Something Up With Which I Will Not Put

L. Ian McDonald trashed the Prime Minister today regarding Chretien's remarks before the UN and in various other venues. Chretien said, in reference to 9-11, that poverty in the rest of the world breeds contempt for the richer nations. McDonald and other critics have been blasting him for this, claiming that he's blaming the victims.

What these critics are overlooking is the fact that Chretien is right. Granted, Bin Laden and many members of his organization and others like it are at least comfortable, if not wealthy. But it's not that simple. I've heard reports that while Palestinians in the West Bank have to ration their water, their Jewish neighbors in the Israeli settlements are obliviously washing their cars, filling their swimming pools and watering their lawns. The average Palestinian is not Bin Laden-wealthy, and aside from having to live in poverty, suffers the indignity of watching the neighbors live high on the hog (kosher restrictions notwithstanding). To make matters worse, Israel is consistently portrayed better than Palestine in the Western media. No wonder extremist factions thrive!

My almost-five-year-old son, Colin, has a habit of not listening to my husband and me. Very frequently, we find ourselves screaming at him. Then he gets upset because we're yelling. The point is, if he listened the first time (or the second or third, for that matter), we wouldn't have to resort to screaming. Perhaps if more efforts were made to understand the situation in the Chretien context, fewer counter-efforts would be required.

And what's the deal with Alexa McDonough and her handy blue box? Are we supposed to think that she was actually inspired by the speech to pop into a nearby office and grab a conveniently empty recycling box?

I thought the NDP were above such theatrics. While the point may be valid, I for one was completely unimpressed with McDonough's use of props. Does she think that we need a visual aid to understand her point? The fact that just about every non-Liberal MP and most pundits used "recycled" as the key word to describe the Throne Speech just made her seem all the more small-time when she held up her plastic pal for the cameras. No one else felt it necessary to provide a physical manifestation of their point.

He's done it again
So, L. Ian MacDonald has managed to get me riled again. In today's Gazette, he claims that only in Canada would the non-renewal of the contract between a sportscaster (namely, Ron MacLean) and a network (i.e., the CBC) get front-page coverage in both national newspapers, taking precedence over the Throne Speech. As a comparison, he questions whether U.S. president GWB's State of the Union address would have been overshadowed by a similar falling out between some guy I've never heard of and FOX.

But, I ask you, what if the American counterparts were Bob Costas and NBC? I suspect that Americans are as blase about their politicians as we are about ours. Not to mention that, as MacDonald himself points out (as did many others a day earlier), the Throne Speech was not exactly the Magna Carta, given that there's not much new or radical or particularly explosive in what Chretien has laid out as his "legacy" plan.

Hmph.

The Gazette columnist who wins the coveted "Got Maggie All Riled Up" award for Saturday, October 5th, is Jack Todd.

Now, granted, I have never been a Todd fan, from his days as a bombastic "city" commentator through to his new-ish role as a purportedly intellectual sports pundit, but for the most part I just take the "don't read his column, don't get ticked" approach.

Today his column, headlined "TV host, agent offside", dealt with the recent firing/rehiring of Ron MacLean by the CBC. So I couldn't help myself. On the other hand, by the time I got the bottom of the first column of text I was frustrated enough to give up, and I have not read the conclusion on C2.

His point seems to be that MacLean shouldn't be represented by agent Don Meehan, who also represents several hockey players. He questions MacLean's journalistic integrity, suggesting that MacLean would never say a bad word about a fellow-reprentee, and that even if he did, "wouldn't you wonder if he's doing it not because that's what he thinks, but because he is trying to prove that he's not influenced by his relationship with Meehan?"

Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't. Personally, I would trust MacLean further than I could throw Todd.

The part that really rubbed me the wrong way, however, was Todd's inaccurate and inflammatory reference to MacLean as "the leading greedhead in the world of Canadian sportscasting," and to the CBC "bow[ing] to his ourageous demands."

First of all, given that his co-host on Coach's Corner, everybody's favorite throwback Don Cherry, makes over $700,000 a year as a reward for being the only man on the planet still willing to wear those collars and for making the whole PC movement appear fruitless, I think it's a little unfair to call MacLean the "leading greedhead" for asking for $600,000, from $400,000 last year. Secondly, the CBC did not cave, they repeated their original offer of $450,000, and the ubiquitous agent Meehan accepted.

Well, it's my own fault. I could have read the headline and said to myself, "this is going to be an exercise in frustration, perhaps best to avoid it." I just hope I remember that next time!

Today's topic is "Every one else is an idiot behind the wheel."

