Toronto has issued just one same-sex marriage licence to a Canadian couple this year
But continues to attract foreign same-sex betrotheds
This can't be good for the City of Toronto's plans to market "As Gay as it Gets" Toronto, to gays in other countries. From Reuters:
In the city that was home to Canada's first legalized gay wedding -- and the host of the country's biggest and brashest Pride Week celebrations -- so far this year only one marriage license has been issued to a Canadian same-sex couple.
That compares with 319 that have been issued to same-sex couples from the United States and other countries, and it's well below the hundreds of Canadian homosexual couples who tied the knot in previous years.
So far this year, the city of Toronto says it has issued a total of 7,513 marriage licenses, with 320 of them for same-sex marriages. Of those, 118 were for Americans, 201 were for other countries -- and just that one Canadian couple.
Last year, Toronto issued 924 same-sex marriage licenses: 107 were for Canadian couples, 338 were for people from the United States and 479 for other nationalities.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Can a Liberal change?
Liberals face fundraising, leadership challenges
From an interesting piece by James McNulty in the Vancouver Province today (h/t National Newswatch):
The fundraising changes (which are hardly “new,” having been law since January 1, 2004) are a case in point. The banning of corporate and union donations to central parties (but not ridings or individual candidates, though this was eventually implemented by the Harper government) did not spring from the Liberal “grassroots,” but solely from Jean Chrétien’s gut.
They were, along with the proposed decriminalization of marijuana, one of the radical policy changes he sprung on the public, after announcing his retirement in 2002. Pronouncing that he could now do what he wanted since he was not running again, Chrétien put forth legislation that he would never have proposed during an election (we are seeing a similar phenomenon in Toronto, with David Miller proposing taxes he never breathed a word of in the election barely half a year ago). The fact that the party has still not developed a small donor base underlines the fact that, even though the finance laws were changed by a Liberal prime minister, those changes were hardly Liberal.
And, apropos of the foregoing, McNulty’s article is short on details of whatever big changes are coming to the Liberal party, and Kennedy’s and Rae’s comments predictably deteriorate into veiled and open attacks on Stephen Harper:
One of the Liberal party’s most successful leaders, Wilfrid Laurier, famously predicted that the 20th Century would belong to Canada. It ended up belonging to the Liberal Party. In the Liberal party’s estimation, that was probably good enough, as will be any “renewal” they eventually undergo.
From an interesting piece by James McNulty in the Vancouver Province today (h/t National Newswatch):
With the heady days of Canada's largest-ever leadership convention seven monthsAll this talk of culture shifts and setting the world on fire got me to thinking: has the Liberal party ever really, fundamentally, changed in the last four decades? Given that it has become a party centered around the pursuit and exercise of power, would it not be apt to compare the Liberal Party to a woman who undergoes cosmetic surgery, and then only when between husbands? (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
past, federal Liberals find themselves idling in the polls.
Leader Stephane Dion has not caught fire with the public, enthusiasm for him within
Liberal ranks remains muted, and the party is millions of dollars behind the Conservatives in fundraising.
. . . Liberal renewal is an enormous job, readily acknowledged by Gerard Kennedy and Bob Rae.
During recent interviews in Vancouver, the two former leadership contenders admit that new political fundraising rules require a challenging Liberal culture shift from cocktail-and-banquet party to grassroots money machine.
Kennedy says the internal rework is a work in progress. Adding a new leader has made the process "like painting a moving train."
"The convention wanted it to catch fire right away . . . and I don't think that was in the cards," Kennedy admits. “Stephane Dion is a slow burn . . . and, yes, there's a bit of an impatience from the showbiz side of politics."
The fundraising changes (which are hardly “new,” having been law since January 1, 2004) are a case in point. The banning of corporate and union donations to central parties (but not ridings or individual candidates, though this was eventually implemented by the Harper government) did not spring from the Liberal “grassroots,” but solely from Jean Chrétien’s gut.
They were, along with the proposed decriminalization of marijuana, one of the radical policy changes he sprung on the public, after announcing his retirement in 2002. Pronouncing that he could now do what he wanted since he was not running again, Chrétien put forth legislation that he would never have proposed during an election (we are seeing a similar phenomenon in Toronto, with David Miller proposing taxes he never breathed a word of in the election barely half a year ago). The fact that the party has still not developed a small donor base underlines the fact that, even though the finance laws were changed by a Liberal prime minister, those changes were hardly Liberal.
And, apropos of the foregoing, McNulty’s article is short on details of whatever big changes are coming to the Liberal party, and Kennedy’s and Rae’s comments predictably deteriorate into veiled and open attacks on Stephen Harper:
Kennedy notes that while Harper runs the Conservatives as a one-man band, Dion
has given his leadership rivals prominent roles and the caucus more
decision-making power. "That's not a threatened leader, that's not insecure."
The public jury on Dion remains out. Meantime, Rae says Stephen Harper
has much to explain on Tory policy around Afghanistan, limiting federal spending
power, failure on social policies such as daycare spaces, and a green back-step.
One of the Liberal party’s most successful leaders, Wilfrid Laurier, famously predicted that the 20th Century would belong to Canada. It ended up belonging to the Liberal Party. In the Liberal party’s estimation, that was probably good enough, as will be any “renewal” they eventually undergo.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Harris portrait: a straight-up image for a straight-up leader
Simple, elegant rendering a contrast to the tacky pastiches of Peterson and Rae
Judging by the photo attached to the CTV story on the unveiling of Mike Harris’s portrait at the Ontario Legislature today, the former premier has wisely (and predictably) bucked the regrettable trend toward incorporating silly details and self-aggrandizing personal touches in what is supposed to be an official portrait.
The portrait is a straightforward image of Harris standing, with what looks like a Northern Ontario scene in the background.
The portraits of his predecessors David Peterson and Bob Rae, on the other hand, are a dog’s breakfast of distracting details and cluttered backgrounds (and in Rae’s case, foreground), including portrait-within-a-portrait “photos” of their families. Both are in shirtsleeves (Peterson looks rather dishevelled and aged, actually), whereas Harris keeps his suit jacket on.
Peterson’s and Rae’s portraits were unveiled not that long ago (both in the year 2000), yet they already look dated and tired. My guess is Harris’s portrait will age better. I look forward to visiting the Legislature at some point this summer to see the portrait for myself.
End note: Today’s Post has an op-ed from long time Harris staffer Guy Giorno, who is in accord with my general view that Harris didn’t go far enough (in government that is, not in his portrait).
Judging by the photo attached to the CTV story on the unveiling of Mike Harris’s portrait at the Ontario Legislature today, the former premier has wisely (and predictably) bucked the regrettable trend toward incorporating silly details and self-aggrandizing personal touches in what is supposed to be an official portrait.
The portrait is a straightforward image of Harris standing, with what looks like a Northern Ontario scene in the background.
The portraits of his predecessors David Peterson and Bob Rae, on the other hand, are a dog’s breakfast of distracting details and cluttered backgrounds (and in Rae’s case, foreground), including portrait-within-a-portrait “photos” of their families. Both are in shirtsleeves (Peterson looks rather dishevelled and aged, actually), whereas Harris keeps his suit jacket on.
Peterson’s and Rae’s portraits were unveiled not that long ago (both in the year 2000), yet they already look dated and tired. My guess is Harris’s portrait will age better. I look forward to visiting the Legislature at some point this summer to see the portrait for myself.
End note: Today’s Post has an op-ed from long time Harris staffer Guy Giorno, who is in accord with my general view that Harris didn’t go far enough (in government that is, not in his portrait).
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Mike Harris and the Toronto Star editorial board, together at last . . .
