|
|
1 April I suppose if we accept Harper's "my party forms the government that means we have the mandate to do whatever we please" argument, Canadians gave the tories the thumbs-up to jailing journalists that they don't like.
Reporters from the National Post are exempted, of course.
Tory MP retracts suggesting jailing bad journalists
Vernon, B.C. — A backbench Conservative MP has retracted a statement he made earlier while blasting the media for its testy relationship with Prime Minister Stephen Harper: that reporters who write distorted articles should be jailed.
In a brief column sent to several newspapers in his Okanagan-Shuswap riding, Colin Mayes said that might help the public “get accurate and true information.”
Mr. Mayes seemed to suggesting in his column that the media be covered by something like the Conservative government's proposed Federal Accountability Act, which would prosecute elected officials and senior public servants who break the public trust.
But in a statement issued Friday, Mr. Mayes said he is retracting the comments "without reservation."
Mr. Mayes adds that he fully respects the freedom of the press and regrets making the earlier comments.
The column was e-mailed Thursday to nine small Okanagan papers, as well as the Vernon Daily Courier, by Wayne McGrath, Mr. Mayes's executive assistant.
“Maybe it is time that we hauled off in handcuffs reporters that fabricate stories, or twist information and even falsely accuse citizens,” he writes.
The Courier recently decided not to publish the MP's regular columns.
On Wednesday, David Wylie, the paper's managing editor, published an editorial saying Mr. Harper's media policies were “mimicking the ploys of an authoritarian state ...”
Mr. Harper has restricted access to ministers after cabinet meetings and barred reporters from observing photo opportunities.
Ministers are also required to restrict their public comments to the government's five key priorities and clear contacts with the media through the Prime Minister's office.
Mr. Mayes, a businessman and former mayor of Dawson City, Yukon and Salmon Arm, B.C., easily won the solidly Tory riding in the Jan. 23 election, replacing the retiring Darryl Stinson.
In his column, he writes that he was “perturbed” by the media's reaction to Mr. Harper's attitude to reporters.
“The media has blatantly painted a picture that our government is not open and transparent,” he writes. “We were elected just two months ago to run the affairs of the country for the people, not to accommodate the media.”
Along with business people, politicians and public servants, the media also has the public trust, he writes.
While not all media are bad, the Tory backbencher says, “boy, would the public get accurate and true information if a few reporters were hauled away to jail!”
But it will never happen “because the media would cry ‘censorship' and ‘authoritarian state' ... but the truth is we need ethical leadership from the media too.”
Mr. Mayes could not be reached for comment Thursday evening.
Mr. Wylie said he thought Mr. Mayes's comments were “a little over the top.
“If members of his government are trying not to paint themselves as extremists or fanatics, this is not the way to go about doing it.”
I don't know if anyone else noticed, but hidden in a CP report regarding the recent meeting between Bush and Harper is the following scary, scary notion:
So what did Harper accomplish during the meeting?
At the very least, it was a low-stress introduction to the world of high-level international meetings, and a chance to build a relationship with Bush. He and Bush seemed to have a cordial, friendly relationship, and agreed they were coming from the same page when it came to core values.
That should be a wake-up call, or at least a jolt anyway, for those Canadians who are optimistic enough to want to believe that Stephen Harper is not the crazy, bible-thumbing right-winger that he is. Bush and Harper sharing "core values"? I shudder to think about what those "core values" may be, and that Harper is going to claim that Canadians, by virtue of some of us having voted for his party, share those very same values and gave him a "mandate" to do whatever his "values" dictate.
These values, apparently, includes barring reporters' access to cabinet ministers, who cannot be trusted to talk to the press and not screw up. Screw up being revealing what kind of right wing nuts this party is made up of and scaring the hell out of the public.
Harper's latest victim: the "One Tonne Challenge" program. That should come as no surprise given his Kyoto-bashing speeches in the waning days of the election campaign.
31 March Now this is a surprise...
Power of prayer overrated?
MALCOLM RITTER
Associated Press
New York — Does praying for a sick person's recovery do any good?
In the largest scientific test of its kind, heart surgery patients showed no benefit when strangers prayed for their recovery.
And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications. Doctors could only guess why.
Several scientists questioned the concept of the study.
The researchers emphasized that their $2.4-million study could not address whether God exists or answers prayers made on another's behalf. The study could look only for an effect from the specific prayers offered as part of the research, they said.
The study “did not move us forward or backward” in understanding the effects of prayer, said Dr. Charles Bethea, a co-author and cardiologist at the Integris Baptist Medical Center in Oklahoma City. “Intercessory prayer under our restricted format had a neutral effect.”
Dr. Herbert Benson of Harvard Medical School, co-principal investigator of the study, agreed. “We cannot come to a conclusion, except to say that by this study design, with its limitations, this is what we found,” he said.
Researchers also said they didn't know why patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of complications than patients who only knew that such prayers were a possibility.
