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.

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.

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.

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.