“I will never agree to that. That’s like somebody on welfare saying, I won the million dollar lottery and I have a $100,000 a year job but I still want my welfare. That is 100 per cent contrary to the principle and purpose of equalization so if that’s what they want to talk about, they’re wasting their time,”
--Ontario Premier Mike Harris on Atlantic premiers demanding more equalization while collecting offshore oil and gas revenues, July, 2001
Williams and Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald are upset because Harper’s choices deny them the chance to have their cake and eat it too, along with a rich dollop of whipped cream.
--Editorial, Toronto Star, June 13, 2007
--Ontario Premier Mike Harris on Atlantic premiers demanding more equalization while collecting offshore oil and gas revenues, July, 2001
Williams and Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald are upset because Harper’s choices deny them the chance to have their cake and eat it too, along with a rich dollop of whipped cream.
--Editorial, Toronto Star, June 13, 2007
Harris portrait to be unveiled at last
June 26th is 12th anniversary of Harris government’s swearing-in
Some welcome news, courtesy of the Toronto Star:
The Harris government was sworn in on June 26, 1995, which was ten years to the day after the Peterson Liberal government’s swearing-in on June 26, 1985.
As for the impending unveiling, I’m sure the “procedural and partisan wrangling” was in no way motivated by a desire on the part of the Premier Pinocchio to have it occur as close as possible to the October election.
Some welcome news, courtesy of the Toronto Star:
More than five years after former Progressive Conservative premier Mike Harris left office, his formal portrait is finally set to be unveiled at the Legislature.
The move follows a year of procedural and partisan wrangling between the man who governed Ontario from 1995 to 2002 and Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty’s office.
The painting by Istvan Nyikos, who also did former Conservative premier Bill Davis’s official likeness at the Legislature, has been languishing in a Queen’s Park storage closet since it was completed in February 2006.
Harris’s portrait is now slated to go up June 26.
The Harris government was sworn in on June 26, 1995, which was ten years to the day after the Peterson Liberal government’s swearing-in on June 26, 1985.
As for the impending unveiling, I’m sure the “procedural and partisan wrangling” was in no way motivated by a desire on the part of the Premier Pinocchio to have it occur as close as possible to the October election.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Memo to Elizabeth May: this is how it’s done
Yelich gives whine-free speech about the personal challenges of public life
The Phantom Observer reminds us today of an excellent Member’s Statement given in the House of Commons yesterday by Blackstrap MP Lynne Yelich:
I was lucky to catch the replay of Yelich’s speech on CPAC last night. It was followed by a well-deserved standing ovation by her colleagues.
Yelich’s speech provides a good contrast with Green Party leader Elizabeth May’s recent passive-aggressive rant about how difficult it is to be a federal politician who doesn’t even have to show up in Parliament every day:
To be fair, May’s comments were contained in an e-mail, not a prepared speech. But one of the first thing politicians hoping to play in the big leagues learn, is that you never complain about how hard the job is.
The Phantom Observer reminds us today of an excellent Member’s Statement given in the House of Commons yesterday by Blackstrap MP Lynne Yelich:
Mr. Speaker, there are special requirements for any woman fulfilling the duties of a member of Parliament. As a wife and mother, I am aware of the necessary sacrifices when family events occur in the constituency and parliamentary duties keep me in Ottawa.
My daughter, Ivana, turns 18 today and I am unable to be with her or for her pre-grad events. It is difficult to be far away. I want to thank my children for their understanding and patience.
It has not always been easy for them, but they have supported me, as has my husband, through this entire time knowing that there are times when the many miles of this vast country must separate us.
Even now there are some, if not many, who may question a mother sitting in the House of Commons while there are still children at home. This lingering attitude often pushes us to stretch our lives to the limit to accommodate both Parliament and family.
I am thinking of our girls today, Ivana, this year's valedictorian who is preparing for graduation after combining athletic achievement and academic excellence, and Elaina, who has established a career as a teacher and a marriage with her husband.
My family has adjusted, coped and succeeded, despite the challenges of my parliamentary life. I am proud of their sacrifices as I am so very aware of my own.
I was lucky to catch the replay of Yelich’s speech on CPAC last night. It was followed by a well-deserved standing ovation by her colleagues.
Yelich’s speech provides a good contrast with Green Party leader Elizabeth May’s recent passive-aggressive rant about how difficult it is to be a federal politician who doesn’t even have to show up in Parliament every day:
"Do I have a lot of unilateral power? No I don't. Am I earning a tonne of money? No I'm not. Am I tired and discouraged and bone-weary and in chronic pain because I'm waiting for a hip replacement? Do I have down moments? You bet.
"If you catch me in a down moment and slap me in the face, do I really want to stay? I don't know. I mean, I'm human."
To be fair, May’s comments were contained in an e-mail, not a prepared speech. But one of the first thing politicians hoping to play in the big leagues learn, is that you never complain about how hard the job is.
Blair: Media have placed impact above all
If you haven’t, you should take the opportunity to read outgoing British PM Tony Blair’s recent “lecture” (and billed as such on its cover page) on the media. The eight-page PDF is here, but below are just a few of its sharper points:
I am going to say something that few people in public life will say, but most know is absolutely true: a vast aspect of our jobs today - outside of the really major decisions, as big as anything else - is coping with the media, its sheer scale, weight and constant hyperactivity. At points, it literally overwhelms. Talk to senior people in virtually any walk of life today - business, military, public services, sport, even charities and voluntary organisations and they will tell you the same. People don’t speak about it because, in the main, they are afraid to. But it is true, nonetheless, and those who have been around long enough, will also say it has changed significantly in the past years.
. . . .
There is now, again, a debate about why Parliament is not considered more important and as ever, the Government is held to blame. But we haven’t altered any of the lines of accountability between Parliament and the Executive. What has changed is the way Parliament is reported or rather not reported. Tell me how many maiden speeches are listened to; how many excellent second reading speeches or committee speeches are covered. Except when they generate major controversy, they aren’t.
If you are a backbench MP today, you learn to give a press release first and a good Parliamentary speech second.
My case, however is: there’s no point either in blaming the media. We are both handling the changing nature of communication. The sooner we recognise this, the better because we can then debate a sensible way forward.
The reality is that as a result of the changing context in which 21st Century communications operates, the media are facing a hugely more intense form of competition than anything they have ever experienced before. They are not the masters of this change but its victims.
The result is a media that increasingly and to a dangerous degree is driven by “impact”. Impact is what matters. It is all that can distinguish, can rise above the clamour, can get noticed. Impact gives competitive edge. Of course the accuracy of a story counts. But it is secondary to impact.
. . . .
The final consequence of all of this is that it is rare today to find balance in the media. Things, people, issues, stories, are all black and white. Life’s usual grey is almost entirely absent. “Some good, some bad”; “some things going right, some going wrong”: these are concepts alien to today’s reporting. It’s a triumph or a disaster. A problem is “a crisis”. A setback is a policy “in tatters”. A criticism, “a savage attack”.
NGOs and pundits know that unless they are prepared to go over the top, they shouldn’t venture out at all. Talk to any public service leader - especially in the NHS or the field of law and order - and they will tell you not that they mind the criticism, but they become totally demoralised by the completely unbalanced nature of it.
. . . .
I am not in a position to determine this one way or another. But a way needs to be found. I do believe this relationship between public life and media is now damaged in a manner that requires repair. The damage saps the country’s confidence and self-belief; it undermines its assessment of itself, its institutions; and above all, it reduces our capacity to take the right decisions, in the right spirit for our future.
I’ve made this speech after much hesitation. I know it will be rubbished in certain quarters. But I also know this has needed to be said.