I believe it was George Carlin who observed that every driver believes s-he is doing fine. Anyone who drives faster than me is a maniac, and anyone who drives slower is an idiot.

Well, there are several reasons that I think all the other drivers on local highways should have their licenses revoked. Some of them should just be shot.

1. Driving hazards
Perhaps because all cars are now equipped with daytime running lights, drivers seem to think there's no need for them to ever turn on their lights during the day. Which means that in the middle of a torrential downpour, every car is invisible. Oh, sure, you can see the cars coming in the opposite direction, across the median. But cars in the same direction are totally obscured by rain, spray and darkness.

People, the daytime running lights only apply to the headlights! From behind, no light. When driving on a highway at high speed (and it is still high, even when 'reduced' to accommodate the weather) it is extremely important the the driver behind you knows you're there. So turn on the lights when the rain starts. Hmph.

2. Tailgaters
Once again, this one's related to the speed at which we're all zipping along. When there are only two cars on the road, I can appreciate the frustration evoked by the other car slowing you down needlessly (see point 3). However, when there are many, many other cars, in front and beside, calm down. The person directly in front of you is not responsible for the slower traffic, and all you accomplish by driving into their trunk is to freak out the driver. When there are loads of other cars in both lanes, where is that person supposed to go, anyway?

The lights-in-rain thing is a matter of ignorance, perhaps, but tailgating is not only dangerous, but also damned arrogant. What makes you think that you're so much more important that your fellow drivers? Do you really have the right to aggressively force people to move out of your way? Frankly, it's overaggressive drivers that make others slow down, so chances are the reason things are slow in the first place is at least partially the result of idiots who tailgate.

3. Oblivious Hat Wearers
The other side of the speed demon coin is the slowpoke. Okay, fine, drive below the limit. It's your right, and you are obviously not breaking any laws. But for cripe's sake, get the heck outta the fast lane! If you're driving 110 kmph along the highway, you are not 'fast.' Let's face it, the tacitly accepted limit is 120 - so 110 may make you faster than the tractor and hay wagon, but you're setting yourself up for tailgating if you mosey over into the fast lane for no apparent reason.

Which brings me to...

4. The Blind
I like to consider myself open-minded, but blind people should not drive, political correctness be damned.

I have to assume these people are blind, otherwise, why the *&$%# are they switching lanes when I'm already occupying the lane into which they're moving? Particularly when there's no one for miles behind me, and they could easily wait a second until I've passed them. Grumble. Snark. Grr.

My first traffic rant was essentially oriented toward highway driving; today, I want to address the particular phenomena of rush hour traffic. I have no idea if these occur elsewhere, but in Montreal, these are ubiquitous, kind of like The Second Cup.

1. The Colour-blind
In my original rant, I chastised the blind (or assumed to be) for switching lanes without checking to make sure some one (in particular, me) was not already in the destination lane.

Now, driving in and around downtown Montreal during rush hour, lane slalom is really more of a sport, and I can overlook it. However, drivers who cannot differentiate between red and green traffic lights are a hazard to themselves and others.

Here's a hint: if the light at the top is lit, it's red, and you should stop. Also, it's generally recommended that you obey the lights facing you, not those off to the side, which are more likely regulating the flow of traffic from another direction.

2. Side-liners
These are the people (for lack of a better term) who for some reason believe that the "extra" lane, the one just off to the side of the highway, beyond the solid yellow line, is God's gift to them, personally. The rest of us recognize this lane as the emergency vehicle lane. I mean, let's face it - if God cared about traffic, don't you think he'd inflict some kind of poetic justice on idiots who decide they're as important as, say, an ambulance?

3. Grid-lockers
There are a couple of places along the route to the industrial section of the West Island where all it takes is a couple of people (there's that word again) to completely tie up traffic.

What happens is, there's a four-way intersection governed by traffic lights (see above). If every one pays attention, then traffic can move relatively smoothly. But then one jerk decides to drive into the intersection, since the light is green, regardless of the fact that cars are backed up into the intersection. So our jerk ends up parking in the intersection, and has nowhere to go when the light turns.

Naturally, the people (!) behind this jerk have advanced as much as possible, so reversing is not an option. Meanwhile, the light at the next intersection hasn't turned (or the scenario is being played out there, too), so the cars in front of the jerk can't move forward. As a result, people coming to the intersection perpendicular to the jerk cannot move forward, despite the green light. This is why people in California carry guns.

Okay, I'm feeling better now. So, anyone else have traffic or pedestrian beefs?

