching with us.  Trying to be a smart-a--, B asked the boy if he knew who the first black man to play in the pros and Ari, the kid, said, "Jackie Robinson."  I was floored.  Wow!

This was during our Christmas trip to Toronto to visit our son.  The flight there was the usual kerfufle of coach people trying to use the first-class washroom and jamming carry-ons into two or three overhead bins rows away from their own seats.  That really pisses me off.  Actually, both MO's piss me off.  The last time we flew first-class, the stewardesses let anyone and everyone use the washroom for which we had paid handsomely for exclusive access.  "Well, what can we say to them?" said one when I asked why she was letting everyone use it.  How about, "It's back there."

Sorry, but when I pay, I expect a few perks.

The visit was wonderful.  We stayed in a (very cheap) hotel, the accoutrements of which indicated just how cheap it was.  Yuck.  But Christmas dinner at the Royal York was perfect -- except for the $500 we shelled out for three people.  Really?  Here we are:

Here are a couple of observations about the "Centre of the Universe":

• The city is at least 80% ethnic, and
• Torontonians are very rude.

We hosted an unorthodox, but lovely, family reunion with a daughter my ex had with a girlfriend after our divorce.  Who knew?  She found us a few months ago and we all got together.  Here we are at lunch:

Eavesdropping, I heard a couple of guys debating tennis.  Naturally, I butted in.  "Lobs are nothing but defensive tennis,"said one, when I remarked that baseline-pounding tennis was boring.  "All the points in baseline-pounding are losers," I added.  "The point ends when someone hits it out, or into the net.  There are no winners like there were back in the Edberg/Navratilova era."  

"I'm getting training for my daughter so she can pound it into the corners and paint the lines," he announced.  "Well, then she'll lose," I said.  All the great players play defensively when they have to, I explained.  But when I called into question the thousands he was paying out so his daughter would never make the big leagues, the conversation came to an abrupt end. 

Turning to the bar tender, who was talking about "hat tricks", I asked, "Do you know where that expression came from?" I asked.  He didn't.  "It began with a haberdasher on Yonge Street here in Toronto who gave a free hat to any player who scored three goals in the game."  What else didn't he know?  Where the name "Habs" had come from.  "Les Habitants," I told him.  Short-form:  Habs.  

Sometimes, old folks know stuff.  But then, like Ari, so do young ones.   

      

  

Tom has it right

Didn't know, but there is such a thing as the Community Well-Being (CWB) index, which measures a combination of income, employment, housing and education.  In many native communities, the CWB is actually increasing, says Tom Flanagan, professor of poli-sci at the University of Calgary.  The bad news is many native communities are falling behind.

The reason?

Those communities improving are those taking control of their own affairs and utilizing off ramps from the Indian Act with such initiatives as joining the land management regime, treating land and resources as a source of income, taking advantage of local opportunities to become self-supporting via own-source revenue and developing accountable governance practices that avoid secrecy and conflict of interest, while observing the rule of law.

The rule of law and accountability!  Wow what a concept!  Transparent fiscal management!  The rule of law!  Effort and capitalization on economic opportunities!   

Those with falling CWB indecies?  Communities that practice neither own-source revenue, nor initiatives to escape from the pervasive control of the Indian Act and Indigenous Affairs bureaucracy.  Remoteness from urban locations is an obvious problem for those reserves with the most seriously declining CWB scores, notes Flanagan -- who also happens to have been former PM Stephen Harper's economics professor and mentor.  Many reserves at the very bottom have no year-round road connection to a service centre, which is a big problem.

"Finally, government needs to continue what it has already done to some degree -- create opportunities outside the Act, thus making it easier for First Nations to improve their own standard of living.  Both Ottawa and the Western provinces have caught on to the idea of First Nations owning pipelines so they can become players in the resource economy, not just suppliers of land and labour.  Now, if we can just get those pipelines built," Flanagan concludes. 

What have I been saying for years?  Get off the reserves and integrate into mainstream society and economy.  You can still keep and practice your culture and language -- like every other ethnic group does -- but start by being part of Canada.

B saved $55,330

The price of watches is ludicrous.  For a device that simply tells them what time it is, some people will actually fork out thousands and thousands of dollars.  Obviously, it's to signal to others just how filthy rich you are, that you are someone who can simply toss out more than $50,000 for a trifling watch. 

