"Can I ask you something?" said my friend "K" at Dim Sum today. Sure, I replied. "What is the problem with the natives? What's wrong there?"
OMG! Where to start? Not knowing, I simply hung my head in my hands and shook it for a few minutes. K is a friend from the pool and a bit of an innocent. Chinese-born and a heads-down research doctor, she is a tad out of it when it comes to the day-to-day bullsh-t that defines Canada. She also tries to give people the benefit of the doubt and sees the good whenever she can. (Why she hangs out with me, I have no clue?!)
"We came here 37 years ago from China, when I was 12, and we had no running water or sanitation back in my village," she offered. "But I don't understand why the natives still live like this in Canada?"
OMG! "It's all about money," I explained. But there's so much of it that doesn't get down to the folks in the reserve slum housing I didn't really know how to break it to her? I started to spew the numbers -- you know, number of bands, number of natives, number of children in care, number of $$$$ handed out here, there and everywhere -- but this confused her even more.
"So why do they still live in squalor?" Exactly. Good question. We know the answer, of course, but no one ever speaks truth to power. She went on. "And what's all this fuss about Gord Downie? I mean, wasn't he just a singer?" Out of the mouths of babes.
All I can do is send her a sampling of my blogs on the natives and Gord to give her a bit of a reality check. Dear K, wake up!
Sunday, October 29, 2017
Thursday, October 26, 2017
Illogical nonsense
The confused Rachel Notley has decreed that the proposed Catholic Sex Ed program for schools in Alberta will never pass. Really? For her information, the provincial government has no business telling the Catholic School Board what it can and cannot teach.
It's a Catholic institution -- not the public board -- and if non-Catholics want to direct their taxes there and send their children to these schools because educational outcomes are better, they are at liberty to do so. And if their kid gets exposed to Catholic dogma about sex ed, so what?! It's a Catholic institution so guess what? It teaches the Catholic curriculum -- sex and all. If you don't like it, don't deliberately send your kid there.
Can you imagine Notley decreeing that private Muslim schools cannot teach Muslim values? Just feature it! And by the way, we all know what Muslim schools in parallel societies worldwide are teaching students. You can bet Sharia Law and separateness are in there with bells on, along with the wearing of the niqab and burka for girls past puberty -- a demeaning practice Notley vigorously supports in the public thoroughfare. What does she tell herself when she supports a Muslim practice, but won't allow a Catholic one? I mean, what goes through her mind to justify this oxymoronic stance?
If you are going to dictate teachings in one school, other than a public institution, then you have to do so in all, which means you have to ban all separate schools. What's next -- book burning? It's ludicrous.
And what about Jewish Shuls and Temples? Will the muddled Notley jump in there too and tell rabbis which end is up in that religion? Just let her try it. Growing up, I went to Sunday School to be taught scripture that wasn't part of the Monday to Friday public curriculum. Will this too be banned?
But never mind all that. It's always open season on the Catholic Church.
It's a Catholic institution -- not the public board -- and if non-Catholics want to direct their taxes there and send their children to these schools because educational outcomes are better, they are at liberty to do so. And if their kid gets exposed to Catholic dogma about sex ed, so what?! It's a Catholic institution so guess what? It teaches the Catholic curriculum -- sex and all. If you don't like it, don't deliberately send your kid there.
Can you imagine Notley decreeing that private Muslim schools cannot teach Muslim values? Just feature it! And by the way, we all know what Muslim schools in parallel societies worldwide are teaching students. You can bet Sharia Law and separateness are in there with bells on, along with the wearing of the niqab and burka for girls past puberty -- a demeaning practice Notley vigorously supports in the public thoroughfare. What does she tell herself when she supports a Muslim practice, but won't allow a Catholic one? I mean, what goes through her mind to justify this oxymoronic stance?
If you are going to dictate teachings in one school, other than a public institution, then you have to do so in all, which means you have to ban all separate schools. What's next -- book burning? It's ludicrous.
And what about Jewish Shuls and Temples? Will the muddled Notley jump in there too and tell rabbis which end is up in that religion? Just let her try it. Growing up, I went to Sunday School to be taught scripture that wasn't part of the Monday to Friday public curriculum. Will this too be banned?
But never mind all that. It's always open season on the Catholic Church.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
The veil ban
As you can imagine, I am in favour of the ban on the niqab and burkha. In fact, I think it should apply to all of Canada, but of course it won't because all the so-called feminists are decrying it because....well, I don't really know why?
