Lise Payette and the 21st Century woman
(English below)
Je déteste Lise Payette. Elle se dit féministe. Moi aussi. Et c'est drôle, elle me donne le goût d'hair ce mouvement.
Elle l'a prouvé une fois de plus dans sa chronique d'hier. Sa conclusion sur la formation du cabinet de Jean Charest qui est formé de 50% de femmes est que Charest a finalement conclu que les femmes étaient meilleur que les hommes! Tout simplement!
Eh oui, la grosse Lise, la mange-minou nationale, qui a écrit Les Machos, se souvient qu'à l'époque ou elle était dans le cabinet de son mentor René Lévesque, les hommes au Cabinet bâclaient les dossiers alors que les femmes, bien plus minutieuses, savaient les mener à terme! (Sauf le Référendum, qu'elle a perdu grace à ses Yvettes :-)
Moi, l'autre jour, j'ai vu une femme essayer de se stationner. Elle acroche le gars en arrière, puis l'auto en avant, et réussit enfin à se garer...à deux pieds du trottoir. Conclusion: les femmes savent pas garer leur voiture!
Logique, hein? Eh bien, le féminisme en est rendu la. On gagne partout dans la société, on remplis les facultés d'Université, on travaille, on partage la job d'élever les enfants. Alors il reste quoi à faire? Rien! Il ne reste qu'à chier sur les hommes.
J'espère que j'ai asser bien élevé ma fille pour qu'elle ne te suive pas dans ta mysandrie destructives. J'en reviens tout simplement pas que Pierre-Karl Péladeau te laisse sévir comme ça.
I hate Lise Payette with a passion. She's a feminist, and so am I. But for some reason, I don't see where her and I can claim to be on the same planet.
She proved it once more in her column in yesteday's Le Journal de Montreal. Her reasoning behind Jean Charest's decision to name 50% of women to his new Liberal cabinet is that the premier NEEDED women, since they do a better job than men in general! No less!
Our national carpet-muching feminist, author of such TV shows as Les Machos, recalls the days when in René Lévesque's cabinet, women did a far better job than men. They were harder working and more organized that these egotistical male politicians. She of course forgets to mention that her goof on les Yvettes was instrumental in unifying the federalist forces in defeating the separatits.
The other day, I watched a woman try to park her car. Hits the car in front, hits the one behind, and finally stops..two feet away from the sidewalk. Would I conclude that women can't park?
Logical, right? Well, that's where feminism is at now. We've won at every level of society, we share parenting responsabilities, we dominate in all major University faculties. So where do we go from here? Ms Payette seems to think we have to defecate on men to prove ourselves.
I hope I'm giving my daughter the sort of education that will prevent her from slipping into your level of mysandry. I can't believe Pierre-Karl Peladeau allows this type of sexist comments in his paper.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Montreal Gazette in close-minded mode again
I used to think the Montreal Gazette was the best paper in town. No more. I get much better bang for my buck with the French daily La Presse. Not only does it provide better in-depth analysis of news, it also shows a capacity for accomodating ALL points of views.
The big news everywhere in Montreal and Quebec, is Jean Charest's new cabinet. It's lean, with only 18 members, compared to 25 until now. The reason is simple: the Libs have lost their majority, so they can't have a big cabinet if it doesn't even control the National Assembly.
Some people had to go. And Charest decided that this cabinet would be 50/50 men and women. I'm told it's a first in North America. DOn't know if it's true. But his bold move was praised by just about everyone today. Editorials all say how clever Charest was, by bringing equilibrium in Cabinet. And praised him for bringing into Cabinet the first black woman, Pierrefond's Yolande James.
Losts of firsts. But the Gazette's take? The subject of its editorial and columnists?
Here it is, for the tribe:
An insult to anglos and to Montreal
If this is the way Charest treats his friends, Mario Dumont is looking better all the time.
Editorial - The Gazette (Montreal)jeudi 19 avril 2007
It would have been too much to expect, we suppose, that Yolande James could have refused the opportunity given to her yesterday.
By accepting cabinet office, however, the 29-year-old James has allowed herself to become the instrument by which Jean Charest delivers a contemptuous slap to the anglophones and allophones who kept him in office in last month’s election.