Maybe they became anxious given the knowledge they'd been selected for prayers, Dr. Bethea said: “Did the patients think, 'I am so sick that they had to call in the prayer team?”'
The researchers said family and friends shouldn't be discouraged from telling a patient about their plans to pray for a good recovery. The study only focused on prayers by strangers, they said.
It's the largest and best-designed study ever to test the medical effects of intercessory prayers — praying on behalf of someone else.
The study followed about 1,800 patients at six medical centres. It was financed by the Templeton Foundation, which supports research into science and religion, and one of the participating hospitals. It will appear in Tuesday's issue of the American Heart Journal.
The research team tested the effect of having three Christian groups pray for particular patients, starting the night before surgery and continuing for two weeks. The volunteers prayed for “a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications” for specific patients — their identities known only by first name and first initial of the last name.
The patients, meanwhile, were split into three groups of about 600 apiece: those who knew they were being prayed for, those who were prayed for but only knew it was a possibility, and those who weren't prayed for but were told it was a possibility.
The researchers didn't ask patients or their families and friends to alter any plans they had for prayer, saying such a step would have been unethical and impractical.
The study looked for any complications within 30 days of the surgery. Results showed no effect of prayer on complication-free recovery. But 59 per cent of the patients who knew they were being prayed for developed a complication, versus 52 per cent of those who were told it was just a possibility. The guy who won $30 million in the lottery and refused to share any of the windfall with his two ex-wives, children he fathered, and the woman to whom he was married when he won is now whining about how hard his life is and pondering a move from Canada because "he's had enough".
Which begs the question: if it's really that bad, why doesn't he? It's not like he can't afford to hire movers.
How many people actually still remember this guy? Maybe my intellect is not up to stuff, but if you ask me out of the blue who Raymond Sobeski is, I would have no idea. And to say that the media has been criticizing him "for two years" is definitely an overstatement. The only hit I get on Google news search with the term "Raymond Sobeski" is the article in which he whinned about the media villifying him (see below).
And, it seems to me that, for a guy who thinks the media's been unkind to him, he's awfully generous in giving an interview thereby providing more fodder for the media to "villify" him. Is someone suffering from withdrawal from his 15 minutes of fame and notoriety?
If he does decide to move though, hopefully he has enough sense to eliminate Mexico as a choice, as "professional Canadian hitman/woman" are known to travel down there to do their thing, says the Mexican police, attorney general and president. But of course the place is otherwise "as safe as Canada".
$30M lottery winner thought of leaving
Media attention has made it hard to live in Canada
$30M payday has meant lawsuits for Ontario man
Mar. 31, 2006. 05:16 AM
HAROLD LEVY
STAFF REPORTER
The winner of Canada's biggest individual lottery jackpot of $30 million says that two years of being "vilified" by the media has left him close to leaving the country.
Raymond Sobeski said although he expected his life would be somewhat disrupted by the massive windfall, he had no idea of the extent of the ugliness he would be exposed to.
"I've got to the point where I am vilified throughout the country and it may not be totally due to the media," he told the Toronto Star yesterday. "It may be because I'm the guy that got the ticket. It may be human nature.
"Do the other winners not have typical problems?" he asked rhetorically.
"It may be proportional to the amount of the win, but I've heard many horror stories of lottery winners having to change their name and leave the country. And that is great advice for people because you are basically pressured into that."
Sobeski, from southwestern Ontario, won the money in the Lotto Super 7 draw on April 11, 2003, but waited almost one year — just days before the deadline — to claim the prize.
Although he did not go as far as saying that he plans to leave Canada for a life of anonymity elsewhere, he said things have got to the point where it has become difficult for him to live not just in Ontario but in Canada, and he "could be close to having enough."
"When I cashed the ticket, my full intention (was) to remain a Canadian citizen and to stay in this country because I liked it here," he said. "But you know this is already two years of being criticized in the media, and you just have your fill of how the process works."
`This is already two years of being criticized in the media, and you just have your fill.'
Raymond Sobeski, lottery winner
| Sobeski has been embroiled in a lawsuit brought by his ex-wife Nynna Ionson, who is claiming half of his winnings.
The case has been marked by ugly — and occasionally torrid — accusations and counter-accusations by both sides and has had all of the hallmarks of a soap opera.
Sobeski said he is confident that he will be vindicated when he has the opportunity to present his side of the story in court — even though that could be "many years from now."
Meanwhile, he has settled a libel suit against The Globe and Mail and one of its reporters. In a statement of claim filed in Ontario's Superior Court of Justice on March 13 against Bell Globemedia Inc., owner of The Globe and Mail, reporter Peter Cheney, managing editor Edward Greenspon and Ionson's lawyer Alfred Mamo, he said the paper libelled him in a story published last Dec. 19.
Lawyer Brian Shiller, who represents Sobeski, said in an interview his client had agreed to drop the lawsuit against the paper in return for an apology.