Margaret Wente, with whom I seem to share a brain, nails the issue in her column today. While not as direct as I, she is definitely of the opinion that it is a retrograde step for women to cover their faces. "It fights integration," she quotes Roksana Nazneen, a Muslim from Bangladesh, who argues that guilt-ridden feminists just don't get it. "Canadian women do not know what the niqab means and they should not be fighting for the right of women to self-oppress. And make no mistake, the niqab means that men do not want to hear your voice."
Well, of course it does and I wholeheartedly agree.
Frankly, I think that Canadian women who fight for it are expressing a sort of reverse feminism. It's as if they are stamping their feet and having a tantrum for the right of women to subjugate themselves. Really? People come to Canada to shed these veils of male tyranny and suppression; they have no place in an open, secular society, but women are becoming hysterical about the issue.
I fought in the vanguard of the "women's movement" in the late sixties so I could come out from behind the sexist rocks, in which society had us imprisoned, and be myself. After university, I was determined to earn my own money so I would never be beholden to a man for my livelihood. The niqab represents a parallel society and has no place in Canada, according to Angela Merkel and other world leaders. And as for religious freedom, in Canada it is not an absolute. We don't tolerate polygamy and "honour killings", so why allow the niqab? This is not a question of rejection, but rather of Canadians overwhelmingly wanting newcomers to fit in. The niqab prevents this.
Right on queue, Rachel Notley and Kathleen Wynne immediately jumped up and denounced the ban because they have no clue what it really means. It is not an attempt to dictate what women can wear. It might be a good idea for Wynne and Notley to sit down with female scholars of the Quran. They would soon learn it is not prescribed garb in the Muslim religion in any way, shape or form. The debates between Muslim women on both sides of the issue always end with the young "feminists" falling back on their one-note, freedom-of-dress argument, while the mature scholars tell them they are sadly uninformed.
But what a bonanza for lawyers! So, sit back and enjoy the looming mess.
Margaret Wente, with whom I seem to share a brain, nails the issue in her column today. While not as direct as I, she is definitely of the opinion that it is a retrograde step for women to cover their faces. "It fights integration," she quotes Roksana Nazneen, a Muslim from Bangladesh, who argues that guilt-ridden feminists just don't get it. "Canadian women do not know what the niqab means and they should not be fighting for the right of women to self-oppress. And make no mistake, the niqab means that men do not want to hear your voice."
Well, of course it does and I wholeheartedly agree.
Frankly, I think that Canadian women who fight for it are expressing a sort of reverse feminism. It's as if they are stamping their feet and having a tantrum for the right of women to subjugate themselves. Really? People come to Canada to shed these veils of male tyranny and suppression; they have no place in an open, secular society, but women are becoming hysterical about the issue.
I fought in the vanguard of the "women's movement" in the late sixties so I could come out from behind the sexist rocks, in which society had us imprisoned, and be myself. After university, I was determined to earn my own money so I would never be beholden to a man for my livelihood. The niqab represents a parallel society and has no place in Canada, according to Angela Merkel and other world leaders. And as for religious freedom, in Canada it is not an absolute. We don't tolerate polygamy and "honour killings", so why allow the niqab? This is not a question of rejection, but rather of Canadians overwhelmingly wanting newcomers to fit in. The niqab prevents this.
Right on queue, Rachel Notley and Kathleen Wynne immediately jumped up and denounced the ban because they have no clue what it really means. It is not an attempt to dictate what women can wear. It might be a good idea for Wynne and Notley to sit down with female scholars of the Quran. They would soon learn it is not prescribed garb in the Muslim religion in any way, shape or form. The debates between Muslim women on both sides of the issue always end with the young "feminists" falling back on their one-note, freedom-of-dress argument, while the mature scholars tell them they are sadly uninformed.
But what a bonanza for lawyers! So, sit back and enjoy the looming mess.
Monday, October 23, 2017
Why did it take so many seasons?
...to cancel the ridiculous "Scandal" series? I made the mistake of watching the first couple of seasons on Netflix, but as it started to get more and more fantastic and farfetched, I kept watching just to see how much more ridiculous it could possibly get.