I got immense Satisfaction last night at the Stones concert. Of course, every concert I attend invokes the fantasy that some one on stage (in this case, Jagger) will look up into the stands, see me, and stop everything until I agree to come up on stage to sing and dance with him. Alas, this fantasy continues to be unfulfilled.

I sent the following as e-mail to CHOM this morning - Terry quoted me extensively, so at least my radio fantasy is partially fulfilled:

I just wanted to address the idea that the Stones are “old” or “past their prime” – this is not some pathetic come-back group playing to a half-filled house at Café campus. This is a vibrant, energetic group that still has what it takes to sell out the Bell Centre. The Stones are still writing, and God knows they're still selling.

I think that the idea that they (and The Who, McCartney, and so on) are “old” is based on the idea that rockers are supposed to be angry young men from nowhere – but isn’t that because when rock really made it as a genre, that’s what the Stones et al were?

These guys started it – rock has only been with us since the ‘50s. It’s taken us 40 years to reach a point where there can be “old” rock stars. The Stones and their “contemporaries” from the 60s and 70s are still around because they have the talent, the perseverance and the following to keep going. They set the precedent 40 years ago, and they're still breaking new ground, if only by being as old as my Dad and still kicking butt.

If they can still fill every seat in the arena, then I say more power to them! I could go on and on (for example, did people tell the elderly Picasso to stop painting, dammit, he was too old?) but for now I’ll stop there.

I've never really been passionate about the whole 'one island, one city' debate. My life as a Montrealer and a Verdunite has not changed significantly since the infamous merger. It likely would not change if the newly-elected Liberals make good on their almost-promise to inflict demergers on us.

However, double dealing gets my goat (and my tax dollars). Apparently, Montreal mayor Gerald Tremblay and his executive are now mulling over the idea of extending taxation powers to the boroughs (which is what we're now calling the former municipalities).

As I said, this issue has never been a hot one for me - but I do vaguely remember that one of the pro-merger arguments was that the island residents would be taxed on a more or less standard, proportionate, universal rate. Extending the perogative of taxation to the boroughs effectively destroys that argument - so we're left with the same old disproportionate taxes, but without municipal muscle to back it up. Dollard-des-Ormeaux will be able to fix its potholes and so on, but will still be a little borough in a big city.

As a Quebecer, I'm naturally gunshy when it comes to referenda, but in the municipal merger case, I've always held that the problem is lack of public consultation. Pro- and anti-merger factions should be compelled to make their argument to the people who actually live on this island, and those arguments should include dollars and cents - just how much have we spent on mergers? What would it cost to implement demergers? What are the real, quantifiable benefits of 'one island, one city?' Give us some input, some facts, and some power beyond voting for 'anyone but Bourque.'

Also in today's paper: rich people say "money does, in fact, buy happiness. Also, nya na na na na."

I am not planning to venture downtown today.

Yesterday, the first day of the WTO meeting at the Sheraton Centre, was pretty scary, not to mention stupid. Thousands of protestors descended on our downtown core to let the WTO know they're against globalization. The protest very quickly became violent, and The Gap, Burger King and the Canadian Forces recruitment centre were left with smashed windows and, no doubt, terrified employees.

Several protestors and protest organizers defended their actions. One said that the three main targets were "legitimate" marks because they "represent the type of global capitalism perpetrated by the WTO." Another said that the WTO stands in the way of generic AIDS medication getting to Africa, "so millions face death. That's much more violent than a couple of broken windows."

One prostestor said that the 200+ arrests made were "obvious overkill."

I don't think so. In fact, given the violence and obvious disregard for the safety and mental wellbeing of innocent bystanders, I think the protestors are lucky that only 230 or so of them were arrested, and will no doubt be released today, if they haven't been already. They're lucky they chose to inflict their reckless vandalism on a city that won't lock them away forever, torture them, target their families for the crime of being related to a terrorist, bulldoze their houses, or simply shoot them on the spot.

How does "more violent than a couple of broken windows" justify the broken windows? Where is that invisible line that determines just how violent you can be?

I was listening to the radio yesterday morning, and fuming at the conservative, right-wing morning man's rant about the WTO protests - what a bunch of unemployed, uninformed, idiots with nothing better to do. Get a haircut and get a real job. If you want to change the system, get into the system. And so on. I was >thisclose< to firing off an e-mail in response (something along the lines of peaceful protest being one form of working within the system) when the station's reporter on the scene came on, half-terrified, to say that the Burger King windows were gone.

In one fell swoop of a garbage can, the protestors destroyed a window and any sympathy I might have had for their cause.