Globe lawyer Michael Doody confirmed that "there will be something published in tomorrow's (Friday's) paper and it will be obvious what it is."
Shiller added: "One would think that coming into $30 million would make your life trouble-free. But when that happens, everybody wants a piece of you. That can have a profound negative impact on your life and all of your relationships."
Although Sobeski remained quiet until this week, his brother Larry told the Star's Peter Small in April 2005, that while winning a lottery is almost everyone's dream, for Sobeski's extended family winning $30 million had become a nightmare.
The furor over the resurfacing of two former wives and a woman claiming to be married to Sobeski has forced his parents to go into hiding, the brother said.
"Probably the best thing we could have done is everybody just up and moved." Who would say no the gift of a pair of cuddly endangered species? Apparently the Taiwanese government doesn't want anything to do with them. Maybe they're scared that the pandas are actually spies in disguise, or something.
I don't really get it: what sort of message is this supposed to send? I understand that these guys dislike and distrust the Chinese government, which they're entitled to; but rejecting a goodwill gesture in such a rude manner? It's hard to imagine that this is anything other than a sort of childish "I won't play with you" statement whose sole purpose is to snub the Chinese government at the first chance it gets. I hope they had fun doing it, because if they keep acting this way, things are going to get a lot less fun in a hurry.
Taiwan snubs panda diplomacy
Mar. 31, 2006. 08:19 AM
TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) — Taiwan rejected the offer of two pandas from rival China on Friday in the latest sign of a hardening attitude toward its communist neighbour.
Beijing first offered the animals last spring when Taiwanese opposition leader Lien Chan visited China. The offer was part of a Chinese effort to strengthen Taiwanese support for uniting with the mainland, from which Taiwan split amid civil war in 1949.
The government's Council of Agriculture announced Friday Taiwan was unable to accept the animals because they would not receive proper care on the island as requested by animal protection laws and international agreements.
"Under present circumstances, we cannot accept the pandas coming to Taiwan," Forestry Bureau vice chairman Lee Tao-sheng told reporters after final discussions by a panel of experts.
Lee said applications to house the pandas from the Taipei City Zoo and the Leofoo Village Theme Park, located in the northern city of Kuanhsi, didn't focus enough on research and education.
"The current plans to exhibit and strengthen the teaching of wildlife protection are not concrete enough," Lee said, without elaborating.
The pandas earmarked for Taiwan were picked from 11 animals at the Wolong Nature Reserve in southwestern Sichuan province. They were named Tuantuan and Yuanyuan, from the word "tuanyuan" which means "reunion."
Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian and his supporters have repeatedly denounced China's offer as a propaganda ploy designed to camouflage its threats to attack Taiwan. Chen is a strong supporter of a separate identity for the island, while the opposition supports eventual unification.
Rejection of the pandas comes after Chen in February angered Beijing by scrapping a body in charge of unification with the mainland. Last week, the government announced stricter supervision of trade and tourism links with China.
In a statement on the presidential website last week, Chen said the pandas would not be happy living in Taiwan and called on Beijing to step up conservation efforts for the animals in China.
China estimates that 1,590 pandas live in the wild in the country, with another 183 in zoos and breeding centres. 17 March An American family wrote a letter to Canadian senators to say they cancelled a vacation in Canada because of the seal hunt, which they called "horrible" and "inhumane". One senator fired back, saying that what she found horrible was "the daily massacre of innocent people in Iraq, the execution of prisoners – mainly blacks – in American prisons, the massive sale of handguns to Americans, the destabilization of the entire world by the American government's aggressive foreign policy, etc."
A few things come to mind:
First, agree as I may with what the senator said about the US, it is not really a valid response to the issues raised by the American family. If you are going to support the seal hunt, at least come up with some valid arguments!
Secondly, seems like this is another case of Americans thinking that they can tell others what to do, without first examining their own world. If that American family is so disgusted by the killing of seals that they cannot bear to set foot in Canada on a vacation, I wonder how they can bear to live in the country that features capital punishment? I can only imagine that their suffering is great and constant.
Perhaps this is a case of them trying to make themselves feel better. As in: "Hey, it's not so bad here. Sure we kill people, but look at the normally mild-manner Canadians -- they kill cute helpless little seal pups!"
Finally, I have never understood the argument, made by many seal hunt advocates, that "the seal population, if left unchecked, will affect the ecological balance". I have heard people parrot this supposed "ecological" argument without ever explaining the underlying science or logic of it.
Some people say seals are bad because they eat all the fish, and that screws up the "ecological balance". Really? But if that is the case, wouldn't the lack of food naturally cause the seal population to go down, without burly seal hunters clubbing and skinng them alive? Highschool biology and the Discovery Channel both tell us that's how the ecosystem works. Are they wrong? Should we re-write the biology textbooks? Sue Discovery Channel?
And what is the inherent value of this alleged "ecological balance" anyway? What are the adverse effects of a "ballooning" seal population? Overcrowded ice floats? Too many applications to immigrate to the San Diego Zoo? No one ever say anything about that.