I am going to say something that few people in public life will say, but most know is absolutely true: a vast aspect of our jobs today - outside of the really major decisions, as big as anything else - is coping with the media, its sheer scale, weight and constant hyperactivity. At points, it literally overwhelms. Talk to senior people in virtually any walk of life today - business, military, public services, sport, even charities and voluntary organisations and they will tell you the same. People don’t speak about it because, in the main, they are afraid to. But it is true, nonetheless, and those who have been around long enough, will also say it has changed significantly in the past years.
. . . .
There is now, again, a debate about why Parliament is not considered more important and as ever, the Government is held to blame. But we haven’t altered any of the lines of accountability between Parliament and the Executive. What has changed is the way Parliament is reported or rather not reported. Tell me how many maiden speeches are listened to; how many excellent second reading speeches or committee speeches are covered. Except when they generate major controversy, they aren’t.
If you are a backbench MP today, you learn to give a press release first and a good Parliamentary speech second.
My case, however is: there’s no point either in blaming the media. We are both handling the changing nature of communication. The sooner we recognise this, the better because we can then debate a sensible way forward.
The reality is that as a result of the changing context in which 21st Century communications operates, the media are facing a hugely more intense form of competition than anything they have ever experienced before. They are not the masters of this change but its victims.
The result is a media that increasingly and to a dangerous degree is driven by “impact”. Impact is what matters. It is all that can distinguish, can rise above the clamour, can get noticed. Impact gives competitive edge. Of course the accuracy of a story counts. But it is secondary to impact.
. . . .
The final consequence of all of this is that it is rare today to find balance in the media. Things, people, issues, stories, are all black and white. Life’s usual grey is almost entirely absent. “Some good, some bad”; “some things going right, some going wrong”: these are concepts alien to today’s reporting. It’s a triumph or a disaster. A problem is “a crisis”. A setback is a policy “in tatters”. A criticism, “a savage attack”.
NGOs and pundits know that unless they are prepared to go over the top, they shouldn’t venture out at all. Talk to any public service leader - especially in the NHS or the field of law and order - and they will tell you not that they mind the criticism, but they become totally demoralised by the completely unbalanced nature of it.
. . . .
I am not in a position to determine this one way or another. But a way needs to be found. I do believe this relationship between public life and media is now damaged in a manner that requires repair. The damage saps the country’s confidence and self-belief; it undermines its assessment of itself, its institutions; and above all, it reduces our capacity to take the right decisions, in the right spirit for our future.
I’ve made this speech after much hesitation. I know it will be rubbished in certain quarters. But I also know this has needed to be said.
Allan Gregg shedding partners, property
“Old hippie” leaving Strategic Counsel, selling $1.2 M country home
The Globe and Mail reports today that:
What I don’t get is, if you are one of the chief assets of the business, then how do you also sell that business for a lump sum at the same time you are leaving it? But then I have only recently mastered online banking, so what do I know.
In a related story, last month the Globe’s real estate section reported that Mr. Gregg is selling his vacation home near Kingston. The Globe describes it as:
The Globe and Mail reports today that:
Allan Gregg, one of the most recognizable names in the Canadian polling business, has left his partners at The Strategic Counsel to set up his own shop.
Mr. Gregg said he turned 55 this year, and it had “an incredibly unsettling effect because I came to realize I’ve probably got five more years of maximum earning power.” It is very hard to make much money in a partnership structure, as the profits get distributed at the end of each year and there is no opportunity to sell the business for a lump sum, he added.
The Strategic Counsel partners include Peter Donolo, who served in the 1990s as director of communications for former prime minister Jean Chrétien. Most of the others are market research professionals.
What I don’t get is, if you are one of the chief assets of the business, then how do you also sell that business for a lump sum at the same time you are leaving it? But then I have only recently mastered online banking, so what do I know.
In a related story, last month the Globe’s real estate section reported that Mr. Gregg is selling his vacation home near Kingston. The Globe describes it as:
An 8,800-square-foot country house, with five bedrooms and seven bathrooms, situated on a 2½-acre lot, and owned by political pollster Allan Gregg. It’s set on a private point of land with 1,000 feet of shoreline on Dog Lake, just north of Kingston. Asking Price: $1,249,000.
“It’s a great place for an old hippie like me,” says Mr. Gregg.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Your Money, Their Friends continued
Auditors-General say former Québec L-G was not entitled to $700K of her entitlements
Funnily, none of the stories that come up on the Google News search mentions that Lise Thibault was appointed by Jean Chrétien. From the National Post website:
Two reports by the Quebec and federal auditors-general confirm that Lise Thibault, Quebec’s former lieutenant-governor, spent $700,000 in public money without proper justification.
The reports call for clearer guidelines and better reporting of the lieutenant-governor’s spending and calls on her to reimburse the money claimed between 1997 and 2007.
The audits found that $239,000 in Ms. Thibault’s expenses could not be linked to her official duties.
While Ms. Thibault received a $480,000 housing allowance and $96,000 for expenses from Quebec, she claimed $129,000 from the federal government for housing and meals already covered by the province.
Of that $129,000, $29,600 was paid in rent to a member of her staff.
As well, she claimed as an income supplement $343,200 in federal money intended to cover her Quebec City expenses.
“The Department of Heritage and the government of Quebec will have to work together to see what and how much can be reimbursed,” said Sheila Fraser, the federal auditor general, in an interview with LCN, a French-language TV network.
The reports also uncovered such irregularities as a $12,000 bill from the provincial air service for a one-day fishing trip in the Gaspe region of Quebec and $24,000 spent in salary and expenses for a bodyguard, including air fare, so Thibault could use her official vehicle while on vacation in the United States.
Ms. Thibault was given a chance to respond to the Quebec auditor-general but she declined.
Funnily, none of the stories that come up on the Google News search mentions that Lise Thibault was appointed by Jean Chrétien. From the National Post website:
Two reports by the Quebec and federal auditors-general confirm that Lise Thibault, Quebec’s former lieutenant-governor, spent $700,000 in public money without proper justification.
The reports call for clearer guidelines and better reporting of the lieutenant-governor’s spending and calls on her to reimburse the money claimed between 1997 and 2007.
The audits found that $239,000 in Ms. Thibault’s expenses could not be linked to her official duties.
While Ms. Thibault received a $480,000 housing allowance and $96,000 for expenses from Quebec, she claimed $129,000 from the federal government for housing and meals already covered by the province.
Of that $129,000, $29,600 was paid in rent to a member of her staff.
As well, she claimed as an income supplement $343,200 in federal money intended to cover her Quebec City expenses.
“The Department of Heritage and the government of Quebec will have to work together to see what and how much can be reimbursed,” said Sheila Fraser, the federal auditor general, in an interview with LCN, a French-language TV network.
The reports also uncovered such irregularities as a $12,000 bill from the provincial air service for a one-day fishing trip in the Gaspe region of Quebec and $24,000 spent in salary and expenses for a bodyguard, including air fare, so Thibault could use her official vehicle while on vacation in the United States.
Ms. Thibault was given a chance to respond to the Quebec auditor-general but she declined.
Monday, June 11, 2007
McGuinty has led Ontario – straight to the bottom
Real GDP Growth by Province (Percentage) 2007
Your friends say McGuinty hasn’t done such a bad job? Show them this chart
I have been reading the newly-released Ontario PC platform, and what left me gobsmacked was this little chart on page 40, which shows that, of all the provinces, Ontario is expected to come dead last in economic growth this year. The numbers are from The Conference Board of Canada's spring Provincial Outlook.
According to the government's own Ministry of Finance, Ontario posted a roaring 0.5% growth in the fourth quarter of 2006. Roaring, that is, compared to its third quarter growth rate of, er, zero (or, as the ministry calls it, "flat").
Dalton McGuinty is by all accounts a nice man. His intentions were good. And he is spending plenty of our money: $22 billion more than the Ontario government was spending in 2003, to be exact.
So what’s lacking? Leadership. Leadership is to McGuinty what caffeine is to 7-Up. Never had it, never will.
