(Aired on September 28, 2010)
There can be little argument that Pierre Elliott Trudeau was one of the greatest, most influential Prime Ministers who ever lived. Trudeau died ten years ago, and he's still as much talked about as any PM before or since. We have had great Prime Ministers since our founding, John A. MacDonald, Laurier, Mackenzie King, Pearson, but few have stirred the nation as Pierre Trudeau did. He was arrogant, flamboyant, and some thought of him as simply a jerk for the way he acted with his "fuddle duddle" comments and the way he seemed to look down at Canadians as if they were much lower in station than him. But assessing his career, at a time of political turmoil, separation at the boiling point, and the need to bring our country together, Pierre Trudeau was a master. And few can fault the way he did that.
I will personally never forget one of his most poignant moments, when the FLQ crisis was happening in 1970, and Trudeau introduced the War Measures Act to try and contain this group of terrorists. As a young 22-year old journalist, I watched with interest as CBC reporter Tim Ralfe asked the PM how far he would go to curb civil liberties to bring peace. Trudeau's reply "Well, just watch me." It was a defining moment in our history, and probably solidified Trudeau's support in Western Canada as a French Canadian Prime Minister who was prepared to do anything necessary to bring an end to the crisis.
I never was a big fan of many of the sections of Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but his concept of a "just society" was hard to oppose. He didn't handle the economy particularly well, and he was criticized roundly for his efforts to centralize power in the federal government over the interests of the provinces, particularly with respect to the oil wealth of the prairies. You may like him or not, but you can't deny that Pierre Trudeau was a leader like no other. His charisma may never be seen again in our country, and his legacy will be here for decades to come.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Heartbreak, Tragedy for High Schoolers
(Aired on September 27, 2010)
I have mostly fond memories of my time in high school. Didn't get into too many scraps. Wasn't teased too unmercifully, although it certainly wasn't perfect. I have mostly fond memories of my kids' time in high school. Only one of them got into much trouble. I was probably too over-protective of my kids, and have often wondered if I was too protective.
But seeing things such as those that have happened to a couple of high school girls in the past three weeks, maybe not. And the sad reality is that no matter how over-protective you are, you still can't stop everything. It was probably not a smart move for a young girl to go to a rave in Maple Ridge a couple of weeks ago. Doped up from the date rape drug, she was gang raped, and to make it worse, pictures started showing up on the Internet. While the girl's judgment in going to the party might be considered suspect, considering most of those things are problems from the get-go, what happened to her was devastating and tragic, something she will have to live with the rest of her life. Bad judgment or not, there's no reason for that kind of attack.
If there's a good thing, I suppose, it's that at least she will have a life to live. Not so fortunate was a grade 10 student in Delta, killed on the weekend while walking through a park in broad daylight. Details of both these tragedies are still sketchy, but, by all accounts, these were not bad kids. They were happy kids, enjoying life, probably going through the same issues many teens do, emotional upheaval, peer pressure, we've all gone through it. As parents, we hope our kids survive those rough years intact, and move on to their adult life.
It's hard for us to comprehend the tragedy these two families, and many like them, are going through. I guess the only thing we can do is to keep in touch with our kids as best we can, protect them as well as we can, and hope for the best. Sometimes, unfortunately, our best isn't good enough.
I have mostly fond memories of my time in high school. Didn't get into too many scraps. Wasn't teased too unmercifully, although it certainly wasn't perfect. I have mostly fond memories of my kids' time in high school. Only one of them got into much trouble. I was probably too over-protective of my kids, and have often wondered if I was too protective.
But seeing things such as those that have happened to a couple of high school girls in the past three weeks, maybe not. And the sad reality is that no matter how over-protective you are, you still can't stop everything. It was probably not a smart move for a young girl to go to a rave in Maple Ridge a couple of weeks ago. Doped up from the date rape drug, she was gang raped, and to make it worse, pictures started showing up on the Internet. While the girl's judgment in going to the party might be considered suspect, considering most of those things are problems from the get-go, what happened to her was devastating and tragic, something she will have to live with the rest of her life. Bad judgment or not, there's no reason for that kind of attack.
If there's a good thing, I suppose, it's that at least she will have a life to live. Not so fortunate was a grade 10 student in Delta, killed on the weekend while walking through a park in broad daylight. Details of both these tragedies are still sketchy, but, by all accounts, these were not bad kids. They were happy kids, enjoying life, probably going through the same issues many teens do, emotional upheaval, peer pressure, we've all gone through it. As parents, we hope our kids survive those rough years intact, and move on to their adult life.
It's hard for us to comprehend the tragedy these two families, and many like them, are going through. I guess the only thing we can do is to keep in touch with our kids as best we can, protect them as well as we can, and hope for the best. Sometimes, unfortunately, our best isn't good enough.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Palin: The Next Celebrity President?