Reading 'Fortune' the other day, B came across an ad for VERY expensive watches. Taking a look, I saw one called an 'Audemars Piquet' for.....wait for it.....$55,400!  I mean, seriously!  B replaced his trusty 'Timex' a few days ago for....wait for it.....$70, meaning he saved $55,330.  He gave his other "trusty Timex" to our grandson who was absolutely thrilled!  An analog timepiece, it will now teach him to actually tell time, something you can't really do with the digital variety.

I have to add that B has a number of expensive watches, which I now wear -- including an antique Cartier, and Omega Seamaster -- but he prefers the Timex. 

Here is the most expensive watch I have ever seen:

The $55,400 Audemars Piquet

B's $70 Timex

I rest my case.

Her office?

When Trudeau shafted her, I had a little admiration for Jodi Wilson-Raybould.  I now have none.  Imagine the gall of her refusing to move out of the big, swanky office she occupied when she was Solicitor General!  Not only does she sit as an independent on the back bench in a corner, but she is also a complete nobody and yet will not vacate the office designated for the SG.

Who does she think she is?  But yet, when I realize she is a native, it all makes perfect, entitled sense.  Has she no respect for the constitution and the role of Parliament?  That is not "her" office.  It belongs to the people of Canada.  To me, she has shown her true colours and they are not pretty.

Another shock to me this past week was the revelation that the saintly Andrew Scheer has been dipping into party funds to pay for his five kids' private school education.  WTF!?  This has been a well-kept secret because everyone knows it's an outrage.  I mean, the guy has a huge salary, lives for free in the official residence of the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, gets a clothing allowance, drivers, food, household staff and yet charges the party for this kids' catholic education!?  Someone should tell him there is a very good separate school system in Ottawa (my daughter taught in it) and that he should bloody well send his kids there like the rest of the great unwashed.

So, not only is he weak and a loser, but he's also a bum.  Time to straighten up and fly right, Andrew.  And by the way, pay all the money back.

Remember Bev Oda's $16 glass of orange juice?  That was enough to finish her off.  Canadians don't like this sort of stuff.

Hahahaha!

Every day, 'The Globe and Mail' posts a "Moment in Time" feature.  Today it was about the tabling of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women on December 7, 1970.  Forty-nine years ago.  It is to laugh because not much has changed.

Hailed as a milestone achievement in the fight for women's rights, it definitely fell short.  The gender pay gap persists, domestic violence against women continues unabated, support for women released from prison isn't there, ditto for affordable child care and a whole host of other recommendations the report naively called for.  Women like my mother and her ilk ignored it; young women like I thought it a breakthrough  Trudeau senior was PM then and we all know what he thought about women, one word:  Margaret.

Sigh.  Here are the authors congratulating themselves:

Notice the men who had to handle its release.

Nothing to see here, folks, move along

Incredibly, the federal government  just released a study that says female workers who have children fall behind male counterparts financially and in career progression.

No kidding!

I have been saying this ever since I became pregnant with my first child in 1976.  Because they have the biological function of child bearing, women are penalized in the workforce.  When I had my first, I had to leave my post and go on unemployment insurance.  When I returned six months later, I was given "a" job back, not mine.  Someone else was sitting in my office doing my job.  Same thing with my second in 1979.  Only six months' UI, then back to "a" job.  Of course I fell behind.

So, it takes the government 43 years to get this figured out.  Duh!  Clawing my way back and drawing on the talent God gave me, I moved on and up, but certainly the system didn't give a sh-t.  What pisses me off are women who take up an expensive spot in an institute of higher learning, get a degree and then sit on their asses at home when they have a kid.  Why do they think we went to the barricades?  Why do they think it's OK?  I have heard so many educated women say how fortunate they are to be able to stay home -- while some man finances them -- and take care of their kids.  In reality, these are the "Real housewives of.....wherever....."  Frankly, most join a "Mum's Club" and drink wine.

Sad.  Their kids would be much better off in daycare with professionals looking after them instead of watching mummy drink wine on some neighbour's patio.
_________________________________
But back to what's happening here.  Apparently, femicide is increasing.  Of the 118 murders of women and girls so far in Canada in 2019 (apparently likely a low number, say authorities), 98 perpetrators have been identified.  Of those, 98% were friends, family or acquaintances; only eight percent were strangers, says the report from the Women's Centre for Social Justice in Toronto.

In fact, the relationship between victims and killers was known in 77% of cases.  Only eight percent were strangers.  And where were the majority of these killings?  Nunavut, Yukon, Manitoba and Alberta.  And who were killed?  Indigenous women and girls.

So, folks, we know who is killing these women and girls:  Their own family members.  No need for further inquiries into "Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women".