Before the last election, I said that Dalton McGuinty might have what it takes to win an election, but not what it takes to be premier. I have said that he is a weak man, with no compelling reason to be in public life, besides the fact that his MPP father died unexpectedly while Junior was a suburban strip mall lawyer with a family of six to feed. Res ipsa loquitor, as the lawyers might say.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Elizabeth May: debt before dishonour
May opposed restraint, threatened to quit leadership if removed from Green Party budget committee
Party received $3 M in public funds since 2004, yet has $255 K in debt
What’s really interesting about the Vancouver Sun story about Elizabeth May’s threat to quit as Green Party leader – in addition to her whinging – is the window it provides into the financial situation of the Green Party of Canada, which everyone assumed would be rolling in rolling papers, store-bought roach clips and other goodies after public financing of political parties came into effect in 2004.
Indeed, since the fourth quarter of 2004 the party has received a total of $3,086,075.39 in public funds (see figures below). In addition, it collected $351,030.66 in contributions in 2004, and $409,357.09 in 2005. It received reimbursements of $455,489.54 for the 2006 election and $298,907.63 for the 2004 election.
Yet the Greens have strayed into the red zone (in more ways than one), with big-party-style debt problems, before they have elected one MP. The Sun reports that the party is $255,000 in debt, which it attributes to preparing for a spring election that didn’t happen:
Wow. If only the election were tomorrow, so the citizens of Central Nova could boot that laggard Peter MacKay, and replace him with this dynamo.
By the way, according to the 2001 census, average individual income in Central Nova is $23,769, average household income is $46,201, and the average family income is $52,911 (I couldn’t find the figures from the 2006 census; I don’t believe they are publicly available yet. But if someone has a link, I’d appreciate it).
I have to feel for David Scrymgeour, also a former aide to PC leader Joe Clark (when the PC party was paying Clark considerably more than May’s $50,000). Ironically, May’s whining sounds eerily similar to Clark’s, during Clark’s valiant struggle to fill the role as leader of the fifth party on less than $300,000 per annum. During the two years between his election as leader and winning a seat in Parliament, this included a supplement of more than $150,000 from the party, which was then approximately $10 M in debt. (And, as I am always obliged to disclose, voting for Clark in the 1998 leadership is the only vote I wish I could take back.)
Scrymgeour was a casualty of the 2003 MacKay-Orchard Pact – which included a provision that Scrymgeour be removed as the party’s national director – so his search for Greener pastures is in a sense understandable. But surely he’s had enough of these granola-munchers by now (in particular, May’s détente cordiale with Stéphane Dion), and is ready to come back to a professional political party.
Allowances Paid to the Green Party of Canada
2007 Q1: $310,866.83
2006 Q4: $310,867.00
2006 Q3: $310,867.00
2006 Q2: $310,867.00
2006 Q1: $266,686.28
2005 Q4: $266,686.28
2005 Q3: $261,847.00
2005 Q2: $261,847.00
2005 Q1: $261,847.00
2004 Q4: $261,847.00
2004 Q3: $261,847.00
TOTAL: $3,086,075.39
Party received $3 M in public funds since 2004, yet has $255 K in debt
What’s really interesting about the Vancouver Sun story about Elizabeth May’s threat to quit as Green Party leader – in addition to her whinging – is the window it provides into the financial situation of the Green Party of Canada, which everyone assumed would be rolling in rolling papers, store-bought roach clips and other goodies after public financing of political parties came into effect in 2004.
Indeed, since the fourth quarter of 2004 the party has received a total of $3,086,075.39 in public funds (see figures below). In addition, it collected $351,030.66 in contributions in 2004, and $409,357.09 in 2005. It received reimbursements of $455,489.54 for the 2006 election and $298,907.63 for the 2004 election.
Yet the Greens have strayed into the red zone (in more ways than one), with big-party-style debt problems, before they have elected one MP. The Sun reports that the party is $255,000 in debt, which it attributes to preparing for a spring election that didn’t happen:
[May] said she is personally “broke” because of her $50,000 salary and called her job “grueling.”
May’s declaration was in response to a proposal from former interim executive-director David Scrymgeour, who was urging the party to slash spending and eliminate its debt.
Scrymgeour, who refused to comment when contacted, also said that May should step down from the party’s budget review committee.
May responded that the spending cuts would kill the party’s chances of winning seats in the next election.
“I should also add that if council decided to remove me from the budget committee, I would have a hard time staying on as leader,” May wrote in the e-mail obtained by the Vancouver Sun.
“Do I have a lot of unilateral power? No I don’t. Am I earning a tonne of money? No I’m not. Am I tired and discouraged and bone-weary and in chronic pain because I’m waiting for a hip replacement? Do I have down moments? You bet.
“If you catch me in a down moment and slap me in the face, do I really want to stay? I don’t know. I mean, I’m human.”
Wow. If only the election were tomorrow, so the citizens of Central Nova could boot that laggard Peter MacKay, and replace him with this dynamo.
By the way, according to the 2001 census, average individual income in Central Nova is $23,769, average household income is $46,201, and the average family income is $52,911 (I couldn’t find the figures from the 2006 census; I don’t believe they are publicly available yet. But if someone has a link, I’d appreciate it).
I have to feel for David Scrymgeour, also a former aide to PC leader Joe Clark (when the PC party was paying Clark considerably more than May’s $50,000). Ironically, May’s whining sounds eerily similar to Clark’s, during Clark’s valiant struggle to fill the role as leader of the fifth party on less than $300,000 per annum. During the two years between his election as leader and winning a seat in Parliament, this included a supplement of more than $150,000 from the party, which was then approximately $10 M in debt. (And, as I am always obliged to disclose, voting for Clark in the 1998 leadership is the only vote I wish I could take back.)
Scrymgeour was a casualty of the 2003 MacKay-Orchard Pact – which included a provision that Scrymgeour be removed as the party’s national director – so his search for Greener pastures is in a sense understandable. But surely he’s had enough of these granola-munchers by now (in particular, May’s détente cordiale with Stéphane Dion), and is ready to come back to a professional political party.
Allowances Paid to the Green Party of Canada
2007 Q1: $310,866.83
2006 Q4: $310,867.00
2006 Q3: $310,867.00
2006 Q2: $310,867.00
2006 Q1: $266,686.28
2005 Q4: $266,686.28
2005 Q3: $261,847.00
2005 Q2: $261,847.00
2005 Q1: $261,847.00
2004 Q4: $261,847.00
2004 Q3: $261,847.00
TOTAL: $3,086,075.39
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Another Liberal leader who charted his own course
$4.3 M spent trying to crush Beaudoin, after he refused a loan to Chrétien’s former partner
The Post’s story about Paul Martin’s golf course – paid for out of his own pocket, so calm down, people – reminded me of another Quebec golf course and another Liberal leader. From the irreplaceable Lorrie Goldstein:
And even AdScam, for which Chrétien bears ultimate responsibility, doesn’t reveal the former PM at his worst. For that, we must turn to another Grit scandal -- what Chrétien and his lackeys did to Francois Beaudoin when he was president of the Business Development Bank of Canada.
Here, I’m indebted to the excellent reporting of Sun Media’s Greg Weston. Beaudoin, was an honest public servant who had the courage to say “no” to Chrétien, starting in 1996.
No, he would not approve a $1.6- million loan, later cut to $615,000, to benefit Chrétien’s friend, Yvon Duhaime, owner of the Grand-Mere inn in Chrétien’s riding. Duhaime, he said, was a bad risk, with a criminal past and a poor fiscal track record.
The fact Chrétien had even approached Beaudoin was wrong, especially considering that Chrétien was a former part-owner of the inn and a neighbouring golf course. At the time, Chrétien hadn’t been paid for his shares in the golf course and was seeking a new buyer. Chrétien’s own actions indicated he knew what he was doing was wrong. Why? Because he lied about them.
