What is happening in the House of Commons when a member of parliament can walk across the floor and stand over the opposition party member, wave his finger at him and scold him as though he were the parent of a misbehaving child? Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a member of parliament uses profanity while addressing the floor, he or she is asked to apologize and often is sent from the chambers until this occurs. To me it's a much more grievous behaviour to actually cross over to the opposition benches and act and speak in an intimidating manner. Why no censure? Why was the member not cast from the chamber and punished in an appropriate manner? Why hasn't the Prime Minister spoken out against such behaviour? His silence on the matter appears to be condoning the behaviour, or even worse, speaks to his ineffectiveness in setting a good example. If this behaviour is tolerated anything goes and soon we'll have a free-for-all happening. Okay, so it is already, but until now it was limited to verbal jabs and jeering. Even that is intolerable when we consider that these are elected representatives of the people of Canada who are supposed to looking after our best interests.
The speaker of the house needs to take charge when this occurs and assess "damages", so to speak. Otherwise, why bother having a Speaker.
If this isn't taken seriously by the House of Commons we will no longer be able to depend on a reliable, trustworthy system to take care of the needs of the nation. This is the thin edge of the wedge. It must be addressed seriously and not allowed to reoccur. If it isn't treated as a serious contravention of parliamentary protocol, the "Commons Bullies" will rule the roost and all hell will break loose.
Very sad and very frightening!
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Monday, November 19, 2012
Gaza strip saga
I'm saddened by the frightening situation that's happening between Israel and the Gaza strip. From what I've been reading, it seems that Israel attacks Gaza every four years just after the US presidential elections, which happens to occur just before the Israeli elections. A vote-getter, perhaps? A way to show the world that Israel dictates to the US what to do and to say, perhaps?
Why, oh why, do the US and Canadian political leaders say that Israel has a right to defend itself from attack, but not that the Palestinians ought to be ticked off that their leader, Ahmed Jabari, was assassinated by the Israeli's? And, why are the disproportionate casualties caused by this so-called defense not seen as a crime against humanity?
I'm not an expert on these things. But, I do know when it seems grossly unfair and unnecessary in the larger scheme of things. Bullies don't want peace. They want control and power and nothing will stop them, other than force greater than theirs. How very sad!
I can't imagine what it must be like to live in a strip of land confined by a military giant and limited more and more as the giant's family slowly, but surely, moves in and takes it over.
I'm afraid to imagine it too long or I won't sleep at all tonight.
Why, oh why, do the US and Canadian political leaders say that Israel has a right to defend itself from attack, but not that the Palestinians ought to be ticked off that their leader, Ahmed Jabari, was assassinated by the Israeli's? And, why are the disproportionate casualties caused by this so-called defense not seen as a crime against humanity?
I'm not an expert on these things. But, I do know when it seems grossly unfair and unnecessary in the larger scheme of things. Bullies don't want peace. They want control and power and nothing will stop them, other than force greater than theirs. How very sad!
I can't imagine what it must be like to live in a strip of land confined by a military giant and limited more and more as the giant's family slowly, but surely, moves in and takes it over.
I'm afraid to imagine it too long or I won't sleep at all tonight.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Pink Politics
I happened to watch a CFL game on the weekend and noticed that the players and coaches were wearing a lot of pink on their uniforms. I didn't catch the beginning of the game so I wasn't sure why they were adding pink to their attire. It probably was announced at the beginning of the broadcast, but I never heard any reference to it during the parts of the game that I watched. My guess was that it was in support of breast cancer research. To find out I just now googled it and found out that indeed, it was to show support for this research. Here's the article if you're interested in reading the whole thing. The first sentence of the article states: "The CFL will again look pretty in pink". Okay, so pink is considered to be pretty. I get it. But, further in the article it talks about it being league policy that all dress this way, and that Reebok will donate a portion of the sales of pink paraphernalia to cancer research.
Just as I suspected. This is a corporate-sponsored attempt at raising money for Reebok, and to justify it, some money will be directed towards cancer research.
I'm sure some of the players have had some direct experience in losing a loved one to breast cancer, but simply donning the correct colour to raise awareness and promote sales for Reebok is taking it too far, in my humble opinion.
The players also don ads for other corporate sponsors such as Rona, etc. So, now Reebok, under the guise of doing good, gets to out-advertise the others? I wonder how much they paid the CFL to do this? I'd like to know. Would it not have been better to pay this amount directly to breast cancer research and if they wanted, tell the CFL audience that they did so and how much they gave?
I might be able to stomach this kind of corporate-grab-for-good if every once in a while a player or coach were interviewed during the game to ask them what wearing pink means to them. The player might speak about how his mother survived cancer, and so on. You get the picture.