The Liberals came a poor third among francophone voters in the March 26 election, and somehow Charest translated this into a need to reduce the number and stature of anglophones - who did vote for him - in cabinet.
That’s just one of the weirdnesses of the Quebec cabinet sworn in yesterday, which looks oddly old, with the same people back in the senior jobs. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, because some of them have proved to be decent ministers.
But at 18 ministers plus the premier, this cabinet is mysteriously tiny, which has meant some good people have been thrown overboard and others have been passed over.
The new team is heavily skewed to the regions, where the Liberals did so poorly last month. The new cabinet of 19 has just six members from Montreal, three of them rookies and only two - the estimable Monique Jerome-Forget at finance/Treasury Board and Jacques Dupuis at justice/public security - in major portfolios.
This is more than a matter of prestige and bragging rights. Around the cabinet table, major decisions are made, and Montreal’s voice will now be drowned out, more than ever, by the clamour from the regions.
But if all of Montreal is under-represented in the new cabinet, the anglophone community fares even worse. Dumped unceremoniously was Geoff Kelley, the respected Indian Affairs minister whose good relations with northern native communities might have proved quite useful in any new hydro-dam negotiations.
Kelley’s successive massive majorities in his West Island riding symbolized the support of the anglophone community for the Liberals. Charest obviously calculates that he’s in no danger of a voter revolt in anglo areas.
Also ditched, on the pretext that Lawrence Bergman has health problems, was the Liberal tradition of finding a spot at the table for someone from the Jewish community ; N.D.G.’s Russell Copeman would have been eminently suitable for cabinet.
So where Charest’s first cabinet included anglophone Assembly veterans Kelley, Bergman and Tom Mulcair, James now becomes the sole anglo in the new cabinet.
First elected MNA for the West Island riding of Nelligan in a 2004 by-election, James is by all accounts intelligent, capable and qualified. But consider her assignment : the first visible-minority female minister in Quebec history will be minister for immigration and cultural communities. It’s a little too simplistic.
No doubt the whole touchy dossier of reasonable accommodation will be handled directly from the premier’s office. In fact, anyone who expects that the only anglophone minister will have much real importance should examine the official press release announcing the new cabinet : Yolande James’s first name is misspelled.
The insult to the Liberals’ electoral backbone among Montreal anglophones and allophones is not the only odd thing about this cabinet. What was the point of making it so small ? It might be that a streamlined cabinet is needed to operate speedily, because the government is in a minority now.
But Charest didn’t say that. Maybe he could find no more capable MNAs from the regions. Maybe he wanted to boast of having half women and couldn’t find more than nine he considered ministrable. Did he even try to bring Pierre Paradis back ? Why has he loaded so many duties onto a few super-ministers ? Are there really so few people he can trust fully ?
Nor does it make sense that Nathalie Normandeau, so utterly ineffectual in dealing with Montreal’s problems as urban-affairs minister, should be retained in that post. She is also going to be minister for the regions, and for that reason Charest made her deputy premier. But if she’s going to be concentrating on rebuilding the Liberals from their disastrous third-place finish in the regions, why has she been left in charge of Montreal, as well ? Why is there no minister for the metropolis ? Why is a Liberal premier creating a unilingual deputy premier ? Because he takes Montreal for granted ?
One of the few unqualified good things about yesterday’s announcement is that Charest kept his promise to name a minister for seniors, Montreal MNA Marguerite Blais. This is a worthwhile initiative in an era when demographic change, in the shape of an aging population, is increasingly affecting so much of life.
But on balance, this cabinet doesn’t add up. The reduced margins and low turnout in safe Liberal seats seem to have sent Charest no message from the groups and region that have been his strongest supporters.
If this is the way Charest treats his friends, Mario Dumont is looking better all the time.
I'm sorry, but this is the lamest editorial the paper's printed in a long time! This is soooo Gazette! Us vs THEM. Then they wonder why anglos feel like outisders. Because we behave like outsiders!
The big news everywhere in Montreal and Quebec, is Jean Charest's new cabinet. It's lean, with only 18 members, compared to 25 until now. The reason is simple: the Libs have lost their majority, so they can't have a big cabinet if it doesn't even control the National Assembly.
