Once again America is assuaging it's collective guilt in an avalanche of feeling over the audacity of Don Imus. Not that we Canadians have any reason to feel smug. There is more than enough racial intolerance to go around.
Imus' words are just more in the long list of social indecencies that are a regular occurence. To turf him off the air makes some people feel better. Why? Because a scapegoat is better than admitting complicity in the continuing racial war. And yes, it does come from the African-Americans too - with their angry rap that denigrates (no pun intended) their own women.
There is a fundamental difference here. The difference reminds me of the response from non-Jews defending themselves againstg charges of golf and country club discrimination. They will, instead of admitting their racism, charge Jews with discriminating because we have sometimes formed our own club. But I digress.
Black Anerica is a minority under siege. It does no one service to attack their rappers who have found a welcoming constituency among their own people. That there is ignorance, poverty, drug-dealing, and desperation is not open to question. Those elements are all part of what is now a permanent underclass.
Yes, members of that group - "people of colour" - have risen above the conditions that lived in - to become lawyers and doctors and scientists asnd political thinkers.
But, and this is often admitted by the people themselves, in their rush to move up they have often turned their backs on their origins. Glad to be finally released from the bondage of illiteracy and poverty, they thrive.
But all that is just a sop for all of us.
Poor Don Imus. He takes the blame for reflecting the thousands of unspoken epithets that crowd our everyday world. Better Don than us. He is our sacrificial lamb.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Thursday, April 5, 2007
No happiness ion the "Happy Dance."
TV News loves two things above all else: dire weather warnings, and happy lottery winners. The rest - Iraq, global warming, federal elections - all just window dressing.
We are besotted with the "Happy Dance" that we see at least every ten minutes during prime time. The government is so cpaptive to the revenue from lotteries (and to a lesser extent - casinos) that it can't rein in its exuberant ad campaigns.
The tragedy is, that with lotteries already being a "tax on the stupid" they (the government and its ad agencies) continue to sell us the fiction of instant relief from the drudgery of work. From the man whose kids surprise him while he is at work with "happy retirement Dad," to the doting parents who hand out luxury cottages to their astonished children - there is no limit to the duplicity of the enticements.
In retail selling there are many jurisdictions who have truth in borrowing laws that oblige advertisers to spell out exactly what a loan will cost. We however, lag behind.
We have no trouble putting health warnings on cigarettes, but we are utterly AWOL when it comes to putting disclaimers on lottery commercials. Oh yes, from time to time TV news people will bring in some academic to spell out the monstrous odds of winning. But then they'll throw in a "streeter," a random interview with a lottery ticket buyer who mouths the idiocy: "You can't win if you don't buy a ticket."
What is deeply flawed in this distortion of social policy, is that we have given cachet to gambling. We have enriched out culture with the notion that you too can be rich beyond belief without working.
Who buys? Aside from the well-heeled who spend loose change on tickets, there are the hopeless, the helpless and the gullible.
Our taxes pay for those commecials. The losers don't do a happy dance, but like lemmings looking for cliff to jump off, they are back next time putting rent money into lottery tickets.
Nothing can stop the gambling mania that has enveloped our society - an obsession that has created an entire generation of new risk-takers. But the risk-taking is mindless. The hope for reward infinitesmal. The kid who wants to be a world-class poker player is the new hero.
Wasn't this supposedto be the century of the "nerd?" - the intellectual who actually knows how to think and to convert that brain-power into revenue? Instead, many of the nerds are learning to count cards so they can break the bank at the blackjack tables. What's most sad is that we exalt and elevate these people for their "skills."
Anyone for tennis?
We are besotted with the "Happy Dance" that we see at least every ten minutes during prime time. The government is so cpaptive to the revenue from lotteries (and to a lesser extent - casinos) that it can't rein in its exuberant ad campaigns.
The tragedy is, that with lotteries already being a "tax on the stupid" they (the government and its ad agencies) continue to sell us the fiction of instant relief from the drudgery of work. From the man whose kids surprise him while he is at work with "happy retirement Dad," to the doting parents who hand out luxury cottages to their astonished children - there is no limit to the duplicity of the enticements.
In retail selling there are many jurisdictions who have truth in borrowing laws that oblige advertisers to spell out exactly what a loan will cost. We however, lag behind.
