Blogue||Nous sommes - noussommes.ca

Boy, is Obamacare getting hot or what? Have you seen footage of some of these Townhall meetings springing up across the country? The government is asserting this is all a conspiracy driven by the insurance companies who have too much of a vested interest in letting health care reform take place. Personally, I think the White House has lost its mind. When a government speaks openly about conspiracies and actively asks people to spy and snitch on one another well…

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” Thomas Jefferson, 1788.

Obviously, Canada is in the middle of the debate. Yay! Attention! Despite some inaccuracies, I like this video because these guys actually secretly filmed their experiences within the system here. Be forewarned, it’s from Pjamas Media - a conservative media outlet. Ooooo, so scared, mommy!

Both sides are presenting their side of the story, and while each make valid points, I still feel the left paints waaayyyy to nice a picture and under estimates just how difficult it is to run such a massive operation while the right paints waaayyy to scary a picture.

All I know is, A) good luck in trying to control costs and B) the Canadian system IS under severe strain. These facts are well-documented and can be seen in plain view when you visit a hospital.

The video is valuable for one reason: It takes a secret camera inside clinics in Quebec. The picture is stark inside a semi-private clinic imagine public! See, I told you Mike we should have done this years ago when I suggested it.

Like most videos of this sort, it suffers from some factual errors. But still far less egregious and outrageous than anything Michael Moore puts out about the subject relating to Canada.

For example, they interview someone about his experiences with dermatology. Who cares? Like dentistry, dermatologists have private practices therefore they’re irrelevant to the discussion.

An important distinction is not made: As someone (Paul say hello) keenly point out to me, these are semi-private clinics. Not public hospitals. Public hospitals never close. Just as importantly, the Quebec system is not indicative of what goes on in other provinces since health care falls under provincial jurisdiction. For instance, Quebec allows private clinics to operate while Ontario doesn’t.This leads to different results.

These are just a couple I spotted. I feel the video was at its best while they were inside the clinics. Nonetheless, it still makes some valid points.

Generally speaking, despite provincial control, nationally we all experience, long wait times, rising expenditures, drops in overall quality of care, lack of accessibility to GPs and advanced equipment, experiencing doctor and nursing shortages and fiscal mismanagement. Canada’s performance in the OECD isn’t exactly something to write home about either.

None of this can and should be disputed. If we do, then all we do is defer to another time to make meaningful changes in enhancing and improving our frustrating Canadian public system.

What kind of changes? Man, that’s the million dollar question. So far, the best we’ve come up with is to expand private services to help alleviate strain on the public side.

Rather than sit back and take glee that the Americans want to have some type of universal care - has anyone read the bill? - maybe we should take this opportunity and assess our system properly and with conviction.

Which begs these questions: Is government responsible for providing care to all its citizens? Are there other ways to get care to the most vulnerable (children and elderly)? Is it feasible to run a universal system over time?

When I was sprouting into a young man in the 1980s, I was (and still am) what is described as a sports junkie. One sport I took a liking to was cycling. But I wasn’t content just to ride my bike along Laval’s long farm roads. No, I had to learn about the history of the sport.

Soon enough, I was armed with knowledge about the Grand Tours - Tour de France, Giro d’Italia and Vuelta a Espana - as well as keeping up with the UCI circuit and rankings. This included the famous cycling names from Fausto Coppi, Eddie Merckx, Bernard Hineault, Miguel Indurain and Greg LeMond to but name a precious few. See the list of cycling’s all-time greatest here. Not surprisingly, Italy, Belgium and France dominate the rankings.

Being Canadian, and a proud one at the time, I above all followed the careers of Steve Bauer and Alex Steida.

Bauer finished 4th overall at the Tour de France in 1988 - 4th! Still a Canadian best while Steida was the first North American to ever wear the coveted the coveted Yellow jersey at the prestigious tour in 1986.

Since Bauer and Steida, there hasn’t really been a cyclist to continue in their path. In fact, the 80s were a promising time for not just Canadian cycling but soccer as well. Remember we made the World Cup in 1986? That year, Canadian captain Bruce Wilson presented me with an MVP award at a tournamet at Cap de La Madelaine in Quebec. I was convinced Canada had arrived and the way they played against tournament favorites France early on (we lost 1-0), how could we not be proud and but look ahead? And then it all stopped. But soccer is not the point of this post.

Professional cycling is.

Under the radar screen of most Canadian sports media outlets, Ryder Hesjedal powered his way to a 49th overall finish at the 2009 Tour de France (he was 45th in 2008). Just as impressivley he was a top three rider for Team Garmin-Slipstream behind teammates British rider Bradley Wiggins who finished fourth overall and eight place finisher American Christian Vande Velde.