Some people had to go. And Charest decided that this cabinet would be 50/50 men and women. I'm told it's a first in North America. DOn't know if it's true. But his bold move was praised by just about everyone today. Editorials all say how clever Charest was, by bringing equilibrium in Cabinet. And praised him for bringing into Cabinet the first black woman, Pierrefond's Yolande James.
Losts of firsts. But the Gazette's take? The subject of its editorial and columnists?
Here it is, for the tribe:
An insult to anglos and to Montreal
If this is the way Charest treats his friends, Mario Dumont is looking better all the time.
Editorial - The Gazette (Montreal)jeudi 19 avril 2007
It would have been too much to expect, we suppose, that Yolande James could have refused the opportunity given to her yesterday.
By accepting cabinet office, however, the 29-year-old James has allowed herself to become the instrument by which Jean Charest delivers a contemptuous slap to the anglophones and allophones who kept him in office in last month’s election.
The Liberals came a poor third among francophone voters in the March 26 election, and somehow Charest translated this into a need to reduce the number and stature of anglophones - who did vote for him - in cabinet.
That’s just one of the weirdnesses of the Quebec cabinet sworn in yesterday, which looks oddly old, with the same people back in the senior jobs. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, because some of them have proved to be decent ministers.
But at 18 ministers plus the premier, this cabinet is mysteriously tiny, which has meant some good people have been thrown overboard and others have been passed over.
The new team is heavily skewed to the regions, where the Liberals did so poorly last month. The new cabinet of 19 has just six members from Montreal, three of them rookies and only two - the estimable Monique Jerome-Forget at finance/Treasury Board and Jacques Dupuis at justice/public security - in major portfolios.
This is more than a matter of prestige and bragging rights. Around the cabinet table, major decisions are made, and Montreal’s voice will now be drowned out, more than ever, by the clamour from the regions.
But if all of Montreal is under-represented in the new cabinet, the anglophone community fares even worse. Dumped unceremoniously was Geoff Kelley, the respected Indian Affairs minister whose good relations with northern native communities might have proved quite useful in any new hydro-dam negotiations.
Kelley’s successive massive majorities in his West Island riding symbolized the support of the anglophone community for the Liberals. Charest obviously calculates that he’s in no danger of a voter revolt in anglo areas.
Also ditched, on the pretext that Lawrence Bergman has health problems, was the Liberal tradition of finding a spot at the table for someone from the Jewish community ; N.D.G.’s Russell Copeman would have been eminently suitable for cabinet.
So where Charest’s first cabinet included anglophone Assembly veterans Kelley, Bergman and Tom Mulcair, James now becomes the sole anglo in the new cabinet.
First elected MNA for the West Island riding of Nelligan in a 2004 by-election, James is by all accounts intelligent, capable and qualified. But consider her assignment : the first visible-minority female minister in Quebec history will be minister for immigration and cultural communities. It’s a little too simplistic.
No doubt the whole touchy dossier of reasonable accommodation will be handled directly from the premier’s office. In fact, anyone who expects that the only anglophone minister will have much real importance should examine the official press release announcing the new cabinet : Yolande James’s first name is misspelled.
The insult to the Liberals’ electoral backbone among Montreal anglophones and allophones is not the only odd thing about this cabinet. What was the point of making it so small ? It might be that a streamlined cabinet is needed to operate speedily, because the government is in a minority now.
But Charest didn’t say that. Maybe he could find no more capable MNAs from the regions. Maybe he wanted to boast of having half women and couldn’t find more than nine he considered ministrable. Did he even try to bring Pierre Paradis back ? Why has he loaded so many duties onto a few super-ministers ? Are there really so few people he can trust fully ?
Nor does it make sense that Nathalie Normandeau, so utterly ineffectual in dealing with Montreal’s problems as urban-affairs minister, should be retained in that post. She is also going to be minister for the regions, and for that reason Charest made her deputy premier. But if she’s going to be concentrating on rebuilding the Liberals from their disastrous third-place finish in the regions, why has she been left in charge of Montreal, as well ? Why is there no minister for the metropolis ? Why is a Liberal premier creating a unilingual deputy premier ? Because he takes Montreal for granted ?