Other people say it's because seals are a threat to the fishery industry. What fishery industry? The one that was eliminated in some places and endangered in others by overfishing?
Sometimes I wish seal hunt advocates would just come out and say that "the seal hunt is OK because it's OK to use animals to suit our needs". Then at least we can get a real argument going. Let's really talk about whether it's OK to kill and use animals just because we want to and we can, and why. Stop acting as if the seal hunters with their clubs and hooks and whatever torture instrument they use to kill and skin the seal pups are just giving Mother Nature a helping hand.
Senator fires back at U.S. family upset with seal hunt
CBC News Viewpoint | March 2006
A Liberal senator has replied to a family in Minnesota upset about Canada's seal hunt with a letter denouncing the United States for executing prisoners at home and killing people in Iraq.
The McLellan family had written to Canadian senators to say they cancelled a vacation in Canada because of the hunt, which they called "horrible" and "inhumane," Montreal's La Presse reports.
In her response, Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette said that what she finds horrible is "the daily massacre of innocent people in Iraq, the execution of prisoners – mainly blacks – in American prisons, the massive sale of handguns to Americans, the destabilization of the entire world by the American government's aggressive foreign policy, etc."
She said Americans are not in a position to criticize others. "They must start to look at their own behaviour, the permanent heightening of the planet's insecurity since the election of Bush," she told La Presse.
In their letter, the McLellans said they love Canada and have Canadian ancestors but cancelled a trip to Canada last year because of the seal hunt and will scrap plans for one this year if the spring hunt goes ahead, La Presse said.
16 March
I've Seen it All
I've seen it all, I have seen the trees,
I've seen the willow leaves dancing in the breeze
I've seen a man killed by his best friend,
And lives that were over before they were spent.
I've seen what I was - I know what I'll be
I've seen it all - there is no more to see!
You haven't seen elephants, kings or Peru!
I'm happy to say I had better to do
What about China? Have you seen the Great Wall?
All walls are great, if the roof doesn't fall!
And the man you will marry?
The home you will share?
To be honest, I really don't care...
You've never been to Niagara Falls?
I have seen water, its water, that's all...
The Eiffel Tower, the Empire State?
My pulse was as high on my very first date!
Your grandson's hand as he plays with your hair?
To be honest, I really don't care...
I've seen it all, I've seen the dark
I've seen the brightness in one little spark.
I've seen what I chose and I've seen what I need,
And that is enough, to want more would be greed.
I've seen what I was and I know what I'll be
I've seen it all - there is no more to see!
You've seen it all and all you have seen
You can always review on your own little screen
The light and the dark, the big and the small
Just keep in mind - you need no more at all
You've seen what you were and know what you'll be
You've seen it all - there is no more to see!
I would not be surprised if this is being seriously considered
by folks at this point in time:
15 March Interesting article in the Globe & Mail on how the Dutch is screening out potential immigrants with "undesirable attitudes".
Seems to me this is the opposite of tolerance -- you're not welcomed unless you have the same values we do -- but no doubt justifiable on the basis that no one has the right to enter so it's perfectly legitimate to screen out people who are undesirable. It's not really different from rejecting people who are too poor / unskilled / sick.
And interestingly, refugee claimants, high income people and people from presumably "nice" countries are exempt from this. Canadians can breath a sigh of relief that we're on the "nice" list... although Japan, who's not exactly known for its liberal social attitude, is also on that list...? I suppose they do have Hello Kitty, whose gender is an eternal mystery but is embraced by the people nonetheless. That should count for something!
Dutch come up with tolerance test
BRUCE MUTSVAIRO
Associated Press
Amsterdam — The camera focuses on two gay men kissing in a park. Later, a topless woman emerges from the sea and walks onto a crowded beach. For would-be immigrants to the Netherlands, this film is a test of their readiness to participate in the liberal Dutch culture.
If they can't stomach it, they need not apply.
Despite whether they find the film offensive, applicants must buy a copy and watch it if they hope to pass the Netherlands' new entrance examination.
The test – the first of its kind in the world – became compulsory Wednesday, and was made available at 138 Dutch embassies.
Taking the exam costs €350 (about $488 Canadian). The price for a preparation package that includes the film, a CD ROM and a picture album of famous Dutch people is about $86.50.
“As of today, immigrants wishing to settle in the Netherlands for, in particular, the purposes of marrying or forming a relationship will be required to take the civic integration examination abroad,” the Immigration Ministry said in a statement.
The test is part of a broader crackdown on immigration that has been gathering momentum in the Netherlands since 2001.
Anti-immigration sentiment peaked with filmmaker Theo van Gogh's murder by a Dutch national of Moroccan descent in November, 2004.
Both praise and scorn have been poured on Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk, the architect of the new test and other policies that have reduced immigration by at least one-third.
“If you pass, you're more than welcome,” Ms. Verdonk said. “It is in the interest of Dutch society and those concerned.”