You cannot credible protest violence with violence, regardless of some delusional scale of relative violence. You cannot claim to be fighting for human rights when you recklessly endanger humans who are doing nothing more sinister than wrapping a burger. You cannot expect anyone to sympathize with your cause when you randomly vandalize some guy's car just because it's a Porsche.

Some of the people involved actually had intelligent points. One woman said she was protesting because "democracy is where you give your opinion and constructive criticism... there's a lot of potential for fair trade - and consumer consciousness is growing." Another explained her beef with the WTO is that they don't appear to be addressing the issue of world hunger because "hungry people work cheap and hard. Hunger is good for the stock market."

Constructive criticism? Okay. Destructive violence? No thanks. If you want to tell the world about the downsides to world trade, fine. If you want to smash windows and scare the crap out of the people working cheap at the Gap, just get the heck out of my town.

Okay.

Iraq: reputedly mad dictator, government corruption, rumours of government-sponsored human rights abuses, rumours of terrorist networks, oil.

Liberia: obviously mad dictator, textbook government corruption, people beaten and shot in front of international cameras, no oil.

US position on Iraq: get in there and get rid of that madman before he makes trouble. Even if we're not really sure he will make trouble. We're pretty sure he'll make trouble. Certainly we'll tell everybody that we know he'll make trouble. Bottom line - get in there and don't come out til everything is under (our) control.

US position on Liberia: Weeeeeelllllll, we're not going in until all this shooting people stuff stops. And some one will have to do something about Taylor before we even consider stepping off the boats. And if we do come in, we're only staying for a minute - and we're not all coming. We're really kind of tied up... we'll see. Consider this a definite maybe. But give our love to the UN.

Major difference (aside from the oil, which various people claim is not a factor): The rest of the world tried to get the US to slow down on Iraq. The UN tried to get the US to reconsider on Iraq. The citizens of Iraq, by and large, were not standing in front of news cameras begging the US to come save them.
In Liberia, people are carrying placards imploring 'Uncle Sam' to hurry the heck up. The UN is dropping not-so-subtle hints that they could really use some help, if anyone's looking for something to do. The international community is actually asking the US to get involved.

I'm sure there are myriad levels of political incentives and rationales for the US global strategy, and it's just me that doesn't understand. But I can't help thinking of my three-year-old son and what we call "the Yes/No game."

At least we're pretty sure our son will grow out of it.

Bush, who is heavily backed by conservative religious groups, suggested he wants to take the United States in the opposite direction of Canada, where federal legislation endorsing same-sex unions could become law within months.

While Bush said people must "respect each individual" and "welcome those with good hearts," that "does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on the issue of marriage."

The US government, while condemning foreign governments for ruling with, through or by religion, is ignoring its own constitution. By denying same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexuals, the US is at once violating the fundamental rights of gay couples, and literally defining marriage according to Christian laws, not secular laws. If you consider marriage secularly, it has nothing to do with procreation, and more to do with taxation, legal responsibility, and social acceptance.

The US - which, granted, has to deal with a whole lot of Bible Belt right-wing fanatacism - is supposedly governing without the influence of the Church. However, the US President is openly discussing the issue of same-sex marriage in terms of his personal beliefs. Meanwhile, our Canadian Prime Minister-in-waiting, Paul Martin, is telling reporters that although he is a Catholic, his responsibilities as an elected representative come first.

Last night at the supper table, my son was asking Dr. T about his impending trip to Malaysia. It seems Colin has heard that in Malaysia, boys can't kiss boys. Sign of the times - my son thinks this outrageous cultural standard is hysterically funny, and is currently struggling with the notion that people can tell other people who they can or cannot kiss...

God help me, I'm raising a bleeding heart liberal.

So the US has sent seven marines into Liberia, bringing the total number of US military personnel there somewhere between 70 and 100. In an analysis piece I cannot for the life of me track down online, Barry Schweid (AP) writes "Bush and his politically conservative supporters came to power determined not to be drawn into what they called nation building."

As Noah Leavitt points out, the US has a certain obligation to Liberia, given that the nation was the sanctioned destination for freed American slaves, and that since the 19th century, the US has been financially supporting the Liberian government (or at least promising that the cheque is in the mail).

Many of those who are opposed to US intervention in Liberia are citing Clinton's Somali disaster as precedent. But, at the risk of repeating myself, it seems to me there is a more recent precedent in Iraq. The background is eerily familiar - current Liberian president Charles Taylor was educated in the US, his predecessor was trained by the CIA. Funding and political support from the US has been strongly influenced by Liberia's relations with Cold War baddies.