(Aired on September 24, 2010)
In november of 2008, I happened to be down in Hawaii when Barack Obama was elected president of the United States. You could tell that change was in the wind, and a member of the old guard like John McCain didn't stand a chance. The campaign was significant in that Obama rose through the Democratic ranks with a groundswell of grassroots support to snag the nomination. Obama had converted a lot of supporters of other candidates because he represented someone young, energetic, and wise. He was an eloquent speaker, yet was down to earth enough to shoot hoops on his down time. Obama was a genuine celebrity.
After that, he had so much momentum, it carried him right through to the White House, and had a lot of people treating him like a messiah. Since then, it has become clear that he is not the messiah, and his presidency has lost a lot of its lustre.
But if you thought he was a celebrity, you ain't seen nothing yet. Sarah Palin has become a much bigger celebrity to most americans. For a lot of people, Palin is more of a breath of fresh air. While she can't touch Obama as an orator or a thinker, she has a tonne of charisma and that can make up for a lot of flaws. That charisma has been front and centre in the media ever since 2008, even though the next presidential vote is a long way away.
Palin's desire for the spotlight tells me two things. First, I don't think anyone doubts she will take a run at the White House herself in 2012. But second, it tells me she is far more interested in being seen than being a leader. Sarah Palin wants to be in books, she wants to be on TV, and she wants to be on the tips of people's tongues, far more than she wants to be in the White House. My worry is that she will get to the White House in 2012, and will have no idea what to do once she's there. We already had that problem with a certain Texas oilman called Dubya.
In november of 2008, I happened to be down in Hawaii when Barack Obama was elected president of the United States. You could tell that change was in the wind, and a member of the old guard like John McCain didn't stand a chance. The campaign was significant in that Obama rose through the Democratic ranks with a groundswell of grassroots support to snag the nomination. Obama had converted a lot of supporters of other candidates because he represented someone young, energetic, and wise. He was an eloquent speaker, yet was down to earth enough to shoot hoops on his down time. Obama was a genuine celebrity.
After that, he had so much momentum, it carried him right through to the White House, and had a lot of people treating him like a messiah. Since then, it has become clear that he is not the messiah, and his presidency has lost a lot of its lustre.
But if you thought he was a celebrity, you ain't seen nothing yet. Sarah Palin has become a much bigger celebrity to most americans. For a lot of people, Palin is more of a breath of fresh air. While she can't touch Obama as an orator or a thinker, she has a tonne of charisma and that can make up for a lot of flaws. That charisma has been front and centre in the media ever since 2008, even though the next presidential vote is a long way away.
Palin's desire for the spotlight tells me two things. First, I don't think anyone doubts she will take a run at the White House herself in 2012. But second, it tells me she is far more interested in being seen than being a leader. Sarah Palin wants to be in books, she wants to be on TV, and she wants to be on the tips of people's tongues, far more than she wants to be in the White House. My worry is that she will get to the White House in 2012, and will have no idea what to do once she's there. We already had that problem with a certain Texas oilman called Dubya.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Harper Gov't Needs to Rethink Gun Registry Stance
(Aired on September 23, 2010)
If you ask any RCMP officer what's his or her most dangerous assignment, many will tell you it's domestic disputes. Emotions run particularly high, and you never know what will happen in those circumstances. They will also tell you that the more information they have going in, the better they feel about being able to resolve a situation. Prior offenses, restraining orders, history of violence, all are important.
You know what else is important? Whether or not the people have any firearms registered in their names. That's why I can't understand the Conservative government's desire to end the long-gun registry. The government MPs continue to suggest that the registry is stupid because criminals don't register their guns, that the registry only hampers legitimate hunters and gun owners.
In part, that's true. But the reality is that a high percentage of gun offenses, excluding organized crime hits, involve registered guns. Guns that are used in anger in a confrontation often spurred by domestic tension. The more information police have, the better they can serve. You can't foretell everything even if you have all the details, but it would certainly help in the way you deal with issues.
I don't think the long gun registry is perfect. It costs a lot more money than I think it should. And that's one of the arguments against it. But surely there must be ways of dealing with that problem and keeping the registry alive. I understand the concerns over the registry from rural Canada, but I don't believe their frustration should be considered above safety. If the registry has value for the police, that in itself should top any backwoods hunter from feeling frustrated that he has to register his gun. It just makes good common sense.
The Stephen Harper government needs to reevaluate its policies on this issue, and instead of concentrating on defeating the registry, concentrate on things like the economy, and justice and education, issues that have far higher priority than the gun registry.
If you ask any RCMP officer what's his or her most dangerous assignment, many will tell you it's domestic disputes. Emotions run particularly high, and you never know what will happen in those circumstances. They will also tell you that the more information they have going in, the better they feel about being able to resolve a situation. Prior offenses, restraining orders, history of violence, all are important.