Between January 1999 and November 2000, Chrétien and his aides repeatedly insisted the BDC operated on its own, free from political interference. Finally, on Nov. 16, 2000, Chrétien was forced to admit in the middle of an election that he had lobbied Beaudoin repeatedly. [Note: this produced the infamous Chrétien quote, "It's the normal operation."]
By then, two Chrétien cronies, Michel Vennat and Jean Carle, were making Beaudoin’s life a living hell.
First, Beaudoin was effectively forced out of his post when the BDC loan to Duhaime was approved over his objections.
Seeing the writing on the wall, he negotiated a severance and retirement package in the summer of 1999 and left the bank.
But Vennat and Carle weren’t finished. Soon after, Beaudoin was accused of “irregularities” by the BDC and lost his pension.
He was smeared in the media. His cottage and home were raided, not by police, but by BDC lawyers and accountants. Incredibly, a judge had authorized the search. Meanwhile, Carle was on the phone to Chrétien’s office, co-ordinating statements in the media and the Commons. Judge Denis would later describe this as “incredible ... Carle was convinced the prime minister is the only shareholder of the BDC. They are no longer looking like a corporation should, to give the media just the facts ... but only to repeat the position of the Prime Minister’s Office.”
Vennat then wrote two letters to RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli asking the Mounties to investigate Beaudoin for “misappropriation” of bank property and as the source of a “forged” document related to Shawinigate that had been leaked.
Home raided
Six months later, the Mounties showed up at the Royal Montreal Golf Club, claiming there were investigating the membership of Beaudoin’s wife. At Christmas, they raided his Montreal home. Before Beaudoin could reach his lawyer, the attorney was contacted by a reporter who’d been tipped to the raid by the PMO. The RCMP found nothing. In April 2003, the Crown said no charges would be laid after concluding the case against him was absurd.
Finally, in September 2003, Beaudoin had his day in court.
Judge Denis ordered that Beaudoin be paid his full severance and pension. He denounced the BDC, saying he didn’t believe some of Vennat’s testimony and that Carle had lied. The publicly owned bank had spent four years and $4.3 million hounding Beaudoin.
--Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun, April 10, 2005
The Post’s story about Paul Martin’s golf course – paid for out of his own pocket, so calm down, people – reminded me of another Quebec golf course and another Liberal leader. From the irreplaceable Lorrie Goldstein:
And even AdScam, for which Chrétien bears ultimate responsibility, doesn’t reveal the former PM at his worst. For that, we must turn to another Grit scandal -- what Chrétien and his lackeys did to Francois Beaudoin when he was president of the Business Development Bank of Canada.
Here, I’m indebted to the excellent reporting of Sun Media’s Greg Weston. Beaudoin, was an honest public servant who had the courage to say “no” to Chrétien, starting in 1996.
No, he would not approve a $1.6- million loan, later cut to $615,000, to benefit Chrétien’s friend, Yvon Duhaime, owner of the Grand-Mere inn in Chrétien’s riding. Duhaime, he said, was a bad risk, with a criminal past and a poor fiscal track record.
The fact Chrétien had even approached Beaudoin was wrong, especially considering that Chrétien was a former part-owner of the inn and a neighbouring golf course. At the time, Chrétien hadn’t been paid for his shares in the golf course and was seeking a new buyer. Chrétien’s own actions indicated he knew what he was doing was wrong. Why? Because he lied about them.
Between January 1999 and November 2000, Chrétien and his aides repeatedly insisted the BDC operated on its own, free from political interference. Finally, on Nov. 16, 2000, Chrétien was forced to admit in the middle of an election that he had lobbied Beaudoin repeatedly. [Note: this produced the infamous Chrétien quote, "It's the normal operation."]
By then, two Chrétien cronies, Michel Vennat and Jean Carle, were making Beaudoin’s life a living hell.
First, Beaudoin was effectively forced out of his post when the BDC loan to Duhaime was approved over his objections.
Seeing the writing on the wall, he negotiated a severance and retirement package in the summer of 1999 and left the bank.
But Vennat and Carle weren’t finished. Soon after, Beaudoin was accused of “irregularities” by the BDC and lost his pension.
He was smeared in the media. His cottage and home were raided, not by police, but by BDC lawyers and accountants. Incredibly, a judge had authorized the search. Meanwhile, Carle was on the phone to Chrétien’s office, co-ordinating statements in the media and the Commons. Judge Denis would later describe this as “incredible ... Carle was convinced the prime minister is the only shareholder of the BDC. They are no longer looking like a corporation should, to give the media just the facts ... but only to repeat the position of the Prime Minister’s Office.”
Vennat then wrote two letters to RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli asking the Mounties to investigate Beaudoin for “misappropriation” of bank property and as the source of a “forged” document related to Shawinigate that had been leaked.
Home raided
Six months later, the Mounties showed up at the Royal Montreal Golf Club, claiming there were investigating the membership of Beaudoin’s wife. At Christmas, they raided his Montreal home. Before Beaudoin could reach his lawyer, the attorney was contacted by a reporter who’d been tipped to the raid by the PMO. The RCMP found nothing. In April 2003, the Crown said no charges would be laid after concluding the case against him was absurd.
Finally, in September 2003, Beaudoin had his day in court.
Judge Denis ordered that Beaudoin be paid his full severance and pension. He denounced the BDC, saying he didn’t believe some of Vennat’s testimony and that Carle had lied. The publicly owned bank had spent four years and $4.3 million hounding Beaudoin.
--Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun, April 10, 2005
Thursday, May 31, 2007
The $100K Breakfast Club
Gerard Kennedy’s legacy: lawless schools, see-no-evil administrators
From Wednesday's Toronto Star story about the “lawless” C.W. Jefferys Collegiate, where Jordan Manners was shot last week:
“My experience is that the safe schools policy was followed,” said board superintendent Verna Lister*.
*According to the 2006 Public Sector Salary disclosure, Lister was paid $136,616.54 in salary and $5,316.26 in benefits last year. In 2006, the Toronto District School Board had 504 employees who were paid in excess of $100,000, totalling $54,696,949.63 in salary and $582,065.16 in benefits.
Donna Quan*, safe schools superintendent for Toronto, said Jefferys was an outstanding school and urged concerned teachers to discuss their problems with administration and the school board.
“We’ll be glad to meet,” Quan said. “It’s important to have courageous conversations.”
*$136,616.54 in salary and $5,366.66 in benefits in 2006.
Suspension rates across Toronto were down 29 per cent in 2005-06 from the year prior. Various school administrators now prefer alternatives, such as in-school suspensions.
The drop occurred the same year the Toronto District School Board settled a complaint from the Ontario Human Rights Commission for suspending a disproportionately high number of black students, in November 2005. [Local school trustee Stephnie] Payne supported a lawsuit in December 2005 against Louie Papathanasakis, then-principal of Emery Collegiate Institute, who called police on students who were accused of assaulting another student. One was later convicted.
[Former Jefferys teacher Sandra] Fusco said the settlement, combined with discouragement from administration, denied teachers leeway to suspend disruptive or violent students.
“We were told that there’s an initiative in the board to use alternatives to suspensions,” said Fusco, referring to a staff meeting at the school when Anne Kojima* was principal.
*$105,763.53 in salary and $100.80 in benefits in 2006.
The main source for the article, Jefferys teacher Dave Plaskett, tells the Star he is speaking out after teaching at the school for 25 years because: “I’ve got nothing to lose,” said Plaskett, who plans to retire this year. [Clearly this man has never seen a cop movie.]” There has got to be some changes.”