It’s nice to finally see Canadian representation at prestigious racing tournaments. Hesjedal deserves some attention. He’s earned it.

Yukon Supreme Court set to rule on dog’s fate.

Here’s a teaser:

“Every dog has his day and this is a critical day in the life of Trevor, a two-year-old German-shepherd-Rottweiler cross.

The Yukon Supreme Court is to hear its first capital case in living memory when a judge decides the fate of the dog. Trevor was rescued from a home last January where he was so neglected, his tight collar had grown into his body.

The Whitehorse Humane Society adopted him out, but Trevor was accused of biting three people and sent to a pound last month.”

Whitehorse hasn’t seen so much action since the days of Sam Steele - or Dudley Do-Right. I forget which.

The Toronto garbage strike is really getting, erm, smelly. Public opinion is clearly against the union on this one. There are even calls for, gulp, privatizing the garbage collection sector.  Why not? I always say, “You’re not happy? Ok, let’s see how the market values and pays you!” Call my bluff. Ga’head.

This sad situation reminds me of when SAQ workers (Quebec’s monopolistic entity that runs the  alcohol racket, uh, business) went on strike during the Christmas holidays a couple of years back. I’ll never forget the t-shirts strikers wore. It read: “Boss, tu ris de nous autres!”

And then they turned around and mocked consumers as we had to wait in ridiculously long lines. What peeved me, while clinging to a bottle of Campari and Averna, was I had no choice but to fricken grin and accept it. I couldn’t voice my displeasure by taking my business elsewhere.  Why is the government involved in alcohol or casinos and lottery gambling for that matter anyway?

I digress.

At this point, the streets of Toronto are becoming a national embarrassment.

It should be asked: Do government subsidies in the arts produce great works of art?

Personally, and I know people are gonna get loopy on this one, I don’t think subsidies in anything are what they’re cracked up to be.

Let’s take an example from politics. One subsidy that drives me crazy is the one where my taxes go to all political parties in the name of keeping democracy healthy. It seems to me that if, say, Canadians  decide to vote for only the Conservatives and NDP (two parties that can actually get donations from people) and wipe out the Liberals (the “natural” governing party - snicker, snicker) isn’t this real democracy at work in that the people have spoken through their votes?

Why should a person who freely gives from their own pocket to Party A, for instance, be forced to support Party B through their taxes? Where’s the fairness in this?

Similarly, in the arts, why should people pay for arts they may not like? Some people don’t even care about the arts and culture - and that’s their choice to do so. There’s a lot of subsidized art I find to be, well, lame.

We’re  big on the rhetoric of why we need to pump taxpayer money into a lot of things. One popular argument used in defense of subsidizng the arts is  it “protects” culture. Another is it makes a person’s creation accessible to a larger audience and allows for artists to travel to showcase their work. At this point, I’m reminded about something Mordecai Richler once said after being asked to give advice to aspiring authors. He bluntly asserted, “write better.”

I have a few reasons why I’m sketpical of subsidies of any kind - be it in business, science, whatever. First, they tend to reward losing companies in losing industries like Bombardier. And why does Bumbardier get subsidies? To save jobs? Bah. Always remember, money is scarce. The money thrown at big corps usually means there’s less of it for small, profitable businesses. It ain’t about jobs. The economy can absorb job losses. Rather, it’s more of a case of them being plugged in to government officials.

What about what’s the criteria to determine which artist gets the cash? Something tells me the one who knows how to play the political game and gets inside the inner-sanctum will usually get it.

Another problem is that it may or can encourage people who think in their heads they’re artists but in reality actually suck. They’d probaby serve society better in accounting or something.

Finally, there’s no real way to measure (just like the government has no real mechanism to determine if they’re getting a return on the bail outs they dish out) if we’re producing any works of art of note.

I know there’s also a debate about this in the United States about whether the NEA has produced anything of worth since being introduced in the late 1960s.  Didn’t America manage to produce Louis Armstrong, Cole Porter, Ernest Hemingway, Judy Garland, Merrie Melodies, (yay Bugs Bunny!) and on and on and on without government involvement in the arts? Government interventionism as a means to an end is soooo 1960s.

In fact, the greatest achievements in human history basically came when government interventionism didn’t exist. I know there were Monarchies and patrons but as a whole this was the case. Plus there were no bureaucrats getting in the way determining who gets the cash.

Now the savvy among you will counter with CANCON as a successful government program protecting and enhancing Canadian artists. But as far as I know, CANCON doesn’t subsidize anyone. Instead, it forces radio stations to maintain a quota by playing Canadian music. Sure, many great Canadian singers and bands benfitted from CANCON but I’m willing to bet they probably would have succeeded without it anyway. In any event, CANCON is a CRTC initiative and until that organization becomes more accountable and transparent I see no reason why to defend it. How can a public organism be so secretive? Above all, such regulations only restrict choice.