You know what else is important? Whether or not the people have any firearms registered in their names. That's why I can't understand the Conservative government's desire to end the long-gun registry. The government MPs continue to suggest that the registry is stupid because criminals don't register their guns, that the registry only hampers legitimate hunters and gun owners.
In part, that's true. But the reality is that a high percentage of gun offenses, excluding organized crime hits, involve registered guns. Guns that are used in anger in a confrontation often spurred by domestic tension. The more information police have, the better they can serve. You can't foretell everything even if you have all the details, but it would certainly help in the way you deal with issues.
I don't think the long gun registry is perfect. It costs a lot more money than I think it should. And that's one of the arguments against it. But surely there must be ways of dealing with that problem and keeping the registry alive. I understand the concerns over the registry from rural Canada, but I don't believe their frustration should be considered above safety. If the registry has value for the police, that in itself should top any backwoods hunter from feeling frustrated that he has to register his gun. It just makes good common sense.
The Stephen Harper government needs to reevaluate its policies on this issue, and instead of concentrating on defeating the registry, concentrate on things like the economy, and justice and education, issues that have far higher priority than the gun registry.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Privacy Breach Nothing Less Than Frightening
(Aired on September 22, 2010)
Imagine you are fighting for something. You have a cause that is completely righteous in your eyes, and in fighting for it, you make your fair share of enemies - including people in the government. Now imagine those enemies have information about you that no one else should have. That includes your banking information and your medical information. It even includes a psychiatric report, spelled out in painstaking detail.
That's exactly what has happened to Sean Bruyea. He has been an outspoken critic of Veterans Affairs for a long time, and certainly made himself a lot of enemies. In 2006, Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson found that personal information relating Bruyea in his briefing notes. That means that someone, likely in the bureaucracy, managed to dredge those documents up.
How that happened is the scary part. It is quite frightening that, given enough impetus, people who don't like you can find your most sensitive information and potentially use it against you. That's a paranoia-inducing reality of Orwellian proportions.
It's imperative that there be a full investigation into how this happened. That investigation, interestingly for us, could unearth former MP Betty Hinton, who has made herself scarce since deciding not to run in the last federal election. Hinton was once Greg Thompson's parliamentary secretary, a position she once famously mistook for a cabinet seat.
The investigation is crucial, not just for Mr. Bruyea himself, but for the principle of the thing. It's an egregious incident, and we need to know that it is an isolated one.
Imagine you are fighting for something. You have a cause that is completely righteous in your eyes, and in fighting for it, you make your fair share of enemies - including people in the government. Now imagine those enemies have information about you that no one else should have. That includes your banking information and your medical information. It even includes a psychiatric report, spelled out in painstaking detail.
That's exactly what has happened to Sean Bruyea. He has been an outspoken critic of Veterans Affairs for a long time, and certainly made himself a lot of enemies. In 2006, Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson found that personal information relating Bruyea in his briefing notes. That means that someone, likely in the bureaucracy, managed to dredge those documents up.
How that happened is the scary part. It is quite frightening that, given enough impetus, people who don't like you can find your most sensitive information and potentially use it against you. That's a paranoia-inducing reality of Orwellian proportions.
It's imperative that there be a full investigation into how this happened. That investigation, interestingly for us, could unearth former MP Betty Hinton, who has made herself scarce since deciding not to run in the last federal election. Hinton was once Greg Thompson's parliamentary secretary, a position she once famously mistook for a cabinet seat.
The investigation is crucial, not just for Mr. Bruyea himself, but for the principle of the thing. It's an egregious incident, and we need to know that it is an isolated one.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Fight HST Turning Serious Debate into Clown Show
(Aired on September 21, 2010)
There probably isn't one person who sees this editorial who is surprised MLA Terry Lake's name is near the top of the list of targets for the anti-HST recall campaign. As the chair of the legislative committee who made the unpopular decision of going to a referendum on the HST, and an MLA who didn't have a big margin of victory last year, that shouldn't be surprising.
Lake's future is hardly in doubt, even though his committee copped out and took the easy way out of the HST controversy by going to a referendum a year away. It was a cop-out because by next September, the fuss over the HST will be gone, and we will have spent millions of dollars on nothing. All because the Liberal members of Lake's committee used the excuse that the referendum was a way to listen to the people instead of having the guts to debate the issue in the legislature and take a vote. This way, they blame the anti-HST forces for causing us to spend all that taxpayers money instead of simply saving it by voting on it instead. And if you're going to have a referendum, have it sooner rather than later so we can have a vote while the issue is still a hot topic.