We have no trouble putting health warnings on cigarettes, but we are utterly AWOL when it comes to putting disclaimers on lottery commercials. Oh yes, from time to time TV news people will bring in some academic to spell out the monstrous odds of winning. But then they'll throw in a "streeter," a random interview with a lottery ticket buyer who mouths the idiocy: "You can't win if you don't buy a ticket."
What is deeply flawed in this distortion of social policy, is that we have given cachet to gambling. We have enriched out culture with the notion that you too can be rich beyond belief without working.
Who buys? Aside from the well-heeled who spend loose change on tickets, there are the hopeless, the helpless and the gullible.
Our taxes pay for those commecials. The losers don't do a happy dance, but like lemmings looking for cliff to jump off, they are back next time putting rent money into lottery tickets.
Nothing can stop the gambling mania that has enveloped our society - an obsession that has created an entire generation of new risk-takers. But the risk-taking is mindless. The hope for reward infinitesmal. The kid who wants to be a world-class poker player is the new hero.
Wasn't this supposedto be the century of the "nerd?" - the intellectual who actually knows how to think and to convert that brain-power into revenue? Instead, many of the nerds are learning to count cards so they can break the bank at the blackjack tables. What's most sad is that we exalt and elevate these people for their "skills."
Anyone for tennis?
Monday, March 26, 2007
At the risk of sounding like the worst kind of uncaring neo-con - I am about to step into shark infested waters.
Perched in front of the TV last night I was once again accosted by the Christian Children's Fund. I use "accosted" because in fact I was hailed, flagged down, presumed upon. The presumption is that if you show anyone a picture of a sickly, starving., needy child, the result will be boundless charity.
I agree that there are millions of children who are victims of poverty, war, and malnutrition in the Third World. I agree that no one should stand by and let it happen. No one!
That includes the governments of these countries - governments which are often embroiled in civil wars or other internal problems. They let it happen because we in the developed world are so guilt-stricken that we will come to their rescue.
Is that cynical enough for you?
The reaction to the images of helpless children is that if you help them you will feele better. If you don't help them you will feel guilty. But most of all - that without your help these neglected children will simply die. Tragedy.
The larger tragedy is that for wehatever reason - Realpolitic, commercial gain, economic colonialism, Third World countries have become the basket cases of our society.
Unfortunately, volunturism won't change it. Volunteerism makes volunteers feel better, worthy, giving, caring. And they are. But the impact is negligable. And the problem grows larger in spite of all the NGOs (for the uninitiated - Non-Governmental Organizations) and their concern.
The larger political and social problem is that as long as well meaning groups spend money in needy countries, the governments of those countries are relieved of the burden, Many, certainly not all Third World countries have the money to spend on arms. They are governed(?) by corrupt leaders who live in mansions and enjoy Swiss bank accounts. And even in the poorest country, there is an elite. That elite is saved from imnvolvement by the intrusion of NGOs (and developed world countries' aid) while the children's woeful faces peer out longingly at us from our TV screens.
Guilt works. It pries loose millions of dollars. But the reality is that even after all the years the problem is deeper and more profound.
The real political will to make change is not there. It is not there, at least partly because of millions of willing volunteers.
Perched in front of the TV last night I was once again accosted by the Christian Children's Fund. I use "accosted" because in fact I was hailed, flagged down, presumed upon. The presumption is that if you show anyone a picture of a sickly, starving., needy child, the result will be boundless charity.
I agree that there are millions of children who are victims of poverty, war, and malnutrition in the Third World. I agree that no one should stand by and let it happen. No one!
That includes the governments of these countries - governments which are often embroiled in civil wars or other internal problems. They let it happen because we in the developed world are so guilt-stricken that we will come to their rescue.
Is that cynical enough for you?
The reaction to the images of helpless children is that if you help them you will feele better. If you don't help them you will feel guilty. But most of all - that without your help these neglected children will simply die. Tragedy.
The larger tragedy is that for wehatever reason - Realpolitic, commercial gain, economic colonialism, Third World countries have become the basket cases of our society.
Unfortunately, volunturism won't change it. Volunteerism makes volunteers feel better, worthy, giving, caring. And they are. But the impact is negligable. And the problem grows larger in spite of all the NGOs (for the uninitiated - Non-Governmental Organizations) and their concern.