One of the principles of the Harris government’s 2001 Safe Schools Act was that specific transgressions would bring specific punishments, for example, swearing at a teacher would automatically result in a one-day suspension.
These clear rules, however, were not welcomed by school boards or teacher unions. I remember one teacher union boss saying that teachers did not want the ability to suspend students. As per usual, nary a peep of dissent was heard from individual teachers, about the combative dismissiveness of their leaders.
Already insulated from daily brushes with menacing teenagers, the union bosses and boards believed they had bigger fish to fry, namely the Harris government’s plans to cut administrative costs, implement per-pupil funding, lower average class sizes through having teachers teach an additional half-class, implement a new curriculum, standardized testing, teacher recertification, etc.
Admittedly, the government’s promised “strict discipline” schooling for expelled students was not (to my knowledge) up and running by the time the government changed hands in 2003.
The McGuinty Fiberals conducted a quickie consultation/review on the act, the upshot of which was the act was too prescriptive and lacked flexibility. So they stripped the legislation of its clarity, and dressed up their announcement with the gainesburger that “cyber-bullying” would be included in the new legislation (but of course, whether cyber-bullies actually get punished depends on the attitude of the principal at the school involved -- just like at Jefferys).
From Wednesday's Toronto Star story about the “lawless” C.W. Jefferys Collegiate, where Jordan Manners was shot last week:
“My experience is that the safe schools policy was followed,” said board superintendent Verna Lister*.
*According to the 2006 Public Sector Salary disclosure, Lister was paid $136,616.54 in salary and $5,316.26 in benefits last year. In 2006, the Toronto District School Board had 504 employees who were paid in excess of $100,000, totalling $54,696,949.63 in salary and $582,065.16 in benefits.
Donna Quan*, safe schools superintendent for Toronto, said Jefferys was an outstanding school and urged concerned teachers to discuss their problems with administration and the school board.
“We’ll be glad to meet,” Quan said. “It’s important to have courageous conversations.”
*$136,616.54 in salary and $5,366.66 in benefits in 2006.
Suspension rates across Toronto were down 29 per cent in 2005-06 from the year prior. Various school administrators now prefer alternatives, such as in-school suspensions.
The drop occurred the same year the Toronto District School Board settled a complaint from the Ontario Human Rights Commission for suspending a disproportionately high number of black students, in November 2005. [Local school trustee Stephnie] Payne supported a lawsuit in December 2005 against Louie Papathanasakis, then-principal of Emery Collegiate Institute, who called police on students who were accused of assaulting another student. One was later convicted.
[Former Jefferys teacher Sandra] Fusco said the settlement, combined with discouragement from administration, denied teachers leeway to suspend disruptive or violent students.
“We were told that there’s an initiative in the board to use alternatives to suspensions,” said Fusco, referring to a staff meeting at the school when Anne Kojima* was principal.
*$105,763.53 in salary and $100.80 in benefits in 2006.
The main source for the article, Jefferys teacher Dave Plaskett, tells the Star he is speaking out after teaching at the school for 25 years because: “I’ve got nothing to lose,” said Plaskett, who plans to retire this year. [Clearly this man has never seen a cop movie.]” There has got to be some changes.”
One of the principles of the Harris government’s 2001 Safe Schools Act was that specific transgressions would bring specific punishments, for example, swearing at a teacher would automatically result in a one-day suspension.
These clear rules, however, were not welcomed by school boards or teacher unions. I remember one teacher union boss saying that teachers did not want the ability to suspend students. As per usual, nary a peep of dissent was heard from individual teachers, about the combative dismissiveness of their leaders.
Already insulated from daily brushes with menacing teenagers, the union bosses and boards believed they had bigger fish to fry, namely the Harris government’s plans to cut administrative costs, implement per-pupil funding, lower average class sizes through having teachers teach an additional half-class, implement a new curriculum, standardized testing, teacher recertification, etc.
Admittedly, the government’s promised “strict discipline” schooling for expelled students was not (to my knowledge) up and running by the time the government changed hands in 2003.
The McGuinty Fiberals conducted a quickie consultation/review on the act, the upshot of which was the act was too prescriptive and lacked flexibility. So they stripped the legislation of its clarity, and dressed up their announcement with the gainesburger that “cyber-bullying” would be included in the new legislation (but of course, whether cyber-bullies actually get punished depends on the attitude of the principal at the school involved -- just like at Jefferys).
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
A big slab of red meat for the Bush derangers, 9/11 truthers, et al. . . .
Norman Podhoretz predicts Bush will bomb Iranian nuclear facilities “within 21 months”
From the Wall Street Journal (warning: long piece):
In his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush made a promise:
In that speech, the president was referring to Iraq, but he has made it clear on a number of subsequent occasions that the same principle applies to Iran. Indeed, he has gone so far as to say that if we permit Iran to build a nuclear arsenal, people 50 years from now will look back and wonder how we of this generation could have allowed such a thing to happen, and they will rightly judge us as harshly as we today judge the British and the French for what they did and what they failed to do at Munich in 1938. I find it hard to understand why George W. Bush would have put himself so squarely in the dock of history on this issue if he were resigned to leaving office with Iran in possession of nuclear weapons, or with the ability to build them. Accordingly, my guess is that he intends, within the next 21 months, to order air strikes against the Iranian nuclear facilities from the three U.S. aircraft carriers already sitting nearby.
From the Wall Street Journal (warning: long piece):
In his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush made a promise:
We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.
In that speech, the president was referring to Iraq, but he has made it clear on a number of subsequent occasions that the same principle applies to Iran. Indeed, he has gone so far as to say that if we permit Iran to build a nuclear arsenal, people 50 years from now will look back and wonder how we of this generation could have allowed such a thing to happen, and they will rightly judge us as harshly as we today judge the British and the French for what they did and what they failed to do at Munich in 1938. I find it hard to understand why George W. Bush would have put himself so squarely in the dock of history on this issue if he were resigned to leaving office with Iran in possession of nuclear weapons, or with the ability to build them. Accordingly, my guess is that he intends, within the next 21 months, to order air strikes against the Iranian nuclear facilities from the three U.S. aircraft carriers already sitting nearby.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
“Mr. Kuntz, it’s Giles Gherson* on line 1”
Toronto Star sidelines its own investigation in exchange for a Fiberal promise
The Toronto Star seems to have declared its day care exposé – two years in the making and involving one of its top investigative reporters, Dale Brazao – er, over, after just one page A1 story. From my free copy of today’s Star:
Wow. They’re promising a website. And they’ll think about a colour-coded system! Well, that’s that, then. Move along, folks, nothing to see here. Because Dalton McGuinty keeps all his promises, right? And never mind this, from Monday’s story:
I’m guessing that Ontario opposition leaders John Tory and Howard Hampton are feeling just as burned as the Star’s reporters, Brazao and Robert Cribb.
*Gherson is the former editor-in-chief of the Star, who since April 2nd has been toiling for Premier Pinocchio, as deputy minister and associate secretary of communications in the cabinet office.
The Toronto Star seems to have declared its day care exposé – two years in the making and involving one of its top investigative reporters, Dale Brazao – er, over, after just one page A1 story. From my free copy of today’s Star:
The wall of secrecy surrounding abuses in daycares has tumbled less than 24 hours after a Star investigation documented troubling problems in centres across Ontario.
Parents concerned about the quality of care their children are receiving in licensed centres will soon be able to visit a ministry website listing serious incidents and inspection findings.
Mary Anne Chambers, Minister of Children and Youth Services, said yesterday her ministry will launch the website by the fall. Chambers is also considering a stronger colour-coding system in which a red licence posted at a daycare would indicate a serious problem.