Simply dressing in a certain colour just doesn't do it for me. It cheapens it. It makes it common. It loses its significance.
As has been said many times, the personal is political. Once corporations claim the "personal", it's still political, but it's no longer personal.
There are many causes out there looking for funding. Is this the only way people will give? Or, are we making it so commonplace that the public will no longer be influenced by just another two-minute ad dressed in pink?
Just as I suspected. This is a corporate-sponsored attempt at raising money for Reebok, and to justify it, some money will be directed towards cancer research.
I'm sure some of the players have had some direct experience in losing a loved one to breast cancer, but simply donning the correct colour to raise awareness and promote sales for Reebok is taking it too far, in my humble opinion.
The players also don ads for other corporate sponsors such as Rona, etc. So, now Reebok, under the guise of doing good, gets to out-advertise the others? I wonder how much they paid the CFL to do this? I'd like to know. Would it not have been better to pay this amount directly to breast cancer research and if they wanted, tell the CFL audience that they did so and how much they gave?
I might be able to stomach this kind of corporate-grab-for-good if every once in a while a player or coach were interviewed during the game to ask them what wearing pink means to them. The player might speak about how his mother survived cancer, and so on. You get the picture.
Simply dressing in a certain colour just doesn't do it for me. It cheapens it. It makes it common. It loses its significance.
As has been said many times, the personal is political. Once corporations claim the "personal", it's still political, but it's no longer personal.
There are many causes out there looking for funding. Is this the only way people will give? Or, are we making it so commonplace that the public will no longer be influenced by just another two-minute ad dressed in pink?
Monday, August 27, 2012
Political Gamesmanship
I thought I'd put this blog to rest, but I see there are some people out there who are checking in on what I'm writing on the subject of politics. I come from a family where politics was often discussed. My dad was asked to run for a federal position but decided against leaving the farm for Ottawa, should he win. He had a good chance of winning the seat as he was well-known and popular at the time.
That doesn't mean, of course, that I know any more than anyone else. It just helps to explain why I'm even remotely interested in following the political scene, so to speak.
I just read an article today about how our present Conservative government is naming their anti-crime legislation in a manner that "sells" it, even though the content may differ significantly. For instance, the latest one is about protecting seniors (this affects me personally). Well, it seems that seniors are hardly mentioned in the actual legislative changes and the changes that are proposed are apparently insignificant.
So, my rant this time is that governing our country is all about getting re-elected. It has little to do with looking after the needs of the people. Every move and word is geared to giving the populace the impression that they're doing what we want. How many times have I heard politicians preface their decisions by saying something like, "The people have spoken", or "This is what my constituents are saying they want". Trouble is, this only is "heard" if it agrees with the prevailing government of the day. They might as well just say something like this: "I'm choosing these words in order to get re-elected. Please don't hold me accountable for the results of any empty promises that I make. Believe in me, not in what I actually do." (Etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.)
Just imagine what our country would be like if we couldn't vote any more. The government wouldn't have to pretend that they care what the voters think. Oh, just a minute. We're almost there already!
I know. This is old hat. The old saying about fooling some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time, still holds. Unfortunately, it takes a major blunder for us, the voters, to rise up and throw the government out (only during elections, of course). Now, a replacement group takes over till we catch on that they're much the same, just dressed up slightly differently.
Enough, already. One must carry on.
That doesn't mean, of course, that I know any more than anyone else. It just helps to explain why I'm even remotely interested in following the political scene, so to speak.
I just read an article today about how our present Conservative government is naming their anti-crime legislation in a manner that "sells" it, even though the content may differ significantly. For instance, the latest one is about protecting seniors (this affects me personally). Well, it seems that seniors are hardly mentioned in the actual legislative changes and the changes that are proposed are apparently insignificant.
So, my rant this time is that governing our country is all about getting re-elected. It has little to do with looking after the needs of the people. Every move and word is geared to giving the populace the impression that they're doing what we want. How many times have I heard politicians preface their decisions by saying something like, "The people have spoken", or "This is what my constituents are saying they want". Trouble is, this only is "heard" if it agrees with the prevailing government of the day. They might as well just say something like this: "I'm choosing these words in order to get re-elected. Please don't hold me accountable for the results of any empty promises that I make. Believe in me, not in what I actually do." (Etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.)
Just imagine what our country would be like if we couldn't vote any more. The government wouldn't have to pretend that they care what the voters think. Oh, just a minute. We're almost there already!
I know. This is old hat. The old saying about fooling some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time, still holds. Unfortunately, it takes a major blunder for us, the voters, to rise up and throw the government out (only during elections, of course). Now, a replacement group takes over till we catch on that they're much the same, just dressed up slightly differently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)