The larger political and social problem is that as long as well meaning groups spend money in needy countries, the governments of those countries are relieved of the burden, Many, certainly not all Third World countries have the money to spend on arms. They are governed(?) by corrupt leaders who live in mansions and enjoy Swiss bank accounts. And even in the poorest country, there is an elite. That elite is saved from imnvolvement by the intrusion of NGOs (and developed world countries' aid) while the children's woeful faces peer out longingly at us from our TV screens.
Guilt works. It pries loose millions of dollars. But the reality is that even after all the years the problem is deeper and more profound.
The real political will to make change is not there. It is not there, at least partly because of millions of willing volunteers.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
The unspeakable "T" word.
I can't decide which one makes me angrier: the suburban and ex-urban commuters in their gas-guzzlers with only the driver as passenger - or the lily-livered politicians who are afraid to use the "T" word when it comes to paying for roads - for fear that the electorate (who hate to pay for anything) will dump them out of office.
O.K. O.K. So I'm irritated. Who cares? We should all care. It is our money that highway expansion funds because no matter how much they protest against suburban sprawl, no one wants to anger a voter. It's easier to build and widen highways.
Two embarrassingly contradictory stories in the past few weeks: the magnificent new transit plan to make it possible to travel quickly and seamlessly across the entire GTA and beyond; the revelation that Milton, a one hour (two hours plus in rush hour) drive from Toronto, is the fastest growing municipality in the area. People are flocking there to get out of the big, bad, smoky, dirty, crime-ridden city, and into the sylvan wonderland of a small town now growing into a big town with cookie cutter subdivisions and one car families who have to become two car families and fathers who relish the idea of their kids having some place to play while having to face the fact that they will spend more time on the highway than they will with their kids. Ah me. Sigh.
Hard choices for politicians who hate being unpopular. First - let the mayor of Toronto stop whining about how we are being short-changed by both senior levels of government. Yes we are - but wringing your hands in grief and indignation will not put money in the treasury.
Action. Toll roads to increase revenues and maybe decrease traffic, and maybe dissuade people from more fifty foot lots on pristine farmland.
The paradox, and I quote (more or less) from the definitive book on urban sprawl "Asphalt Nation": when government spends money on highways it's always called "investment." When they spend money on transit or rail systems it's called "subsidy."
All of us pay for highways with our hard earned tax dollars. Some of us pay for transit because in this part of the world most of the cost is born by the transit rider.
Time to level the playing field. Get serious. Stop pie-in-the-sky plans for transit expansion and
develop revenues to bring those plans back to earth.
O.K. O.K. So I'm irritated. Who cares? We should all care. It is our money that highway expansion funds because no matter how much they protest against suburban sprawl, no one wants to anger a voter. It's easier to build and widen highways.
Two embarrassingly contradictory stories in the past few weeks: the magnificent new transit plan to make it possible to travel quickly and seamlessly across the entire GTA and beyond; the revelation that Milton, a one hour (two hours plus in rush hour) drive from Toronto, is the fastest growing municipality in the area. People are flocking there to get out of the big, bad, smoky, dirty, crime-ridden city, and into the sylvan wonderland of a small town now growing into a big town with cookie cutter subdivisions and one car families who have to become two car families and fathers who relish the idea of their kids having some place to play while having to face the fact that they will spend more time on the highway than they will with their kids. Ah me. Sigh.
Hard choices for politicians who hate being unpopular. First - let the mayor of Toronto stop whining about how we are being short-changed by both senior levels of government. Yes we are - but wringing your hands in grief and indignation will not put money in the treasury.
Action. Toll roads to increase revenues and maybe decrease traffic, and maybe dissuade people from more fifty foot lots on pristine farmland.
The paradox, and I quote (more or less) from the definitive book on urban sprawl "Asphalt Nation": when government spends money on highways it's always called "investment." When they spend money on transit or rail systems it's called "subsidy."
All of us pay for highways with our hard earned tax dollars. Some of us pay for transit because in this part of the world most of the cost is born by the transit rider.
Time to level the playing field. Get serious. Stop pie-in-the-sky plans for transit expansion and
develop revenues to bring those plans back to earth.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Far brighter than I have written at length (sometimes boring because no one reads what they say except thr already converted) about the destruction of the spoken word as we have nourished it from Chaucer to Shakespeare to Margaret Atwood.
If you missed what Dick Cavett had to say about the destruction of language through solecism, misspelling, mispronunciation, and flagrant distortion, you will have to check back issues of the New York Times and find it. (It may have been Thursday February 27th. Notice - there is an "r" before the "u" in that word. And "eck-cetra" is spelled et cetera - or simply etc. but not eck.)