Not everyone is happy with the new test.
“Today is a black day for the people intending to bring their partners to Holland,” said Buitenlandse Partner, a lobbying group for mixed Dutch/immigrant couples.
Dutch theologian Karel Steenbrink criticized the 105-minute movie, saying it would be offensive to some Muslims.
“It is not a prudent way of welcoming people to the Netherlands,” said Mr. Steenbrink, a professor at the University of Utrecht. “Minister Verdonk has radical ideas.”
But Mohammed Sini, the chairman of Islam and Citizenship, a national Muslim organization, defended the film, saying that homosexuality is “a reality.”
Mr. Sini urged all immigrants “to embrace modernity.”
A censored version with no homosexual and nude material had been prepared because it is illegal to show such images in Iran and some other countries, filmmaker Walter Goverde said.
“With all the respect I have for all religions, I think people need to understand that Holland has its own liberal side as well,” he said.
After viewing the film, which is available in most languages, applicants are then quizzed on important Dutch factoids such as the number of provinces that make up the Netherlands; the role played by William of Orange in the country's history; and Queen Beatrix's monarchial functions.
There are some major exemptions. EU nationals, asylum-seekers and skilled workers who earn more than $62,400 a year will not be required to take the 30-minute computerized exam.
Also, citizens of the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan and Switzerland are exempt. Men are used to having things their way, aren't they?
The biological and practical reality is, men can have sex with a woman, have a nice time, and not have to deal with the sometimes unplesasant side effect of being pregnant.
In the event of an unintended pregnancy, the woman is burdened with the choice of either bearing and giving birth to a child and then raising it (for years and years) or giving it up for adoption, or undergoing an abortion. It is one of the most difficult, emotionally charged decision a woman can ever make, the effects of which can stay with her for a lifetime.
And this dude, Matt Dubay of Saginaw, MI would have us believe that having to pay $500 per month to help support his baby daughter is equally as hard, and that somehow it is unfair for him to bear some of the natural and completely forseeable consequences of sexual intercourse. He said that his ex-gf told him that "she could not get pregnant because of a condition".
Hello? What's the first thing they tell you about contraception? There is no such thing as 100% effectiveness. People who have undergone sterilization get pregnant all the time. I guess Mr. Dubay was too stupid to remember that from highschool sex-ed. Or was too eager to have sex and decided to take the risk.
Considering the fact that he was one of two voluntary participants of the act, I would think that he got off easy by having only to pay $500 a month in child support. She is the one who has to wake up in the middle of the night to feed the baby, take her to the doctor when she's sick, register for kindergarten, arrange for childcare, potentially have her career and earning capacity adversely affected because of childcare responsibilities... etc. And Mattie boy here thinks he's gotten the short end of the stick because "he never intended to have a child". Well, neither did she, and she surely could not have done it on her own.
Of course, the woman is not entirely blameless -- her fault lies in the very poor choice of a partner. If you want a man, GET A MAN instead of this sorry excuse for a human being. Too bad natural selection let this one fall through the cracks.
"My name is Matt Dubay.
I had a 8-month-old baby girl with my ex-girlfriend but
I don't want to pay $500/month in child support.
But hey, I'm not a horrible person - look, I have a cat! Isn't he cute?"
Male activists want say in unplanned pregnancy
Lawsuit seeks right to decline financial responsibility for kids
Thursday, March 9, 2006; Posted: 6:52 a.m. EST (11:52 GMT)
NEW YORK (AP) -- Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.
The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit -- nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men -- to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.
The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.
"There's such a spectrum of choice that women have -- it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions," said Mel Feit, director of the men's center. "I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly."
Feit's organization has been trying since the early 1990s to pursue such a lawsuit, and finally found a suitable plaintiff in Matt Dubay of Saginaw, Michigan.
Dubay says he has been ordered to pay $500 a month in child support for a girl born last year to his ex-girlfriend. He contends that the woman knew he didn't want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that -- because of a physical condition -- she could not get pregnant.
Dubay is braced for the lawsuit to fail.
"What I expect to hear [from the court] is that the way things are is not really fair, but that's the way it is," he said in a telephone interview. "Just to create awareness would be enough, to at least get a debate started."
State courts have ruled in the past that any inequity experienced by men like Dubay is outweighed by society's interest in ensuring that children get financial support from two parents. Melanie Jacobs, a Michigan State University law professor, said the federal court might rule similarly in Dubay's case.
"The courts are trying to say it may not be so fair that this gentleman has to support a child he didn't want, but it's less fair to say society has to pay the support," she said.
Feit, however, says a fatherhood opt-out wouldn't necessarily impose higher costs on society or the mother. A woman who balked at abortion but felt she couldn't afford to raise a child could put the baby up for adoption, he said.
'This is so politically incorrect'
Jennifer Brown of the women's rights advocacy group Legal Momentum objected to the men's center comparing Dubay's lawsuit to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing a woman's right to have an abortion.
"Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government -- literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want," Brown said. "There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized."
Feit counters that the suit's reference to abortion rights is apt.
"Roe says a woman can choose to have intimacy and still have control over subsequent consequences," he said. "No one has ever asked a federal court if that means men should have some similar say."
"The problem is this is so politically incorrect," Feit added. "The public is still dealing with the pre-Roe ethic when it comes to men, that if a man fathers a child, he should accept responsibility."
Feit doesn't advocate an unlimited fatherhood opt-out; he proposes a brief period in which a man, after learning of an unintended pregnancy, could decline parental responsibilities if the relationship was one in which neither partner had desired a child.
"If the woman changes her mind and wants the child, she should be responsible," Feit said. "If she can't take care of the child, adoption is a good alternative."
The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, acknowledged that disputes over unintended pregnancies can be complex and bitter.
"None of these are easy questions," said Gandy, a former prosecutor. "But most courts say it's not about what he did or didn't do or what she did or didn't do. It's about the rights of the child."
If you haven't seen a fight in the "Taiwanese Parliament", check out the following link. If you've seen it, watch it anyway it's hilarious.
Who says that Chinese people can't fight? Then again, some of these folks would probably claim that they are *not* Chinese, but are "taiwanese".
(How can you tell that I'm supposed to be doing work?) Harper beats them all to the Brokeback jokes - years ago!
By the way, in a pure coincidence, Mrs. Harper's name happens to be Laureen (Jack's wife's name is Lureen).
I don't know what to make of the story of Gary and Sherry Leskun.
The couple was married in 1978 and had a child together. In 1998, Mr. Leskun met someone else while on a business trip, and decided to divorce Ms. Leskun. The divorce came at a very, very bad time in her life - she lost her job, her family started dying (father, brother, two sistesr-in-law, step-mother), her oldest child has MS and she suffered a devastating back injury. She maintained that she could not work (and has not been able to since the divorce) because of the devastating effects of the breakdown of the marriage, specifically the way he walked out on her. That, she argued, entitled her to receive ongoing support payments from Mr. Leskun.
I have considerable sympathy for Ms. Leskun's situation. To say that her life fell apart in 1998 would be an understatement. It is impossible for an outsider to truly understand the situation and how she felt. And this entry is not intended to comment on her specific situation.
What I'm wondering is, as a general matter, how long is one allowed to wallow in one's own misery and continue to blame someone else for one's inability to move on? I suppose with respect to marriage, an argument can be made that there is an expectation of permanence - "I thought when you said 'till death do us part' you really meant it" - which justifies an ongoing obligation despite relationship breakdown. But that speaks to obligation, not what I'm trying to get at, which is: at what point is it OK to say to the "victim" that despite the very horrible thing that happened to him/her, s/he simply has to pick up the pieces and move on?
Imagine that a person suffering a devastating fall. He tumbled face-first into a hard surface. He broke some bones and it hurt a lot. Over time, his broken bones and wounds healed, perhaps not perfectly, but they healed. If he's still flopping around on the ground moaning about the fall at that point, what would we think of him? What if his wounds didn't heal properly because he refused to try to get up and kept rolling in the mud in a showing of misery, causing his wounds to be infected? Is his misery still attributable to the original fall?
Emotional wounds are of course much more difficult to see, measure, and perhaps, heal. Which is what makes the question a difficult one to answer. My instinct says "come on, you owe it to yourself to pull yourself together" but I can readily imagine situations in which one simply cannot pull oneself together, where the injury suffered is so devastating that the person is rendered incapable of standing up on his/her own. Do I think being dumped by one's partner is one of those injuries? I must say that marital breakdown isn't one of the things I had in mind; but, depending on the situation, it could be. No one really knows what happened in Gary and Sherry Leskun's relationship, except the two of them. 13 March
"Come, get me a couple of minority Marines... eh GIs... eh... whatever. I flew all the way out here I want my photo op!"
2 March After Robert Latimer identified Mr. Harper as his new hope of getting out of jail, Paul McCartney is hopeful that Mr. Harper will save the seals. Mr. McCartney is quoted as saying:
"We have complete faith that Prime Minister Harper will take swift and decisive action to end the slaughter of these defenceless seal pups for good.”
Hmm... really????
Does banning cell phone use while driving make sense?
I've always been of the view that people are overly sensitive when it comes to other people's cell phone use. Sure, talking loudly on one's cell phone while in a bus / subway car / elevator / restaurant is annoying, but so is talking loudly in public places in general. Talking on the cell phone while driving may distract the driver and cause traffic accidents, but so do eating breakfast / lunch / dinner, applying makeup, and clipping one's nails while driving (all of which I have witnessed). Why not ban those things too?