One of the few unqualified good things about yesterday’s announcement is that Charest kept his promise to name a minister for seniors, Montreal MNA Marguerite Blais. This is a worthwhile initiative in an era when demographic change, in the shape of an aging population, is increasingly affecting so much of life.
But on balance, this cabinet doesn’t add up. The reduced margins and low turnout in safe Liberal seats seem to have sent Charest no message from the groups and region that have been his strongest supporters.
If this is the way Charest treats his friends, Mario Dumont is looking better all the time.
I'm sorry, but this is the lamest editorial the paper's printed in a long time! This is soooo Gazette! Us vs THEM. Then they wonder why anglos feel like outisders. Because we behave like outsiders!
UK Journalists Boycott Israel? Dumb dumb dumb
I've never been a fan of how Israel spins media coverage. If it's not to the liking of its elite, then it must be anti-semitic, anti-Israel and pro-arab.
Most serious journalists just shrug when confronted with such accusations. As in, we're not your cheerleaders, we're covering what's happening, not our fault if you don't always like it.
But UK journalists screwed-up big time by demanding the boycott of anything Israeli. This, in response to Israel's apparent lack of enthusiasm for securing the release of kidnapped BBC reporter Alan Johnson.
Sadly, such are the risks inherent to convering war zones. OK, there's no war in Gaza. But it's not exactly the most secure place in the world.
The problem with the Journalist's strategy, is that it flies in the face of what their role is about: We REPORT the story, we don't become part of it.
And while the union of UK journalists reminds its members to continue reporting with fairness and objectivity, the call to boycott suggests the opposite.
Who, in Israel, will want to cooperate with a press that's just outlined a boycott, no matter how symbolic? (Pass the Sufganiot, Pete. No, I'm on a Falafel diet today!)
All this will do is further question the objectivity of the media. It will also give ammos to Neo-conservatives who already despise the media for not giving Israel a systematic free ride in their coverage.
Most countries in the world are hostile to the press. Ever been to Russia or China lately? Ever try walking around with a press card in Columbia, Zimbabwe or Turkey lately without having to look over your shoulder?
That's the sad reality of our job. The powers-that-be hate our presence because we ask questions and report things that very often embarass world leaders. Of course they want us silenced and/or dead!
Let's expose the facts. And the thinking adults will make-up their minds.
Most serious journalists just shrug when confronted with such accusations. As in, we're not your cheerleaders, we're covering what's happening, not our fault if you don't always like it.
But UK journalists screwed-up big time by demanding the boycott of anything Israeli. This, in response to Israel's apparent lack of enthusiasm for securing the release of kidnapped BBC reporter Alan Johnson.
Sadly, such are the risks inherent to convering war zones. OK, there's no war in Gaza. But it's not exactly the most secure place in the world.
The problem with the Journalist's strategy, is that it flies in the face of what their role is about: We REPORT the story, we don't become part of it.
And while the union of UK journalists reminds its members to continue reporting with fairness and objectivity, the call to boycott suggests the opposite.
Who, in Israel, will want to cooperate with a press that's just outlined a boycott, no matter how symbolic? (Pass the Sufganiot, Pete. No, I'm on a Falafel diet today!)
All this will do is further question the objectivity of the media. It will also give ammos to Neo-conservatives who already despise the media for not giving Israel a systematic free ride in their coverage.
Most countries in the world are hostile to the press. Ever been to Russia or China lately? Ever try walking around with a press card in Columbia, Zimbabwe or Turkey lately without having to look over your shoulder?
That's the sad reality of our job. The powers-that-be hate our presence because we ask questions and report things that very often embarass world leaders. Of course they want us silenced and/or dead!
Let's expose the facts. And the thinking adults will make-up their minds.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Blackberry's Overblown Blues
I had a chuckle, watching news reporters at CTV doing stories about RIM's major breakdown of its Blackberry network. Here's a device few of us can afford, and even fewer of us can justify owning, Sure, it's cool. You TYPE your message instead of just phoning to leave a message.
Hell, I have one, and I'm still not sure if I need it. More often than not I lend it to my son. As in, yes, message me from school if you'll be late, because I know it's uncool to call your parents in front of your friends.