Of course there are fundamental differences - in the case of Liberia, for instance, the US has ignored trade sanctions imposed by the UN to counter "diamonds [used to fund terrorism], illegal arms sales, massive refugee flows, the use of child soldiers and unspeakable human rights abuses." Oh, and the diamonds? According to Leavitt, money from the Liberian diamond trade has been used to fund Al Qaeda, among others. So unlike Iraq, there are actual ties to those responsible for 9/11.

And of course there's the one fundamental difference - in Liberia, US intervention is supported, requested and expected from the nation's citizens, the UN, and all those pesky Europeans who refused to get behind the coalition.

Oh well, at least the US can't get pissed at us for not sending anyone this time.

Interesting op-ed piece in the L.A. Times from Robert McNamara, who served as secretary of defense under JFK and LBJ. In the piece, McNamara admits that as SoD he was responsible for some pretty gruesome activities in Vietnam, including Agent Orange. His point is that the US should participate without reserve in the International Criminal Court and should operate under an international set of rules of war.

Chances are, of course, that McNamara's voice will go ignored. The US has resisted participation in the ICC because it fears not only that American soldiers be under scrutiny and vulnerable to indictment, but also that "the court might prosecute the president or other civilian or military leaders." In other words, US presidents would be afraid to order "legitimate but controversial uses of force to protect world peace."

McNamara, who obviously believes that he personally could well be prosecuted, nonetheless advocates American participation, because he also believes "that the human race desperately needs an agreed-upon system of jurisprudence that tells us what conduct by political and military leaders is right and what is wrong."

According to McNamara, the Bush league is concerned that the US administration, from top to bottom, could find itself hopelessly mired in "frivolous or unfair" ICC cases. McNamara points out, however, that it is possible for the US to get on board and then negotiate protection against such cases - which is apparently what Clinton had in mind when he signed the ICC treaty on Dec. 31, 2000.

Canada's participation in the ICC, beginning with the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, is perhaps one more reason the US perception (when there is one) of Canada is less than generous. Militarily, Canada is an international, if underfunded and disregarded, player. We participate in UN-backed coalitions, for instance. And, if our cooperation with the ICC is any indication, we're willing to subscribe to and live by an agreed-upon [international] system of jurisprudence.

But what do we know? We're just a bunch of pot-smoking fag hags, right?

Douglas Farrow, a professor of Christian Thought at McGill, states in today's Gazette that marriage "is about children and what's best for children." He continues: "the hidden premise of so-called gay marriages... is that children are a secondary issue at best." (my italics)

I have already submitted my letter to the editor, but there's plenty of rant to go around.

If marriage is about children, what happens to childless heterosexual couples in Farrow's world? Do their marriages automatically dissolve after a prescribed amount of time without offspring? Despite Farrow's definition of marriage, hetero couples do get married for reasons beyond procreation; in fact, many straight couples deliberately opt out of parenthood. There are also plenty of frustrated couples who cannot, for one reason or another, have children - does Farrow propose to compound their unhappiness by telling them they shouldn't be married?

As for gay marriages and children, it seems to me that gay parents have a better motivation to marry for the sake of their children. Children of straight couples are related biologically to their parents, and therefore require no legal definition of parenthood, family or marriage to protect their interests. Children of gay parents, on the other hand, cannot be biologically related to both parents. What happens if disaster strikes - the biological parent dies or disappears, leaving the other, nonbiological parent with potentially horrible legal battles to maintain the relationship with the child.
I'm not sure what Farrow believes is the "hidden premise" of gay marriage - apparently it's hidden from him as well - but surely there are plenty of gay couples who's prime incentive for marriage is to provide a safe, stable, socially recognized family unit for their children.

It's disappointing to read statements like these from a professor of Christian Thought. One would hope that some one with that level of education, not to mention "Christianity," would (a) be more tolerant and accepting, and (b) at least be able to present a rational argument, rather than resorting to the language of intolerance. For instance, he makes sarcastic comments about the intellectual capacity of Martin Cauchon, to whom her refers as our "minister of justification." A few more examples from Farrow's article:

- "the word 'fishers' [was created] so as not to offend that largely fictional character, the lady fisherman"
- "the grand farce that is being played out in place of a marriage debate"
- "the great drama of gay rights"
- "the innocuous-sounding Act Respecting Marriage"

I have said before that the debate on marriage, gay or straight, should be considered outside the realm of religion. Churches, sects, congregations, and so on should have the right to choose not to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. But they should stay out of the legal debate - that's what the separation of Church and State is all about.