The silly thing about the bill that's currently considered by the Ontario Legislature is that it permits hands-free phones. Is there evidence that the holding of the cell phone using one hand is what causes accidents? I am open to be persuaded, but I would think that the distraction is caused by being engaged in the conversation, not the physical act of holding the phone. Banning cell phone use in this manner makes as much sense as turning the car radio down while looking for an address -- it simply doesn't help.
Approval in principle for cellphone ban
Mar. 2, 2006. 12:32 PM
CANADIAN PRESS
A proposed ban on drivers using hand-held cellphones has received second reading in the Ontario legislature, but it's still a long way from becoming law.
It's the third time since the year 2000 that Conservative John O'Toole has tried to have the legislature pass his private member's bill to stop motorists from using cellphones.
Drivers would still be permitted to use hands-free phones and could use a regular cellphone to report an emergency, traffic accident, crime or unsafe road conditions.
O'Toole says he's received countless calls, letters and e-mails urging him to keep pushing until the ban becomes law.
He calls it common sense, and says public safety should trump the right to use a phone while behind the wheel.
O'Toole says cellphone bans have worked in Newfoundland and Labrador, New York and Australia, and he believes there's no reason to think it wouldn't work in Ontario too. Regardless of whether one thinks that what Mr. Latimer did to his daughter is deserving of criminal liability and punishment, I just don't understand why Mr. Latimer thinks Mr. Harper's party being in power is going to help him. If anything, Mr. Harper and his religious buddies would probably think that he got off easy with a conviction for second degree murder.
The only way I think Mr. Harper and his church buddies are going to be sympathetic is if Mr. Latimer claims that "God spoke to me and told me to do such-and-such". I mean, it's entirely probable that this happened, right?? If God spoke to Mr. Harper's buddy Mr. Bush and told him to invade Iraq, why not??? (For that hilarious and/or scary story, see http://spaces.msn.com/supersonic-beetle/blog/cns!2F80CDD834D4223D!183.entry)
Sorry, I will stop being sarcastic... for today.
Latimer's plea from behind bars: 'I want a new trial'Last Updated Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:03:55 EST
Robert Latimer, who has served half of a 10-year sentence for killing his daughter in 1993, says he hopes the new federal government and Canada's top court will intervene in his case.
 |
|
Robert Latimer (CP File Photo) |
"I want a new trial," Latimer told CBC News in the first television interview he's given since going to prison.
"I want a jury to be able to decide whether my actions were criminal or not," Latimer said.
He said the justice system that convicted him lacked understanding of the condition of his daughter Tracy, who had a severe form of cerebral palsy.
"I really don't think this court has a realistic appreciation of just what was going on at the time," said Latimer.
Case went to Supreme Court
His case was initially heard in the Saskatchewan courts before going to the Supreme Court of Canada.
At the time of her death, Tracy was a 40-pound quadriplegic, a 12-year-old who functioned at the level of a three-month-old.
Latimer, a Saskatoon-area farmer, maintains that he killed his daughter as an act of mercy. He said she was in a lot of pain, despite what others have asserted.
"The doctor says [she was in pain]. Yet the community living groups say she enjoyed bowling."
Slams 'bogus claims'
"The courts have really, by their endorsements, allowed all these bogus claims to float," added Latimer.
"I mean, the courts are really no more honest than the Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers who were running around confirming guilty verdicts before the first trial of me before 1994 or something."
On Oct. 24, 1993, Latimer placed Tracy in the cab of his Chevy pickup, ran a hose from the exhaust to the cab, climbed into the box of the truck, sat on a tire and watched her die, he has admitted.
On Nov. 4 that year, Latimer was charged with first-degree murder. He was convicted of second-degree murder a year later.
After a seven-year legal battle, the Supreme Court eventually upheld his conviction and life sentence, with no parole for 10 years.
Now, Latimer is hoping the newly elected Conservatives under Prime Minister Stephen Harper will help him.
Prepares counter-arguments
Working alone, he's compiled a book on his counter-arguments to the decision that put him in jail.
"I was arrested over 12 years ago. And it took them almost seven years to come to this conclusion, and I think they're going to have to re-conclude again," he said.
Latimer spoke of the time lost in "five years of being locked up," when asked if he is bitter or angry.
"People have to have the ability to appreciate that. The courts don't seem to think it was much."
1 March Doing "the steps" may be leading Ralph Klein towards sobriety (or not), but they are definitely having an impact on his self-control, or the lack thereof. This story is pretty funny, although the girl who got the 80-page book thrown at her may not think so.
Klein loses temper, throws booklet at page
Mar. 1, 2006. 08:05 PM
EDMONTON (CP) — Premier Ralph Klein has apologized for throwing a booklet at a page in the legislature during an emotional debate over Alberta's health care reforms.
The 17-year-old page had delivered a soft-covered, 80-page booklet of Liberal policy proposals to Klein's desk in the assembly, when he grabbed it and tossed it at her.
The premier was heard to say, "I don't need this crap," referring to the booklet that was sent to him by the opposition as they fired pointed questions over the Third Way health reforms.