And boy, is it ridiculous! It just gets ludicrous and I have to ask myself how Shonda Rhimes got away with it for so long!?!? She is the creator of this embarrassing and mortifying show about keeping power in Washington and the Oval Office at any and all costs. But who was the casting director???? The guy playing the president, Tony Goldwyn -- gee, wonder how he got the part? -- is a weak pussy. Here are a few other preposterous characters:
Olivia Pope -- desperately hysterical and absurd;
Susan...something or other -- the VP, played by an overweight dummie who could not possibly be a VP in reality;
The auditor general -- having an affair with the VP!
The chief of staff -- a gay guy who thinks he can make it to the presidency!
The president's ex-wife -- a giddy freak becomes president!
The Director of the FBI -- now here's the capper! A young, black, female disco-Queen type. Feature it! Just feature it! FBI director!!
Ms. Rhimes is black and black music and characters are everywhere. So over-the-top and obviously an over-compensation for.....whatever Ms. Rhimes has experienced in her own personal background.
The plot is beggars belief. I am now watching just to see how much more ludicrous it can possibly get! Don't bother -- unless you need a dose of 'Monty Python'. Now, that interpretation works.
And boy, is it ridiculous! It just gets ludicrous and I have to ask myself how Shonda Rhimes got away with it for so long!?!? She is the creator of this embarrassing and mortifying show about keeping power in Washington and the Oval Office at any and all costs. But who was the casting director???? The guy playing the president, Tony Goldwyn -- gee, wonder how he got the part? -- is a weak pussy. Here are a few other preposterous characters:
Olivia Pope -- desperately hysterical and absurd;
Susan...something or other -- the VP, played by an overweight dummie who could not possibly be a VP in reality;
The auditor general -- having an affair with the VP!
The chief of staff -- a gay guy who thinks he can make it to the presidency!
The president's ex-wife -- a giddy freak becomes president!
The Director of the FBI -- now here's the capper! A young, black, female disco-Queen type. Feature it! Just feature it! FBI director!!
Ms. Rhimes is black and black music and characters are everywhere. So over-the-top and obviously an over-compensation for.....whatever Ms. Rhimes has experienced in her own personal background.
The plot is beggars belief. I am now watching just to see how much more ludicrous it can possibly get! Don't bother -- unless you need a dose of 'Monty Python'. Now, that interpretation works.
Two shameless "industries"
Cancer is one, native issues another. Sorry, but firstly no one actually wants to cure cancer because millions of people, thousands of companies, corporations and charities -- not to mention billions of dollars -- are at stake in keeping cancer humming along and thriving.
And the more researchers discover about cancer, the more they conclude that no one can actually cure it because there are so many thousands of varieties and mutants. Find a key to one type and another jumps to the fore. People used to die before they got cancer; now we all live to greet it on our way out.
Sorry to all who genuinely, honestly and earnestly "run for the cure", but there isn't going to be one. That's just the way it is.
Native issues are another shameless industry, which preys upon the most vulnerable and gullible to extract obscene amounts of money from ill-informed and unwitting victims whose cases are taken up by unscrupulous lawyers. That's not me talking, that's Doug Racine, of the Aboriginal Law Group in Saskatoon, who has written a nine-page letter to the Law Society of Saskatchewan revealing the facts and figures behind many unprincipled lawyers who handle the claims of residential schools "victims".
According to Racine, the average payout per claimant was $91,753, of which 15%, or $13,756, went to the lawyers who processed the claim. Problem is, most lawyers argued the case was "inordinately complex", so whacked another 15% up front, making their average take for two-and-one-half days of their time 30% of the take. Sadly, that's what Racine's research has shown. Are we surprised?
When I research and write a blog such as this, no one ever "likes" it on facebook and I wonder why? I guess everyone's drunk the Trudeau/Bellegarde Cool Aid. But I don't post material that is not backed by facts and figures before I render my opinion, which must grate on those who support the native industry to the back teeth -- regardless of reality. Actually, I was surprised The Globe and Mail carried this story on its front page this morning? Maybe a few journalists are starting to smell rats. If so, that's a good thing because the government and our naïf PM remain in the dark, helping none and exploiting all. Money won't cure this national disgrace. Only chucking the Indian Affairs Act and getting people off the reserve will.
Those poor creatures I walked around yesterday in Calgary? They're off the reserve and have gone through their $66,497, judging by the shape they were in. But they do not have the skills to cope in the city and certainly won't acquire them in a remote reserve.