Private Jessica Lynch, now honorably discharged for medical reasons, has signed a book deal. For one million dollars, she will tell us all about growing up in America - for this, it seems, is the premise of the book, not her Iraqi adventures.

The book is to be titled I am a Soldier, Too.

Is that in the sense of "I may be a photogenic blonde willing to compromise the truth for a photo op and a good story, but I'm a soldier, too?"

Apparently, she's not a writer, too - the book will be co-written with Rick Bragg. Bragg is the Pulitzer-winning journalist who resigned from the NY Times last spring "after the newspaper suspended him over a story that carried his byline but was reported largely by a freelancer."

None of the articles I've seen disclose who will be on the committee to review the book for conformity to the official version of events.

Sharon's right-hand man, Ehud Olmert, says that killing Arafat is definitely an option. This follows Israel's threat to force Arafat into exile. It also follows widespread demonstrations, in reaction to the exile idea, from Palestinians and others in support of Arafat.

Prior to the initial threat of exile, many Palestinians would have been nonchalant about the voluntary resignation of Arafat, and would likely have rallied behind a new leader in the hopes of finally resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. 'Let's get back to the so-called road map' was the prevailing sentiment.

Not surprisingly, at the first hint of an imposed exile, Arafat is newly popular, a beloved leader that Palestinians are 100% behind.

Imagine what their reaction would be if Israel makes good on the assasination threat.

First of all, removing Arafat is a useless gesture that will only serve to ascerbate the situation and create a martyr around whom the anti-Israeli movement can rally. In the introduction to her newest edition of The Demon Lover, Robin Morgan makes the point that removing the leader from a terrorist organization will no more end terrorism that would Bill Gates' having a heart attack end capitalism - nor, as a friend commented, would it end Microsoft.

Secondly, many would argue that the only difference between Arafat and the hawkish Sharon is international recognition - and that the only difference between the Palestinian war effort and that of Israel is tanks and uniforms. Can the Palestinians reply that sure, they'll dump Arafat, provided the Knesset ousts Sharon? We'll depose our leader if you depose yours? How can the Israelis legitimately call for a clean slate on one side without putting forth some of their own representatives who are a little more flexible and a lot less retaliatory?

It all makes me wonder if the Israeli leaders are even remotely interested in the famous road map. Maybe what they're really looking for is an excuse to eradicate the problem - if we can provoke a big enough Palestinian revolt, we'll have no choice but to go in there, guns blazing, and just get rid of the problem once and for all. After all, if there are no Palestinians, there can be no Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Just what is the point?

Yesterday I got the distinct impression that one of my colleagues was having a bad day - my naturally keen senses picked up on the subtle signs, which included slamming doors and saying things like "I'm fed up."

So, in an effort to make this person's morning a little brighter, I took a few minutes at the end of the work day to take care of a couple of little things that otherwise would have been up to this person. I figured that at least today would have a slightly brighter start than yesterday.

Reaction? Nothing. Nada. No thank yous, no sighs of relief, zilch. In fact, I got the feeling that this person was not entirely impressed with the way in which I did these little things - all of which are things I've done before, the same way, to rounds of applause and gushing gratitude.

End result: now both of us are grumbly. Hmph.

Of course, the moral of the story is f--- the rest of the world, they don't appreciate you anyway.

Grumble.

Canada has bid a farewell, fond or otherwise, to Jean Chretien, after more than a decade at the helm. His successor, Paul Martin, is currently experiencing the pendulum swing of media favour. During the federal election campaign in 2000, rumours were rife that Chretien was planning to retire practically as soon as he was sworn in - and that Martin was the presumed heir to the Liberal throne. In other words, a vote for Chretien was a vote for Martin - and the votes were cast.

Now, however, there seems to be a growing sentiment of "well, we didn't vote for you, buddy." Particularly in light of the most recent little oopsie: in February 2003, the government reported that it had paid about $137,000 to a shipping company owned by Paul Martin. The numbers, as it turns out, were a little off.

By a factor of 1,175.

New figures released this month show that in fact, the government gave the shipping company contracts worth $161 million.

Martin's response? He said he knew immediately upon hearing it that the $137,000 figure was wrong.

"I was appalled when I saw what the original answer had been," he said.

So, about a year ago, he saw the number, knew it had to be wrong, and didn't say a word???

Well, I didn't vote for you, buddy.

Meanwhile, away down south, Senator John McCain is putting the blame for Iraq on - wait for it - Bill Clinton. According to McCain, it was Clinton who was snowed by faulty intelligence, and since Clinton signed the Iraqi Regime Change Act in 1998, the Bush league cannot be held accountable.