So. Do government subsidies (and if you’re from Quebec you may want to cover your eyes) don’t produce great works of anything or just more of it?

I could be wrong. I’ll let our dear readers chomp at the bit on this one.

Following his two goal performance in a 3-1 victory for Italy over the United States at the Confederations Cup soccer tournament, Giuseppe Rossi finds himself a topic of discussion among American sports writers and commentators.

You see, Rossi is originally from Joisey (also referred to New Jersey) who happens to have dual American and Italian citizenship who decide to play soccer for Italy.

The 22 year-old Rossi is such a special talent several European teams have expressed interest in him. After starting his professional career at FC Parma in Italy, Manchester United acquired his services until they sold him to Spanish club Villareal where he currently plays. Count ‘em, that’s three major soccer nations who saw something in him.

It wasn’t long before he caught the eyes of the Azzurri - Italy’s national side - and he’s been representing them at every level since 2003.

For its part, USA soccer has come under some criticism for not trying harder to keep him within the American system. In fairness, Rossi and his family were committed to Italy, so I’m not sure how much then-coach Bruce Arena could have done. Still, he could, should have tried, no?

Does anyone have a problem with Rossi’s decision for choosing Italy over the United States? I don’t and in the case of Rossi, the American media doesn’t either. Put it you this way, who would you choose if you had the choice between a soccer powerhouse like Italy or USA? Not to disparage the U.S. program. The United States have steadily remained a top 15 soccer nation in recent years.

By this point this example should remind Canadians sports fans of a similar situation with Owen Hargreaves. Hargreaves was somehow overlooked by Team Canada but was good enough to be signed by Germany’s Bayern Munich - one of the world’s biggest and successful clubs. His development there eventually earned him a spot on England’s national side and represented them at the 2006 World Cup.  I didn’t see Hargreaves’ decision as anything but a wise move.

Jonathan de Guzman is another stand out talent born in Canada who decided to play for another country. This time, the nation in question is yet another great soccer nation: The Netherlands. His club stint was with Feyenoord and he made his international debut for the Under-21 Dutch national team in 2008.

The history of soccer has been filled with similar cases. Great players have often played for nations other than their place of birth albeit each for their own reasons. Alfredo di Stefano, one of the greatest players in history, was born in Argentina and ended up playing for Spain. Omar Sivori, also Argentinean, played for Italy. Brazilian player Alessandro dos Santos (Alex) represented Japan. Even the great Juste Fontaine wasn’t born in France proper but rather in Morocco. But that brings into question former colonies of imperial powers. My point is that Rossi and Hargreaves are hardly alone as these precious few selected examples show.

And it doesn’t stop at soccer.

In hockey, Brett Hull, like de Guzman, was ludicrously called a “traitor” for choosing to play for the Team USA back in the 1980s. His situation was a little different. A marginal player early in his career, he knew he would never crack a Canadian line-up knee-deep in talent. Team USA offered him a spot in 1986 and he took it. By 1989, Hull was on his way to becoming one of the most prolific scorers in the history of the NHL.

Pro heavyweight champion Lennox Lewis decided to box under the British flag even after winning a gold medal for Canada at the 1988 Olympics in Seoul. Tennis player Greg Rusedski also bolted for the UK.

When it comes to sports, is it right to hold back an athlete in the name of nationality especially if that nation simply can’t offer anything?

In the case of soccer in particular, North America is simply not the best place to be. If Europe comes knocking, they have players at “buon giorno, bonjour, guten tag, and hello”.

I find we don’t debate immigration issues enough in this country. If someones does open a discussion, it sometimes takes on a negative connotation for no justified reason.

It’s possible to meaningfully pontificate about such matters without paranoid assumptions often associated with adherents of anti-immigration or politically correct minions.

A perfect example of where the law, politics, immigration and racism all conspire in a confused dance is with the problem of illegal Mexicans pouring into the United States.

The question revolves around exactly how to handle illegal immigrants presently working and living in the United States.

For many, there is a legitimate argument with the notion that illegal aliens must be forced to follow the rules. If it means deportation so be it. Those who go for this approach aren’t anti-immigration or racist; they just want to maintain the integrity of the law.

Is it fair for illegals to be granted amnesty? Not when measured against the reality that thousands of people are patiently and legally waiting in line.  Indeed, how is this fair to them?

So America has to wrestle with its own immigration issues including Muslim immigration and racial profiling.

At least the debate is in the open in the United States. Not so here in Canada. This is unfortunate because once in a while we need to vigorously question and challenge our leaders. It’s the only way to really keep democratic public discourse alive.