Cavett's best sally was his reponse to the flight attendant who announced: "We will be landing momentarily." Cavett's question: "Will we have time to get off the plane?"
The deepest well of grammatical humour is the sportcaster. Knowing, as the late Dick Beddoes used to say, that there is nothing serious or important about professional sports, the commentators are obliged to overuse and invent flowery phrases to give their vocation more recognition than it deserves.
I happen to be a sports fan. But will someone tell me why they insist on embellishments like: "as of thus far" when they mean "so far" or "yet." Or such-and-such a player is "28 years of age."
Come on. If someone asked you how old you were you'd reply - 28 years old. You would not say "28 years of age."
The sadness is, as I wrote above, that the people to whom we direct this gentle scolding don't read what we say.
If they did they would stop saying "at this point in time" and replace it with "now."
Gotta go. Getting late. Have to lay down.
If you missed what Dick Cavett had to say about the destruction of language through solecism, misspelling, mispronunciation, and flagrant distortion, you will have to check back issues of the New York Times and find it. (It may have been Thursday February 27th. Notice - there is an "r" before the "u" in that word. And "eck-cetra" is spelled et cetera - or simply etc. but not eck.)
Cavett's best sally was his reponse to the flight attendant who announced: "We will be landing momentarily." Cavett's question: "Will we have time to get off the plane?"
The deepest well of grammatical humour is the sportcaster. Knowing, as the late Dick Beddoes used to say, that there is nothing serious or important about professional sports, the commentators are obliged to overuse and invent flowery phrases to give their vocation more recognition than it deserves.
I happen to be a sports fan. But will someone tell me why they insist on embellishments like: "as of thus far" when they mean "so far" or "yet." Or such-and-such a player is "28 years of age."
Come on. If someone asked you how old you were you'd reply - 28 years old. You would not say "28 years of age."
The sadness is, as I wrote above, that the people to whom we direct this gentle scolding don't read what we say.
If they did they would stop saying "at this point in time" and replace it with "now."
Gotta go. Getting late. Have to lay down.
A few months ago, certain Toronto councillors were up in arms because the TTC chose to buy new rolling stock from a company in Thunder Bay. The opposition said we failed the taxpayers by not buying at the lowest price. Sounds fair. Except the choice was made to keep jobs in Canada.
Yes, they could have gone to Siemens in Germany (I think that was the company) and paid - according to Siemens - less.
Is what you believe in for sale to the highest (or lowest) bidder? Are we so caught up in commerce and judging life by profit/loss statistics? Is there a better reason for a decision than bottom line?
I can't watch those warm and fuzzy Air Canada TV commercials - the ones where the big jet is parked in your driveway - without getting angry. I always ask: how many Brazilians fly Air Canada? Yes, it was a question of money, and when Air Canada wanted short-range jets they chose the lowest bid: Embraer. Bombardier lost out.
Canada lost out.
There is more to life than the bottom line.
Yes, they could have gone to Siemens in Germany (I think that was the company) and paid - according to Siemens - less.
Is what you believe in for sale to the highest (or lowest) bidder? Are we so caught up in commerce and judging life by profit/loss statistics? Is there a better reason for a decision than bottom line?
I can't watch those warm and fuzzy Air Canada TV commercials - the ones where the big jet is parked in your driveway - without getting angry. I always ask: how many Brazilians fly Air Canada? Yes, it was a question of money, and when Air Canada wanted short-range jets they chose the lowest bid: Embraer. Bombardier lost out.
Canada lost out.
There is more to life than the bottom line.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Who needs another blog?
I do.
For you who remember me from my high-flying days on radio; from the years on Open Line, first as "Speak Your Mind" starting in 1960 on CHUM Radio in Toronto; for those who found me in the years that followed, on TV, on stage, and in a weekly opinion column in the Sunday Star; for those (younger ones) who joined me in the 90's on CFRB and then Talk 640 - welcome.
I have been silent since 1997 - except for a few cranky letters to the editor and a couple of newspaper columns, and a weekly rant on "Straight Goods."
Why have I re-surfaced?
There is so much to say and , for me, so little time to say it.
This space will be "stuff" and "nonsense." The "stuff" should be substantial. The "nonsense"
will be my own take on some of the world's great nonsense: from the war in Iraq to the decay of the English language.