Wow. They’re promising a website. And they’ll think about a colour-coded system! Well, that’s that, then. Move along, folks, nothing to see here. Because Dalton McGuinty keeps all his promises, right? And never mind this, from Monday’s story:
Children in provincially licensed daycares have been hit, kicked, allowed to play in filthy conditions and fed allergy-triggering food that nearly claimed their lives.
A Star investigation based on thousands of never-before-released daycare incidents and inspection reports has uncovered a myriad of serious problems including children wandering off unattended, being forcibly confined in closets and storage rooms as punishment, and served meals prepared in mice-infested kitchens.
But even in the most egregious cases, the provincial Ministry of Children and Youth Services is often slow to act.
Daycares with a pattern of problems are allowed to operate for months or even years on provisional licences, while children are exposed to substandard conditions, internal government documents show.
"The conditions you highlight are unacceptable and we take it seriously," said ministry spokesperson Tricia Edgar.
"It is a concern. We're going to be looking at this. I can give you our assurance that we will do that. It isn't consistent with the health and well being of kids."
The records are typically kept secret. Parents who trust their children with a licensed daycare have no way of finding out if their daycare is exemplary or riddled with problems.
The Star obtained the records – which relate to the last three years – following a series of freedom of information requests that took more than two years.
I’m guessing that Ontario opposition leaders John Tory and Howard Hampton are feeling just as burned as the Star’s reporters, Brazao and Robert Cribb.
*Gherson is the former editor-in-chief of the Star, who since April 2nd has been toiling for Premier Pinocchio, as deputy minister and associate secretary of communications in the cabinet office.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Seacrest Out, O'Donnell Follows
Who would have thought that the "American Idol" finale would be the same day as Rosie O'Donnell's last appearance on "The View?"
Late news today from ABC that Rosie O'Donnell won't be coming back to ABC's "The View" after Wednesday's blow-up with Elisabeth Hasselbeck, even though her final show was originally to be June 20. (The show's website, for some reason, says that O'Donnell's last day will be this Monday.)
This means that O'Donnell will not have the opportunity to comment during the show about the story in today's Page Six, alleging that her writer defaced Hasselbeck's photos. Neither will she have the chance to moderate the promised 9/11 conspiracy segment, in which physicists from Yale and/or Harvard were to explain how Building 7 of the World Trade Centre was actually collapsed by explosives on 9/11. If I may take a page from Rosie's Big Book of Rhetorical Questions: who's the coward?
I've seen a strain of commentary, on both my blog and elsewhere, that suggests the "fight" with Hasselbeck was staged to goose ratings. I think O'Donnell's premature retreat tends to put the lie to that theory. Leaving this way, O'Donnell looks like she is running away after losing a fight to a conservative. (Not my take, by the way, I just think that it was a rare occasion on which Hasselbeck stood up to an attempt by O'Donnell to box her in and make the debate about her. Hasselbeck merely put the focus back on O'Donnell, where it belonged.)
Late news today from ABC that Rosie O'Donnell won't be coming back to ABC's "The View" after Wednesday's blow-up with Elisabeth Hasselbeck, even though her final show was originally to be June 20. (The show's website, for some reason, says that O'Donnell's last day will be this Monday.)
This means that O'Donnell will not have the opportunity to comment during the show about the story in today's Page Six, alleging that her writer defaced Hasselbeck's photos. Neither will she have the chance to moderate the promised 9/11 conspiracy segment, in which physicists from Yale and/or Harvard were to explain how Building 7 of the World Trade Centre was actually collapsed by explosives on 9/11. If I may take a page from Rosie's Big Book of Rhetorical Questions: who's the coward?
I've seen a strain of commentary, on both my blog and elsewhere, that suggests the "fight" with Hasselbeck was staged to goose ratings. I think O'Donnell's premature retreat tends to put the lie to that theory. Leaving this way, O'Donnell looks like she is running away after losing a fight to a conservative. (Not my take, by the way, I just think that it was a rare occasion on which Hasselbeck stood up to an attempt by O'Donnell to box her in and make the debate about her. Hasselbeck merely put the focus back on O'Donnell, where it belonged.)
Rosie O’Donnell has a writer???
Caught drawing moustaches on Hasselbeck’s photos at ABC studio
Rosie O’Donnell’s high school-esque demands that her View co-hosts stick up for her no matter what she says or does (or in some cases sustain the pretence that she doesn’t mean what she says) have been nicely complemented by the grade-school hijinks of her entourage. Today we learn courtesy of Page Six that O’Donnell’s writer at "The View" was caught defacing photos of Elisabeth Hasselbeck:
I wish I could generate some Captain Renault-style shock that one of O’Donnell’s peeps would pull such a stunt, but I just can’t.
I will, however, contrast O’Donnell’s exit strategy with Star Jones’ behaviour last year after she was fired from "The View." O’Donnell is leaving voluntarily, walking away from ABC’s offer of a three-year, $30-million dollar contract. Yet she seems intent on literally and figuratively smashing everything she can on her way out. From the Page Six story:
Star Jones, for those who don't remember, was for all intents and purposes fired; her contract was not renewed though she had no desire to leave the show. And she knew that she was leaving several months ahead of her final show. She was asked to finish out her contract and she did so in a professional manner. True, she did announce her departure one day earlier than agreed, and then told other media outlets that she “felt like she had been fired,” and that Barbara Walters “didn’t have her back.” But she has never said a bad word about the show or any of its co-hosts since. Jones now has her own show on Court TV.
Rosie O’Donnell’s high school-esque demands that her View co-hosts stick up for her no matter what she says or does (or in some cases sustain the pretence that she doesn’t mean what she says) have been nicely complemented by the grade-school hijinks of her entourage. Today we learn courtesy of Page Six that O’Donnell’s writer at "The View" was caught defacing photos of Elisabeth Hasselbeck:
Yesterday, Rosie’s chief writer, Janette Barber, was allegedly escorted from the building after she was caught drawing moustaches on photographs of Hasselbeck that hang in the “View” studios.
The Post’s Adam Buckman reports ABC confirmed in a statement only that “photographs at ‘The View’s’ offices were defaced. Rosie O’Donnell was not in the building. ABC Legal and Human Resources are investigating the matter.” Barber is an old friend of O’Donnell who worked with her years ago on “The Rosie O’Donnell Show.”
There were also rumors O’Donnell was so angry after her argument with Hasselbeck that she trashed her dressing room, although ABC denied the tantrum.
I wish I could generate some Captain Renault-style shock that one of O’Donnell’s peeps would pull such a stunt, but I just can’t.
I will, however, contrast O’Donnell’s exit strategy with Star Jones’ behaviour last year after she was fired from "The View." O’Donnell is leaving voluntarily, walking away from ABC’s offer of a three-year, $30-million dollar contract. Yet she seems intent on literally and figuratively smashing everything she can on her way out. From the Page Six story:
As for O’Donnell, she’s been posting comments on her personal Web site, rosie.com, fueling speculation she might not return to “The View” ever again. Her scheduled last day is Wednesday, June 20.Well, we'll see. Decency would demand that she show up for at least one day, to apologize to Hasselbeck for her flunky's behaviour. But for all we know, O'Donnell is still mad at Hasselbeck, and is not going to give her the satisfaction of an apology. Further, O'Donnell's anger at Hasselbeck seems largely based on Hasselbeck's refusal to apologize for the attacks of Fox News and others on O'Donnell. And returning to "The View" would only help their ratings, so what's the point?
When one fan wrote, “Work isn’t worth that battle,” Rosie replied, “Agreed.” Another wrote, “Please walk away. It’s not worth it.” Rosie replied, “Well, you know when it’s time to go.”
To a fan who asked when she would return, O’Donnell answered, “No idea.”
Yesterday, O’Donnell posted a video that may have symbolized how she’s feeling about “The View.”