That's right - the Democrats did it.

In the last two days, I have received five email offers to order Tylenol 3 with codeine online. One of these messages says, "why suffer the embarrassment of asking your local doctor?"

Am I missing something? Why would I be embarrassed to ask my personal doctor for Tylenol? The only reason I can come up with is excessive use - which leads me to ask:

Are these people crazy??

For all intents and purposes, they are blatantly promoting unsafe drug use. Now, it's one thing for Americans to do their crossborder drug shopping on-line - that's a case of availability, cost and health insurance. But to actively solicit, with the not-so-subtle implication that this is a recreational drug, is beyond the pale.

Frankly, the whole thing - the message, coupled with the inundation - is giving me a headache...

Now that's a marketing strategy.

I'm tired of winter.

The fluffy white snow, the glistening icicles, the lightly dusted fir trees - it's all getting a little old.

I took my car through a car wash yesterday morning - of course, then I spent an hour and a half on the autoroute cursing every truck or car that splashed salty, muddy, dirty slush all over my beautiful, shiny, waxed car. Sigh. It was clean for approximately two minutes.

This morning, I awoke to a blizzard. Lots of big, fluffy flakes, which are awe-inspiring when you can lie in the snow, looking up into a night sky - it's like the starscape screensaver, but real. On the other hand, when it's morning, and you have to get the stuff off your car before driving along half-heartedly plowed roads riddled with potholes, it's more augh-inspiring.

So, yes, it's official - winter can end anytime now. I'm ready to move on. The novelty has worn off. Let's see some daffodils and robins, please.

I occasionally wonder if advertisers are secretly conspiring against their own clients. Maybe these ad firms are really a consortium of anti-consumer granola types whose real mission is to make potential consumers associate negative thoughts and feelings with the hapless producers.

For instance...

Bell Mobility has completely turned me off not only their cellular phone service, but also Stephen Hawking. The recent radio ad campaign features three different versions of the CG voice - one female and two male - engaged in various discussions, arguments, and even romantic banter.

Similarly, Ikea insists on continuing its radio ads featuring a really, really poor facsimile of what I assume someone thinks is a Swedish accent, delivered in a monotone. This particular campaign has been assaulting listeners long enough that Ikea has received complaints - their response to which was to air ads with the same voice, saying things like "some people think my voice is annoying" and then trying out different bad accents, such as Jamaican.

Oh, and thanks to the radio ads for Pharmacie Jean Coutu, Mozart's Eine Klein Nachtmusik is forever ruined. "You, and you, should go to Jean Coutu." Yeesh.

And last but not least, it may have been a long, lonely, lonely, lonely, lonely, lonely time since I rock and rolled, but I'm still too young for an Oldsmobile, thank you very much.

It has been, I’m afraid, one of those days. In fact, it has been so one-of-those-days-ish that I am reluctant to blog about it, lest I jinx the apparent calm of the end of one of those days. I would not be at all surprised were the laptop to burst into flames, for instance.

The morning started with the usual panic involved in getting the boys out the door and to the bus – despite the fact that I tried to explain to all involved that this morning, of all mornings, I needed to concentrate on getting me ready, because I had a meeting at 9:15, followed by substitute teaching at 10, followed by a presentation to another class at noon.

Despite the panic, I managed to get myself out the door and into the car – which was parked around the corner, since there’s no parking on our street on Monday mornings – by 8:45, leaving myself loads of time to travel to school.

Except the car wouldn’t start.

I have come to the conclusion that I make a lousy supermom.

I'm in the midst of a full-on panic right now. I have a full-time teaching load, which means teaching three courses, with just over 100 students, 75 of whom handed in essays this week, which I have promised to return next week.

I am also working on accumulating sources for my next literature review, which in turn sets me up for the first couple of chapters of my research paper for my M.Ed.

And then there's the distance learning course I'm developing.

Oh, and I seem to have accidentally been targeted as the next chairperson for the Governing Board of the boys' school.

The distance learning course is the one that is really freaking me out at the moment. I signed on for this course almost a year ago - after a few months of cajoling from the project manager - and at the time it seemed like a perfect opportunity. The proposed schedule looked like it dovetailed nicely with my teaching at Vanier, particularly since, at the time, I wasn't sure what my workload would be for the winter semester. As it turned out, I had a full-time load last winter, albeit at the last minute, but it didn't matter since the distance learning people met delay after delay, and I didn't have much work to do. I did a little (really little) bit over the summer, but there was not much demand at all for my time.