I did finally decide that the world needed one more blog, because something has to be done to stop the rush toward majority government with Stephen Harper.
This is the man who last year disdained the world AIDS conference but grabbed headlines by recruiting Bill Gates to front a fund for AIDS rsearch into finding a vaccine. This "Stephen-come-lately" will actually make us believe he cares about AIDS, especially if it means votes.
He is "come-lately" to the environment. The greening of Stephen Harper is absurd and political. It was only last year that it did not even appear on his radar. Even with his new incentive, he had ignored the proposed legislation that would make Canada a signatory to Kyoto.
He is the man who wants open government, but rules his caucus with an iron fist - turfing one pretty good MP who had the temerity to disagree.
He is the dictator who fired the pilot of his taxpapyer paid jet for not doing as he (Harper) thought he should, in defiance of flying regulations.
His duplicity was shown when, after promising not to change the tax status of Income Trusts - prompting many hesitant investors, especially seniors, to put their money in those instruments.
He supported his Finance Minister's flagrant promise-breaking and declared that Income Trusts had four years to get it together becasue they were going to be a thing of the past.
(I know that mnany Canadians side with him on this, believing improperly, that those Trusts somehow bled our treasury dry.) It proves definitively that Mr. Harper is one hell of a salesman.
He has even conviced many of us that he does not dance to George Bush's tune.
We have already seen the signs, with his child care legislation, which does nothing to improve child care facilities but hands out a paltry amopunt of money to parents. It is a Bush echo: people know better than government what to do with their money.
I vote, not for less government, but for government to assume the responsibility for making this a better country.
He leads in the polls, at least partly because Stephan Dion has stumbled out of the starting blocks.
I would enjoy hearing from others who believe, as I do, that Harper will do to Canada what Harris did to Ontario.
I do.
For you who remember me from my high-flying days on radio; from the years on Open Line, first as "Speak Your Mind" starting in 1960 on CHUM Radio in Toronto; for those who found me in the years that followed, on TV, on stage, and in a weekly opinion column in the Sunday Star; for those (younger ones) who joined me in the 90's on CFRB and then Talk 640 - welcome.
I have been silent since 1997 - except for a few cranky letters to the editor and a couple of newspaper columns, and a weekly rant on "Straight Goods."
Why have I re-surfaced?
There is so much to say and , for me, so little time to say it.
This space will be "stuff" and "nonsense." The "stuff" should be substantial. The "nonsense"
will be my own take on some of the world's great nonsense: from the war in Iraq to the decay of the English language.
I did finally decide that the world needed one more blog, because something has to be done to stop the rush toward majority government with Stephen Harper.
This is the man who last year disdained the world AIDS conference but grabbed headlines by recruiting Bill Gates to front a fund for AIDS rsearch into finding a vaccine. This "Stephen-come-lately" will actually make us believe he cares about AIDS, especially if it means votes.
He is "come-lately" to the environment. The greening of Stephen Harper is absurd and political. It was only last year that it did not even appear on his radar. Even with his new incentive, he had ignored the proposed legislation that would make Canada a signatory to Kyoto.
He is the man who wants open government, but rules his caucus with an iron fist - turfing one pretty good MP who had the temerity to disagree.
He is the dictator who fired the pilot of his taxpapyer paid jet for not doing as he (Harper) thought he should, in defiance of flying regulations.
His duplicity was shown when, after promising not to change the tax status of Income Trusts - prompting many hesitant investors, especially seniors, to put their money in those instruments.
He supported his Finance Minister's flagrant promise-breaking and declared that Income Trusts had four years to get it together becasue they were going to be a thing of the past.
(I know that mnany Canadians side with him on this, believing improperly, that those Trusts somehow bled our treasury dry.) It proves definitively that Mr. Harper is one hell of a salesman.
He has even conviced many of us that he does not dance to George Bush's tune.
We have already seen the signs, with his child care legislation, which does nothing to improve child care facilities but hands out a paltry amopunt of money to parents. It is a Bush echo: people know better than government what to do with their money.
I vote, not for less government, but for government to assume the responsibility for making this a better country.
He leads in the polls, at least partly because Stephan Dion has stumbled out of the starting blocks.
I would enjoy hearing from others who believe, as I do, that Harper will do to Canada what Harris did to Ontario.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)