But some professionals can't seem to do without it: stockbrokers and politicians. If the network breaks down, yes, it's a major inconvenience. Like the coffee machine running dry. It's painful, but it's not, like, the end of the friggin world!!! So why such wall-to-wall coverage for an elitist gadget facing problems?
Then it got to me: those hot-shot national reporters, working out of Parliament Hill in Ottawa, can't breath, think or write without one. So here it is, this is the ONLY reason why it's front-page news and to-of-the-hour breaking news.
It reminds me of another selfish coverage, when news reporters in Ottawa began our collective whinny-ass outrage after Stephen Harper decided to restrict media access to the House of Commons and his own office, and began to pick and choose reporters he liked.
Yes, Harper acted irresponsibly, and helped fuel suspicions between himself and the press, which continues to harm him to this day.
I thought it was not a news-worthy issue. At least not in the way we played it out. The problems and daily headaches of the press corp SHOULD NOT BE NEWS. It's internal business.
But we journalists felt our outrage deserved a spot on the news. Wrong. Just like this Blackberry issue. I just saw Fife do his report on it, and he treats the subject as if a nuclear bomb had just destroyed all communications lines.
Come on. It's just one of the gadgets we use. Now, if all our batteries were to go dead at once...
Hell, I have one, and I'm still not sure if I need it. More often than not I lend it to my son. As in, yes, message me from school if you'll be late, because I know it's uncool to call your parents in front of your friends.
But some professionals can't seem to do without it: stockbrokers and politicians. If the network breaks down, yes, it's a major inconvenience. Like the coffee machine running dry. It's painful, but it's not, like, the end of the friggin world!!! So why such wall-to-wall coverage for an elitist gadget facing problems?
Then it got to me: those hot-shot national reporters, working out of Parliament Hill in Ottawa, can't breath, think or write without one. So here it is, this is the ONLY reason why it's front-page news and to-of-the-hour breaking news.
It reminds me of another selfish coverage, when news reporters in Ottawa began our collective whinny-ass outrage after Stephen Harper decided to restrict media access to the House of Commons and his own office, and began to pick and choose reporters he liked.
Yes, Harper acted irresponsibly, and helped fuel suspicions between himself and the press, which continues to harm him to this day.
I thought it was not a news-worthy issue. At least not in the way we played it out. The problems and daily headaches of the press corp SHOULD NOT BE NEWS. It's internal business.
But we journalists felt our outrage deserved a spot on the news. Wrong. Just like this Blackberry issue. I just saw Fife do his report on it, and he treats the subject as if a nuclear bomb had just destroyed all communications lines.
Come on. It's just one of the gadgets we use. Now, if all our batteries were to go dead at once...
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Mélange de Genres et Confusion du Lecteur
(English version below)
Je viens de lire La Presse de ce matin avec ses 9 PAGES sur la tragédie de Blacksburgh. Tout les éléments sont la: les faits brutes. la chronologie, l'analyse, les chroniques, les éditoriaux. Bravo. Sauf que voila. On ouvre le journal, avec un texte de l'ancienne éditorialiste Agnes Gruda. C'est strictement factuel, mais bon. C'a reste que c'est une analyste avant-tout. En page 3, la chronique de Marie-Claude Lortie. Intéressant. Puis en page 5, les chroniques de Michèle Ouimet et Pierre Foglia. Rien a redire, c'est de la bonne analyse. tout comme l'excellent éditorial de Mario Roy.
Alors qu'est-ce qui me dérange? Eh bien, pour la forme journalistique proprement dite, (le who, what, when, where, il faut attendre à la page 6.
Me semble que c'a devrait être le contraire, si je me fie à ce que j'ai appris dans mes cours de journalisme. On raconte. On explique, et ENSUITE on commente. Je constate que beaucoup, beaucoup de gens ne savent pas faire la différence entre un reportage des faits, puis la chronique et l'éditorial. Nous, on prend ça pour une évidence. Mais pas tout le monde. Est-ce qu'on peut ensuite blâmer les gens qui nous accusent de mélanger les opinions et les faits? C'est certain, on leur sert ce paté-chinois confus tout les matins. Normal que les gens se méfient de nous.