The Globe also ran a lengthy obituary of Michael Pitfield, former Clerk of the Privy Council, and the guy in charge when the word "metis" was added to the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982. Anticipating big trouble down the road, many experts holding the pen challenged the word, but alas it went through. So now we're stuck. Good work everyone.
And the more researchers discover about cancer, the more they conclude that no one can actually cure it because there are so many thousands of varieties and mutants. Find a key to one type and another jumps to the fore. People used to die before they got cancer; now we all live to greet it on our way out.
Sorry to all who genuinely, honestly and earnestly "run for the cure", but there isn't going to be one. That's just the way it is.
Native issues are another shameless industry, which preys upon the most vulnerable and gullible to extract obscene amounts of money from ill-informed and unwitting victims whose cases are taken up by unscrupulous lawyers. That's not me talking, that's Doug Racine, of the Aboriginal Law Group in Saskatoon, who has written a nine-page letter to the Law Society of Saskatchewan revealing the facts and figures behind many unprincipled lawyers who handle the claims of residential schools "victims".
According to Racine, the average payout per claimant was $91,753, of which 15%, or $13,756, went to the lawyers who processed the claim. Problem is, most lawyers argued the case was "inordinately complex", so whacked another 15% up front, making their average take for two-and-one-half days of their time 30% of the take. Sadly, that's what Racine's research has shown. Are we surprised?
When I research and write a blog such as this, no one ever "likes" it on facebook and I wonder why? I guess everyone's drunk the Trudeau/Bellegarde Cool Aid. But I don't post material that is not backed by facts and figures before I render my opinion, which must grate on those who support the native industry to the back teeth -- regardless of reality. Actually, I was surprised The Globe and Mail carried this story on its front page this morning? Maybe a few journalists are starting to smell rats. If so, that's a good thing because the government and our naïf PM remain in the dark, helping none and exploiting all. Money won't cure this national disgrace. Only chucking the Indian Affairs Act and getting people off the reserve will.
Those poor creatures I walked around yesterday in Calgary? They're off the reserve and have gone through their $66,497, judging by the shape they were in. But they do not have the skills to cope in the city and certainly won't acquire them in a remote reserve.
The Globe also ran a lengthy obituary of Michael Pitfield, former Clerk of the Privy Council, and the guy in charge when the word "metis" was added to the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982. Anticipating big trouble down the road, many experts holding the pen challenged the word, but alas it went through. So now we're stuck. Good work everyone.
Things have definitely moved on
"It was too baby-ish, Grandma," said grandson yesterday after the Fred Penner concert to which his other grannie and I had taken him at the Jack Singer Centre.
Whoa! The kid's five, OK almost six, but I thought he would get something out of it? "Is it over?" he said after every number, fidgeting around and bumping up and down in his folding seat. "Can we go to your house and watch a movie now, grandma?" His three-year-old sister got more out of it, but not much. "I have to go pee," she predictably announced after assuring me she didn't have to go before we took our seats. Such are the joys of taking kids to concerts, where that genre of entertainment has obviously gone the way of the dodo bird. .
Granted, Penner is about a hundred years old and his nursery rhymes are obsolete, but I thought they would enjoy it. (Just googled him and he is only 70, but looks much older thanks to the ugly, white beard he now sports. Man, if I look that old, shoot me.) The hand games and sing-alongs went over, but I think I was the only one in the audience who knew the words to "Ugly Duckling", one I learned in the fifties. I grew up watching "Howdy Doody", but it was all so long ago when times were so much more innocent. When I started singing along to 'Duckling', grandson looked at me in wonderment, as if I had lost my mind, or crawled out of some prehistoric cave.
The people who were really into it were the parents who had grown up to Penner in the eighties. They were cheering and clapping and waving their arms with gay abandon, as they recalled their own pre-handheld-device childhoods, when Fred, Mister Rogers, Mr. Dress-up and The Friendly Giant reigned supreme.
The walk through downtown Calgary from the car to the venue and back was an eye-opener for me, as well as our sheltered grands, as we picked our way past desperate street people (sadly, mainly natives). I pulled my sleeves down to try and hide my jewellery because I was at once fearful someone would rip the gold off my arm, and a bit ashamed of my well-to-do accoutrements in the face of such desperation.
But the main point was an outing with The Two Grannies -- a first for us. She is such a lovely, spirited woman, it's a treat for just the two of us to share a few laughs. Here we are, post-concert.