Is discussing immigration in Canada a taboo subject? Does the media offer a fair and balanced picture of it?  Is Canada’s  immigration department is secretive and non-transparent?

Sometimes I wonder if we simply shy away from facing questions that force us to look into the mirror.

Who we are has a direct correlation in what we become. But if the road is littered with misguided ideas or faulty immigration policies, what we become may mean we won’t care about who we are.

Here are some links regarding immigration:

Immigration Watch Canada

CanadaVisa.com

Refuge

Canada and Immigration by Freda Hawkins (Google Books)

Double Standard: The Secret History Of Canadian Immigration

In these unpeaceful times, not only in Gaza but also in the forgotten Congo and in all the other conflicts you don’t see on your 6’oclock newscasts, little makes sense. One would think it’s the first time we’ve forgone harmony for the sake of bullies. But it really isn’t.

The first video is of Oliver Stone in 1986 and the second, is a vignette made by French mag Paris Match. Today, they are very much relevant. Unfortunately.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuVov4NiALk
Oliver Stone winning an Oscar for Platoon
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDRuJrRb7So
La guerre

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yul2GnFuxdk
Unicorn lawyer

I must confess: I consume a lot of CBC. I was raised on CBC radio, and even now look forward to Saturdays because it means nearly an entire day of quality radio over at CBC Radio One. I have been known to watch my share of CBC television as well, though that’s mostly news and Coronation Street (an old childhood habit, and I’m totally addicted) and not really any CBC original programming. From the ads I’ve witnessed in recent weeks I’ve started to wonder what’s going on with the network: as a 30ish white woman, I feel creepily like the network’s most targeted audience member, and am disappointed in the fare on offer:

Sophie: This show has the most potential to be like my life since I am a single mother like its title character, but the one episode I tried to watch annoyed me so much I couldn’t continue. First, the ads were so obnoxious: She’s got style; she’s got smarts (I forget the actual word here, but it was something akin to smarts); she’s got… another diaper to change?! They eventually changed the final sentence to She’s changing her life, one diaper at a time, probably because women like me found the earlier version highly offensive, as though being a mother is completely at odds with having style and a brain. The show features an emotional wreck of a white Torontonian woman battling through single motherhood and a career while seeking advice from her token gay friend as required. As with most Canadian shows, the actors seem all accustomed to stage acting and say all their lines in an overly loud, sing-songy “Aren’t I a clever ac-tor in this clever Canadian program?” Fail. Oh, and that woman has way too much unexplained child care time.

Being Erica: This is the newest show CBC is airing, and I can’t judge it beyond its ads since the premiere is on Monday, but this show is about another 30-year-old white emotional disaster of an urban woman. But this one gets to travel back in time to turn her life around so she can be less of a wreck! Hey, in the US, there’s a show featuring a 30ish (okay, more like 40ish) woman who is a little low on self-esteem and has a slightly pathetic social life. Know what it’s called? 30 Rock! That show is actually ABOUT something aside from a character concept. Plus, Tina Fey is smart and sexy. Erica? Not so much.

Heartland and Wild Roses: CBC’s attempts to reach out to the rural folk and the urbanites that dream of the country. I admit, I would have been all over Heartland as a 10-year-old girl: it’s got horses, for cripes’ sake. The show is obviously targeting tweens, and its lead character Amy is allowed to be whiny and confused, because she’s a teenager. But Wild Roses? Okay, it hasn’t debuted yet either, but it looks like Heartland for grown-ups. Grown-ups who go to New Kids on the Block reunion tours and who still dream of cowboys.

The Week the Women Went: Another attempt to represent the rural. I can’t believe this thing is going into a second season. Last year this reality show took place in some small town in Alberta or Saskatchewan, and this year it will be in Tatamagouche, NS. What happens: the women leave town for a week and we are supposed to laugh at men being inept with housework, cooking, and childcare; in the end, we realize how important women really are. All this show does is reinforce traditional gender roles and thus encourage sexism.

It’s important to note as well that all the above shows feature mostly white people. Oh, Sophie’s babydaddy is a Black man, but that feels more like a plot device than an actual attempt to represent real Canadians. And of course I can’t forget those amiable Muslims on the dreadfully unfunny Little Mosque on the Prairie making halal jokes. And the border, that has a lot of people of different ethnicities; oh, and it’s about terrorism. I just can’t help but think that CBC television is so sadly out of step with CBC Radio, where diversity is prevalent and the programming is actually often intelligent and engaging.

In a fake commercial spot, Rick Mercer really summed up exactly what I feel in an ad for Unicorn Lawyer. It’s not that far off the mark considering what CBC is actually offering. As a member of the target demographic for all this crap I have to go on record as being highly disappointed. Canadians should demand more from their public broadcaster.