Les chroniques, les éditoriaux devraient être clairement séparé des pages de nouvelles. La photo n'est pas suffisante pour identifier une chronique. Il faut aller plus loin. Utiliser une police différente, et même une phrase de mise en garde: ceci est un COMMENTAIRE, et pas une nouvelle. Tant qu'on ne prendra pas cette habitude, on va continuer à mélanger les choses. C'est peut-être sans conséquence quand on parle d'une tragédie loin de chez nous. Mais la confusion prend une toute autre signification quand on parle politique.
In a nutshell, I just pointed out that in today's La Presse , the coverage of the Blacksburgh tragedy is excellent. The paper, however, devoted 6 columns, op-ed pieces and editorials on the subject. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that four of these columns were printed AHEAD of the normal news articles.
What it does is that it further confuses readers who don't know the difference between an opinion piece and a news article. Well-educated people don't see the difference, so imagine the 40 per-cent of barely litterates in this country. How can we blame people who accuse us of being partial and biased, if we stick opinion pieces between hard-news stories, which are normally free of slant?
La Presse is not an exception, most large-sheet papers do the same, in English. I think editors should be more explicit and clearly identify opinions, either by using a different font AND by warning readers that these are opinions, and not hard facts. I also think opinions should be kept to the back pages, just so people can get their facts FIRST, and THEN seek analysis later.
Believe me I love columns and opinions. Otherewise I wouldn't even buy newspapers. I just think they generally lead to confusion.
Je viens de lire La Presse de ce matin avec ses 9 PAGES sur la tragédie de Blacksburgh. Tout les éléments sont la: les faits brutes. la chronologie, l'analyse, les chroniques, les éditoriaux. Bravo. Sauf que voila. On ouvre le journal, avec un texte de l'ancienne éditorialiste Agnes Gruda. C'est strictement factuel, mais bon. C'a reste que c'est une analyste avant-tout. En page 3, la chronique de Marie-Claude Lortie. Intéressant. Puis en page 5, les chroniques de Michèle Ouimet et Pierre Foglia. Rien a redire, c'est de la bonne analyse. tout comme l'excellent éditorial de Mario Roy.
Alors qu'est-ce qui me dérange? Eh bien, pour la forme journalistique proprement dite, (le who, what, when, where, il faut attendre à la page 6.
Me semble que c'a devrait être le contraire, si je me fie à ce que j'ai appris dans mes cours de journalisme. On raconte. On explique, et ENSUITE on commente. Je constate que beaucoup, beaucoup de gens ne savent pas faire la différence entre un reportage des faits, puis la chronique et l'éditorial. Nous, on prend ça pour une évidence. Mais pas tout le monde. Est-ce qu'on peut ensuite blâmer les gens qui nous accusent de mélanger les opinions et les faits? C'est certain, on leur sert ce paté-chinois confus tout les matins. Normal que les gens se méfient de nous.
Les chroniques, les éditoriaux devraient être clairement séparé des pages de nouvelles. La photo n'est pas suffisante pour identifier une chronique. Il faut aller plus loin. Utiliser une police différente, et même une phrase de mise en garde: ceci est un COMMENTAIRE, et pas une nouvelle. Tant qu'on ne prendra pas cette habitude, on va continuer à mélanger les choses. C'est peut-être sans conséquence quand on parle d'une tragédie loin de chez nous. Mais la confusion prend une toute autre signification quand on parle politique.
In a nutshell, I just pointed out that in today's La Presse , the coverage of the Blacksburgh tragedy is excellent. The paper, however, devoted 6 columns, op-ed pieces and editorials on the subject. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that four of these columns were printed AHEAD of the normal news articles.
What it does is that it further confuses readers who don't know the difference between an opinion piece and a news article. Well-educated people don't see the difference, so imagine the 40 per-cent of barely litterates in this country. How can we blame people who accuse us of being partial and biased, if we stick opinion pieces between hard-news stories, which are normally free of slant?
La Presse is not an exception, most large-sheet papers do the same, in English. I think editors should be more explicit and clearly identify opinions, either by using a different font AND by warning readers that these are opinions, and not hard facts. I also think opinions should be kept to the back pages, just so people can get their facts FIRST, and THEN seek analysis later.