Whoa! The kid's five, OK almost six, but I thought he would get something out of it? "Is it over?" he said after every number, fidgeting around and bumping up and down in his folding seat. "Can we go to your house and watch a movie now, grandma?" His three-year-old sister got more out of it, but not much. "I have to go pee," she predictably announced after assuring me she didn't have to go before we took our seats. Such are the joys of taking kids to concerts, where that genre of entertainment has obviously gone the way of the dodo bird. .
Granted, Penner is about a hundred years old and his nursery rhymes are obsolete, but I thought they would enjoy it. (Just googled him and he is only 70, but looks much older thanks to the ugly, white beard he now sports. Man, if I look that old, shoot me.) The hand games and sing-alongs went over, but I think I was the only one in the audience who knew the words to "Ugly Duckling", one I learned in the fifties. I grew up watching "Howdy Doody", but it was all so long ago when times were so much more innocent. When I started singing along to 'Duckling', grandson looked at me in wonderment, as if I had lost my mind, or crawled out of some prehistoric cave.
The people who were really into it were the parents who had grown up to Penner in the eighties. They were cheering and clapping and waving their arms with gay abandon, as they recalled their own pre-handheld-device childhoods, when Fred, Mister Rogers, Mr. Dress-up and The Friendly Giant reigned supreme.
The walk through downtown Calgary from the car to the venue and back was an eye-opener for me, as well as our sheltered grands, as we picked our way past desperate street people (sadly, mainly natives). I pulled my sleeves down to try and hide my jewellery because I was at once fearful someone would rip the gold off my arm, and a bit ashamed of my well-to-do accoutrements in the face of such desperation.
But the main point was an outing with The Two Grannies -- a first for us. She is such a lovely, spirited woman, it's a treat for just the two of us to share a few laughs. Here we are, post-concert.
 |
| (One of my dear mother's jackets, which I kept. Still honour her by wearing some of her clothes.) |
Saturday, October 21, 2017
From Bad to Worse
What can I say about these two? Sorry examples of their gender, in my view. Kim Campbell, PM for an embarrassing 10 minutes and Rachel Notley, a current embarrassment. Neither performed and here they were in Calgary last week at a conference entitled "Equal Voice -- Elect More Women".
Really? Why? Just because they're women? How dumb. You would think Campbell would hide at home, after her dismal performance as PM. And Notley! She has totally ruined Alberta's economy with her carbon tax fiasco and her inability to get pipelines approved.
Before Denis Coderre cancelled the Pipeline East project, Notley should have got off her a-- and enlisted Brad Wall in a PR media offensive in Montreal, meeting publically with Coderre, holding press conferences and going on talk shows to point out how Alberta holds -- or rather held -- Canada together financially. She should have talked transfer payments, she should have talked about foreign oil, she should have talked about how pipelines are far safer than rail -- Lac Megantic anyone? But she sat in Edmonton and did nothing. Had I been advising her, as I did executives of DuPont and IBM when I worked for those companies, that's exactly what I would have told her. She should have taken the initiative and embarrassed Coderre with numbers and facts.
But shamelessly she didn't. She let Coderre set the agenda. Pathetic.
So here's Rachel, looking like a thrilled, giggling school girl on her first date with the irrelevant has-been Kim -- a couple of women who should never have been elected to anything:
Really? Why? Just because they're women? How dumb. You would think Campbell would hide at home, after her dismal performance as PM. And Notley! She has totally ruined Alberta's economy with her carbon tax fiasco and her inability to get pipelines approved.
Before Denis Coderre cancelled the Pipeline East project, Notley should have got off her a-- and enlisted Brad Wall in a PR media offensive in Montreal, meeting publically with Coderre, holding press conferences and going on talk shows to point out how Alberta holds -- or rather held -- Canada together financially. She should have talked transfer payments, she should have talked about foreign oil, she should have talked about how pipelines are far safer than rail -- Lac Megantic anyone? But she sat in Edmonton and did nothing. Had I been advising her, as I did executives of DuPont and IBM when I worked for those companies, that's exactly what I would have told her. She should have taken the initiative and embarrassed Coderre with numbers and facts.
But shamelessly she didn't. She let Coderre set the agenda. Pathetic.
So here's Rachel, looking like a thrilled, giggling school girl on her first date with the irrelevant has-been Kim -- a couple of women who should never have been elected to anything:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)