What I can't figure out, though, is why Bill Vander Zalm and the anti-HST forces are turning the whole recall process into a clown show by making it into some kind of Survivor game. That's about as tactless as Lake's committee's decision on the referendum. If Chris Delaney and VanderZalm are serious about this issue, and they've put a lot of work into it so far, why would they cheapen the whole thing by this charade? Maybe they're simply giving up. They don't even have a proponent to run a recall campaign in Kevin Krueger's riding. Maybe it's all over and the anti-HST folks are just going through the motions. I can't think of anything else given the stupidity of their latest move. This is a serious thing. Treat it that way, or walk away.
There probably isn't one person who sees this editorial who is surprised MLA Terry Lake's name is near the top of the list of targets for the anti-HST recall campaign. As the chair of the legislative committee who made the unpopular decision of going to a referendum on the HST, and an MLA who didn't have a big margin of victory last year, that shouldn't be surprising.
Lake's future is hardly in doubt, even though his committee copped out and took the easy way out of the HST controversy by going to a referendum a year away. It was a cop-out because by next September, the fuss over the HST will be gone, and we will have spent millions of dollars on nothing. All because the Liberal members of Lake's committee used the excuse that the referendum was a way to listen to the people instead of having the guts to debate the issue in the legislature and take a vote. This way, they blame the anti-HST forces for causing us to spend all that taxpayers money instead of simply saving it by voting on it instead. And if you're going to have a referendum, have it sooner rather than later so we can have a vote while the issue is still a hot topic.
What I can't figure out, though, is why Bill Vander Zalm and the anti-HST forces are turning the whole recall process into a clown show by making it into some kind of Survivor game. That's about as tactless as Lake's committee's decision on the referendum. If Chris Delaney and VanderZalm are serious about this issue, and they've put a lot of work into it so far, why would they cheapen the whole thing by this charade? Maybe they're simply giving up. They don't even have a proponent to run a recall campaign in Kevin Krueger's riding. Maybe it's all over and the anti-HST folks are just going through the motions. I can't think of anything else given the stupidity of their latest move. This is a serious thing. Treat it that way, or walk away.
Tougher Drunk Driving Laws Long Overdue
(Aired on September 20, 2010)
British Columbia now has the toughest drunk driving laws in Canada. Starting today, it's going to be easier for law enforcement officials to take away your car, slap you with a fine and take away your driving privileges. Not only for the drivers who are over .08, but there's a new "warning" category, where you can lose your licence for three days and pay a fine to boot. Over .08, penalties are even stiffer. You could get a 90 day driving ban. And speeders caught doing more than 40 clicks over the speed limit will be affected too, getting their vehicles impounded for a week with escalating penalties for subsequent offences.
It's about time. It's also good that refusing to take a breathalyzer test at the scene is no longer a way out. The penalty is immediate. It will make all of us think twice, not only those who drink more heavily, but even those of us who are more social drinkers. Speed and alcohol are contributors to so many accidents that it's about time we tried to take steps to curb the problem. And the Liberal government, who have been criticized on so many fronts recently, deserve to take some credit for this latest initiative. It's long overdue and hopefully will serve as a model for other provinces to follow.
The only problem I see is having the police resources to enforce these laws. We actually catch very few problem drivers. Our resources don't provide for the traffic checks we need to enforce these laws. We'll certainly do a better job than before even with the resources we have now, but we will almost certainly only catch a small percentage of offenders unless we put enough officers in place to really do an effective job. That might be a little longer in coming. But at least we've made a start, and hopefully we'll get people thinking before they become idiots on the road.
British Columbia now has the toughest drunk driving laws in Canada. Starting today, it's going to be easier for law enforcement officials to take away your car, slap you with a fine and take away your driving privileges. Not only for the drivers who are over .08, but there's a new "warning" category, where you can lose your licence for three days and pay a fine to boot. Over .08, penalties are even stiffer. You could get a 90 day driving ban. And speeders caught doing more than 40 clicks over the speed limit will be affected too, getting their vehicles impounded for a week with escalating penalties for subsequent offences.
It's about time. It's also good that refusing to take a breathalyzer test at the scene is no longer a way out. The penalty is immediate. It will make all of us think twice, not only those who drink more heavily, but even those of us who are more social drinkers. Speed and alcohol are contributors to so many accidents that it's about time we tried to take steps to curb the problem. And the Liberal government, who have been criticized on so many fronts recently, deserve to take some credit for this latest initiative. It's long overdue and hopefully will serve as a model for other provinces to follow.
The only problem I see is having the police resources to enforce these laws. We actually catch very few problem drivers. Our resources don't provide for the traffic checks we need to enforce these laws. We'll certainly do a better job than before even with the resources we have now, but we will almost certainly only catch a small percentage of offenders unless we put enough officers in place to really do an effective job. That might be a little longer in coming. But at least we've made a start, and hopefully we'll get people thinking before they become idiots on the road.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