The tape consisted of ducks swimming in a pond accompanied by an audio track of the John Mayer song “Vultures,” whose lyrics include “How will I hold my head to keep from going under?”
Officially, “The View” expects O’Donnell to return to work on Tuesday.
Star Jones, for those who don't remember, was for all intents and purposes fired; her contract was not renewed though she had no desire to leave the show. And she knew that she was leaving several months ahead of her final show. She was asked to finish out her contract and she did so in a professional manner. True, she did announce her departure one day earlier than agreed, and then told other media outlets that she “felt like she had been fired,” and that Barbara Walters “didn’t have her back.” But she has never said a bad word about the show or any of its co-hosts since. Jones now has her own show on Court TV.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
An injustice averted, thanks to the Harper government
What Bob Rae’s quick-and-dirty Air India review would have missed
From the editorial in the May 28th issue of Macleans:
In November of 2005, the Martin government accepted Bob Rae’s recommendation to appoint “a Commissioner under Cabinet Order in Council who is given a clear mandate, and an assurance of full cooperation.” Were it not for the Liberals’ defeat in January 2006, that is the type of inquiry that would be taking place now (or God knows when).
And Rae’s conversion to Liberalism in April of 2006 puts his “independent” report of the previous November in a somewhat different context. Would it be unfair to say that, while writing the report, Rae was already a Liberal-in-utero? Again, had the Martin goverment survived, Rae's latent Liberalism may have remained as unknown as the Lieutenant-Governor who barked and the dog that didn't sniff.
True, the inquiry may yet reveal incompetence – or worse – on the Mulroney government’s watch, but it is to the Harper government’s credit that it is prepared to face that eventuality.
From the editorial in the May 28th issue of Macleans:
Yet after all this formal scrutiny, plus countless media treatments and a steady outcry from the families of the victims over the past two decades, the inquiry headed by former Supreme Court justice John Major is still producing new and shocking revelations. Recent surprises include the testimony of Ontario Lieutenant-Governor James Bartleman, who claims he saw a specific threat related to Air India for the weekend of June 22-23, 1985, when he was with the Department of External Affairs but was rebuffed by the RCMP. Last week Serge Carignan, a former Sûreté du Québec police-dog handler, said he had been summoned to Mirabel Airport to sniff for bombs, only to discover the fated plane had already left. None of this had been revealed previously.
Given all this, it is now clear that the Rae report's call for a quick and cheap order-in-council inquiry was entirely wrong-headed. Quick and cheap would have glossed over the massive screw-ups, dissuaded new witnesses from coming forward, and done a disservice to the victims' families. The Harper government was correct in ignoring Rae and instead delivering on its campaign promise to hold a "comprehensive, independent judicial inquiry." After two decades of half measures, Major should take as long as he needs to make sure Canadians finally get the full story. Everything else has been preamble.
In November of 2005, the Martin government accepted Bob Rae’s recommendation to appoint “a Commissioner under Cabinet Order in Council who is given a clear mandate, and an assurance of full cooperation.” Were it not for the Liberals’ defeat in January 2006, that is the type of inquiry that would be taking place now (or God knows when).
And Rae’s conversion to Liberalism in April of 2006 puts his “independent” report of the previous November in a somewhat different context. Would it be unfair to say that, while writing the report, Rae was already a Liberal-in-utero? Again, had the Martin goverment survived, Rae's latent Liberalism may have remained as unknown as the Lieutenant-Governor who barked and the dog that didn't sniff.
True, the inquiry may yet reveal incompetence – or worse – on the Mulroney government’s watch, but it is to the Harper government’s credit that it is prepared to face that eventuality.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Good thing Mickey's no longer minding the Mounties’ trademarks* . . .
Disney CEO says that objecting to Hamas’ use of Mickey Mouse-like character would have had no effect (except getting Disneyworld blown up, maybe).
I remember reading once that there is a cautionary saying in Hollywood about not taking on Disney Studios, that goes something like "don't f--- with the Mouse." Not anymore, apparently. From the Associated Press:
Good call, chief. Because Hamas has such a good record of self-correcting its extremism. And it’s not like allowing Western images to be abused is interpreted as weakness in the Arab world, or anything like that.
But then those things are not Iger’s concern. His baileywick is Disney's world – not the world that makes Disney possible.
In addition to handling the careers of Mickey, Goofy, Pluto, Donald Duck (not Daffy, sorry) and Huey, Dewey and Louie, Disney also brings Rosie O’Donnell and her unique views into your living room every weekday, through its subsidiary ABC.
* In 1995 the federal government gave Disney control over the RCMP’s trademarks, such as the Mountie uniform. The rationale was that the RCMP simply didn’t have Disney’s experience in protecting intellectual property. The contract was allowed to expire in 1999 and the RCMP deals with its own trademarks now.
I remember reading once that there is a cautionary saying in Hollywood about not taking on Disney Studios, that goes something like "don't f--- with the Mouse." Not anymore, apparently. From the Associated Press:
The Walt Disney Co. didn’t speak out when Hamas militants used a Mickey Mouse look-alike to preach Islamic domination because the company felt it would be ineffective, Disney’s chief executive said Monday.
Disney CEO Robert Iger said he and other executives considered ways to react to the recent Hamas show for children that featured someone dressed in what appeared to be a Mickey Mouse costume, railing against Israel and the United States in a high-pitched cartoonish voice.
“We didn’t mobilize our forces and seek to either have the clip taken down or to make any broad public statement about it,” Iger told a gathering of the Society of Business Editors and Writers at the Disneyland Hotel.
“We were appalled by the use of our character to disseminate that kind of message,” he said “I think anytime any group seeks to exploit children in that manner, it’s despicable.”
Still, Iger said it didn’t seem to make any sense for Disney to make any loud public statement at the time.
“I just didn’t think it would have any effect,” he said. ‘I think it should have been obvious how the company felt about the subject.”
Iger's comments were the first from Disney since the images aired earlier this month on Al-Aqsa TV, a station run by Hamas. At the time, Disney did not return phone calls seeking comment, a strategy Iger said the company adopted after some discussion.
Good call, chief. Because Hamas has such a good record of self-correcting its extremism. And it’s not like allowing Western images to be abused is interpreted as weakness in the Arab world, or anything like that.
But then those things are not Iger’s concern. His baileywick is Disney's world – not the world that makes Disney possible.
In addition to handling the careers of Mickey, Goofy, Pluto, Donald Duck (not Daffy, sorry) and Huey, Dewey and Louie, Disney also brings Rosie O’Donnell and her unique views into your living room every weekday, through its subsidiary ABC.
* In 1995 the federal government gave Disney control over the RCMP’s trademarks, such as the Mountie uniform. The rationale was that the RCMP simply didn’t have Disney’s experience in protecting intellectual property. The contract was allowed to expire in 1999 and the RCMP deals with its own trademarks now.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Just when you thought there was no fight left in the Bush administration . . .
From Reuters:
The White House on Sunday fired back at former President Jimmy Carter, calling him “increasingly irrelevant” a day after Carter described George W. Bush’s presidency as the worst in history in international relations.
Carter, a Democrat, said on Saturday in an interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that “as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history.”
White House spokesman Tony Fratto had declined to react on Saturday but on Sunday fired back.
“I think it’s sad that President Carter’s reckless personal criticism is out there,” Fratto told reporters. “I think it’s unfortunate. And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments.”
The White House on Sunday fired back at former President Jimmy Carter, calling him “increasingly irrelevant” a day after Carter described George W. Bush’s presidency as the worst in history in international relations.
Carter, a Democrat, said on Saturday in an interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that “as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history.”
White House spokesman Tony Fratto had declined to react on Saturday but on Sunday fired back.
“I think it’s sad that President Carter’s reckless personal criticism is out there,” Fratto told reporters. “I think it’s unfortunate. And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)