Believe me I love columns and opinions. Otherewise I wouldn't even buy newspapers. I just think they generally lead to confusion.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Zaccardelli's Legacy
I laughed-off my armchair tonight, watching poor Giuliano Zaccardelli claim that he never disciplined any whistle-blowers inside the RCMP. It provoked laughters from rank-and-file RCMP staffers at the back of the room. See the story. I hope he gets a taste of his own medicine and pays the price of betraying the integrity of Canada's longest-lasting symbol of pride.
But at this point, I'm starting to wonder if the RCMP shoudln't be dismanteled and rebuilt from the ground-up, just like the Sureté-du-Québec was forced to do a few years ago, as the only way to reclaim its legitimacy.
Zaccardelli is the perfect example of how Jean Chretien ran Ottawa: remember who put you there, and do as I say. End result: he controlled the RCMP just like Duplessis ran the Quebec Provincial Police. Zaccardelli should have stepped down the minute Chretien did. Instead, his dishonesty has cast a shadow on the entire force.
But at this point, I'm starting to wonder if the RCMP shoudln't be dismanteled and rebuilt from the ground-up, just like the Sureté-du-Québec was forced to do a few years ago, as the only way to reclaim its legitimacy.
Zaccardelli is the perfect example of how Jean Chretien ran Ottawa: remember who put you there, and do as I say. End result: he controlled the RCMP just like Duplessis ran the Quebec Provincial Police. Zaccardelli should have stepped down the minute Chretien did. Instead, his dishonesty has cast a shadow on the entire force.
Sad news from Virginia
I can't believe there's been another school shooting, this time in Virginia 33 dead so far! And I can remember how we all panicked in Montreal over the single-death at the Dawson College shooting last September.
My brother was inside the Polytechnique School He's still marked by it to this day! I wonder how college kids will now feel everytime they take their books and head to school.
In Quebec, the problem was narrowed-down to ethnicity, according to a Globe-and-Mail columnist. Jan Wong. I wonder if she'll blame Quebec Nationalists this time.
Of course, I bet the Gun Lobby is already preparing a statement to make sure no one ever questions the necessity of gun-control. After all, guns don't kill people, right?
Uh...wait.
Yes they do!
My brother was inside the Polytechnique School He's still marked by it to this day! I wonder how college kids will now feel everytime they take their books and head to school.
In Quebec, the problem was narrowed-down to ethnicity, according to a Globe-and-Mail columnist. Jan Wong. I wonder if she'll blame Quebec Nationalists this time.
Of course, I bet the Gun Lobby is already preparing a statement to make sure no one ever questions the necessity of gun-control. After all, guns don't kill people, right?
Uh...wait.
Yes they do!
The Angry Reporter part 2
Well, I was warned that blogging on journalism is a recipe for trouble and boy did I ever learn the hard way.
It began innocently last week when media groups were burning over a news story by CTV's Robert Fife. People in the military and their families were understandably angry over Fife's news report that two more soldiers had died.
It was not a scoop, just a statement of facts. Fife didn't mention any names, as is standard procedure when the next of kin has yet to be notified. But people still took offense that Fife reported the news before he had clearance from the Army.
Of course, this is Canada, not North Korea. The press doesn't pay lip-service to the army or the government that easily. I made the mistake of voicing my opinion on some blogs. Unbeknown to me, I was drawn into the the Neo-Con sub-culture. Before long, I was accused of being part of some anti-zionist conspiracy! Whew! I'm back discussing more mundane subjects. Back shortly.
It began innocently last week when media groups were burning over a news story by CTV's Robert Fife. People in the military and their families were understandably angry over Fife's news report that two more soldiers had died.
It was not a scoop, just a statement of facts. Fife didn't mention any names, as is standard procedure when the next of kin has yet to be notified. But people still took offense that Fife reported the news before he had clearance from the Army.
Of course, this is Canada, not North Korea. The press doesn't pay lip-service to the army or the government that easily. I made the mistake of voicing my opinion on some blogs. Unbeknown to me, I was drawn into the the Neo-Con sub-culture. Before long, I was accused of being part of some anti-zionist conspiracy! Whew! I'm back discussing more mundane subjects. Back shortly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)