At my first meeting with them after the summer, I was introduced to my new project manager. It seems that one person had left the company, so everyone was shifting around, and my new PM was completely new, to the company as well as the project. This meant more delays, which means that now - just as I'm getting into week six of my semester at my actual job - this PM is expecting me to spend, in her words, "two full days, on average," every week, on the distance learning course.

I sent her a letter today, with a copy for my former PM, who is now her supervisor, explaining that I was more than a little concerned with the new schedule (and the pressure from the new PM), given that the delays were not mine, and that the revised schedule still expected delivery before next summer, which means no more dovetailing with my full-time teaching schedule.

I'm not sure what to expect from this - my guess is that there will be some attempt to negotiate a mutually agreeable timetable. I'm a little worried that I'll cave - I really do want to do this course, and I have already invested a lot of time and thought - but I have no time left. There's also the issue of the money. This is a nice contract, which essentially pays for the upstairs bathroom renovation. But, as I said to a friend yesterday, having a beautiful new bathroom is pointless if I've worked myself to death before it's finished.

OK, back to the essays.

It seems that the only thing spreading faster than H1N1 - a.k.a. the Swine(less) Flu - is hysteria.

I blame the government, for once, as opposed to the media. The media, it seems to me, has done its level best to deal with the onslaught of 'updates' issued on a regular basis from Health Canada, the WHO, and, here in Quebec, the Ministry (whose web site it, it must be conceded, very useful and informative).

While the government has issued several statements regarding the relative mildness of this strain of flu, they have responded to the initial global panic, which started in late spring (remember? That was when anyone who had been to Mexico for Spring Break was shunned and people started wearing face masks on planes), by rushing to release the H1N1 vaccine in vast quantities.

This is where the story becomes the stuff of disaster movies. The release of the vaccine is a complete fiasco. Initially, the public was told that there was a strict priority list - but then any public official who spoke on the subject assured us that no one would be turned away from a vaccination centre, even if they were not pregnant, chronically ill, or otherwise immuno-compromised. As a result, everyone showed up on Day One, those who should have been top priority were turned away, on-hand supplies of the vaccine were depleted in record time, and people kept tripping over the headless chickens.

So now the public officials are saying that the priority list is being strictly enforced, so anyone who's not 'high risk' should stay away from the vaccination centres.

The problem, however, is with the vaccination centres themselves. Whose bright idea was this anyway?

Here's what should be done: the vaccine should be given to all school children in school, the way the Hepatitis and Gardasil shots are distributed. Boom - all the school age kids whose parents want their kids vaccinated are done. The same could be done at all Cegeps and universities - at least once every semester, the same campuses host Hema-Quebec (the provincial equivalent of the Red Cross) for the blood drive, so surely an on-campus vaccination centre is feasible. In the same vein (ha ha), vaccination centres could be set up on-site at any business with, say, more than 500 employees.

On-site centres, like the blood drive model, could be set up quickly, run for one day, and the be dismantled and sent on to the next site. We could hire nursing and med students (and give them a chance to practice with needles and crowd control) to staff the travelling centres.

If we set up this kind of distribution plan, we would have a significant segment of the population vaccinated within two weeks, rather than two months. The remaining members of the population could easily be vaccinated at smaller, local centres, like our several CLSC walk-in clinics.

I have two kids - one of them is high-risk, because he has asthma and a number of allergies. The other one is home from school for the second day because he has the flu!

There is no way that I am going to venture into the three-ring vaccination circus at this point. My younger son will either get the flu from his brother, or not. At the first sign of respiratory distress, I'll bring him to the emergency room. It seems to me that the overcrowded ER, and the long wait we'll no doubt have to endure, will be a walk in the park compared to the vaccination centres - not to mention that despite his "high-risk" designation, my son is not eligible for the vaccination for another ten days. Too bad he's not a hockey player in Calgary.

The fact is - as the media, to their credit, have been trying to tell us - H1N1 is a flu, and like most strains, is mostly harmless. Yes, there have been deaths, but there have been far fewer than with more common strains of the flu - yet the vaccination panic makes it seem like H1N1 is the Black Death revisited.

At the same time, I've heard otherwise-rational colleagues warning people not to get the vaccine because it's full of mercury (it's not) or it's untested (it has been tested).

Bottom line? Get informed, and don't give in to panic. If you think you might have the flu, don't rush to the ER - start here.

Don't think I am not taking the H1N1 issue seriously - I am. It's in my home, and my son is very much on my mind. We are being vigilant. We're just also trying to be rational.

Be healthy, in body and mind.