The page refused comment to the media and there was no confirmation that the booklet actually hit her.
Speaker Ken Kowalski was clearly miffed over the incident and Klein later rose and apologized to the page and to the Liberals for calling their policy booklet "crap."
The premier said he was simply frustrated over health care, but Liberal Leader Kevin Taft described the incident as "appalling" and said it shows the premier is "out of control." 24 February The Tories have started to, in Margaret Atwood's words, shred the country -- again. And what better place to start than killing funding for government subsidized daycare?
Harper thinks he's got a simple, good idea -- $1,200 per year per offspring under the age of 6. Money in one's pocket has got to be a good thing, right? Not necessarily.
$1,200 per year per offspring for families who are well-off enough to have one parent (usually the mother) stay home with the offspring(s) is nice. It may go towards such worthy goods such as organic baby food, extra cushy strollers with big wheels, and designer children's clothes. The odd (very odd) bleeding-heart goody-goody couple may decide to give their live-in nanny from the Philippines a modest raise.
And why $1,200? Where does that number come from? I'd like to know.
So the Tories think they have a mandate (see below) to kill funding for government subsidized daycare. So according to them, they also think they have a mandate to:
* join the stupid War in Iraq (it's never too late!)
* strip gay and lesbian couples of the right to marry
* pretty much anything that the Tories said that they'd like to do
And these clowns have only got a minority government by the slimest of margins!
This is only the beginning.
Provinces get notice about day-care cuts
Feb. 24, 2006. 03:00 PM
CANADIAN PRESS
Harper government puts provinces on notice
The new Conservative government has formally notified the provinces it will terminate child-care agreements signed by the previous Liberal regime as of next March, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said today.
Flaherty said the government has a mandate to scrap the $5 billion in child-care deals with the provinces and replace them with a program that gives parents $1,200 for each child under age six along with $250 million in tax credits for employers and non-profit agencies to provide new spaces.
"The choice will be with the parents," Flaherty said. "We're also going to proceed with the . . . commitment about creating child care spaces (at) community organizations and with employers."
While the Liberals signed various child-care deals with the provinces, the change will mean the loss of 20,000 new child-care spaces for Ontario alone, said Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Marie Bountrogianni.
Ontario is committed to giving parents "one-stop shopping" at schools for everything from day care and breakfast programs to before and after-school care, but would have to do so at a slower pace without federal funds, Bountrogianni said.
"It's an excellent model, research-based, and I would hate for Prime Minister Harper to kill it," she said.
Bountrogianni said the cuts in day-care funding would cost Ontario $1.87 billion over five years, money she hopes could be found elsewhere by the Conservatives in their talks with the provinces on the so-called fiscal imbalance.
"We're not saying to them, `Change your child care plans,"' she said. "We're just saying, `Provide the necessary resources, so there is room for negotiations."'
The provincial premiers, who gathered today in Ottawa, were planning to press Harper to live up to the day-care agreements the former federal Liberal government signed with Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba.
Toronto Mayor David Miller said today that Harper's cut in day-care funding would mean the loss of 6,000 new subsidized spaces ``for the poorest people in the poorest neighbourhoods."
Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion complained the day-care issue is another example of how communities can't make long-term plans because higher levels of government can't be trusted to honour agreements signed by their predecessors.
"We're getting the gas tax now from the federal government, under Martin, and Harper had to confirm that he'll continue it," she said.
"But what happens if he decides to cut it out? How can we do financial planning at the local level when we don't know whether we're going to get it?"
Appearing at a breakfast meeting today with Bountrogianni and Miller, Flaherty also said the Conservative government would take steps to deal with deteriorating roads and public transit systems in Canada's cities.
"We need to address the infrastructure issues, including transit, including the highways," he said.
"Making sure that goods and services can move effectively in the Greater Toronto Area and all of southern Ontario . . . is important for Ontario, it's important for Canada, it's important for our economic life."
Flaherty, who represents a suburban riding east of Toronto, said dealing with the infrastructure problems "has to be a priority for all of us who live in this area." 22 February I am suspicious of people who take on the role of victim too readily. Such individuals (a) refuse to accept any responsibility whatsoever for whatever misfortunes that have befallen them and (b) use their misfortunes to justify their own bad behaviour and subsequent failure in life.
Think of Steve Moore. The fact that two years later he's still crying like a baby telling his story to anyone who has nothing better to do than listen to him indicates that he is still in full victim mode. His lawyer said Moore still felt the effects of the concussion. Poor Stevie. But consider this: if your focus in life for two years is to tell everyone how you've been screwed and how sorry they should be for you because you're now lame and useless, it is not surprising that you *are* lame and useless.
I am not saying that Moore had not suffered, or that he is not deserving of some compensation for what has been done to him (although certainly not $15 million, not even 10% of that). My point is that: one can never recover until one moves on. The obsession with revenge and garnering public sympathy stands in the way of any chance of turning over a page and starting anew.
|
工具 
說明
