Cyn for Prime Minister

Children with Autism Grow Up, Too

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 23:52:00 +0000

My heart is breaking right now.

Back in late 2004, I stumbled onto "birth boards" on Babycenter. I had never been on an internet message board in my life, but for some reason, I joined the board with a group of other moms-to-be who were due with babies at the same time as mine. Many of those moms became close friends, and I'm still friends with them eleven years later. We've been through birth, death, job loss, marriages breaking up, remarriages, younger siblings, and now we're heading to puberty.

We've literally been together in sickness, and in health.

And in such a large group of moms, of course there is a far-too-large percentage who have children with Autism. We run the full spectrum in our group, which means that there are some whose children are at the "lower functioning" end, such one child I'll call "A." This is where my story really begins.

You see, as I said earlier, our kids are now getting to that really fun stage of childhood: puberty. And puberty is hard enough on a neurotypical kid. Now imagine going through all of those hormonal and physical changes without the ability to express your wildly swinging emotions. It's not unusual for kids like A to become physically aggressive, and to become a danger not only to themselves, but to those around them: teachers, friends, family. This is exactly what's happening with A.

So what is a parent to do when their child can no longer be physically controlled? When younger siblings are afraid? When parents are being injured? What should that parent do when they are honestly afraid to have their own child in the home?

There's a lot of talk about how important early intervention is when it comes to Autism. And it's true that it's important, but for some kids, it simply won't be enough. And here's a point people seem to forget: kids with Autism grow into teenagers with Autism, and eventually into adults with Autism. The need for programming doesn't end at the age of six (like the Ontario Government thinks - although I will say that A is not an Ontario child). If anything, the need becomes greater with age.

But the therapies needed - including, in some cases, residential programs - don't come cheap, and unless you can afford to pay out of pocket (I've often heard $60,000 per year quoted) or in the US you have a low enough income to qualify for medicare, you are on your own. You have your usual bills to pay, your other children to feed, clothe, and house, and you're looking at coming up with an extra $60,000 or having to live in fear in your own home.

I know an Ontario family that somehow managed to pay for one of those private schools, and saw a huge improvement in their son. Then, without any warning for the parents, the school folded, and the children - some of whom had come there from overseas - were just sent home. The family in question was so determined not to lose the progress that their son had made that they hired back the teacher who had been working with their son, and re-opened the school. THAT is the kind of desperation that parents face when trying to get help with their older children with severe Autism.

I'm stuck watching A's mom as she posts pictures of things that A has broken, and most recently, a picture of her face, battered and bloodied after A head-butted her. I worry for her, for her other children, and although I'm glad to see her friends rallying around her to try and provide what help they can, I'm infuriated that they are facing a two-week wait to get an inpatient treatment bed for A, and no emergency help from CPS or any other agency.

How is this reasonable? How is it that no one talks about how to best help these children as they get older?

I don't know what to do, so I do the only thing I can: I write, and hope that maybe somehow this will the attention of someone with the power to change things. Maybe awareness will help. Or maybe I'll just continue to watch as my friend continues to live in fear of her own child.

Please - don't let it be the latter.

*NOTE: I am not an Autism expert by any means. If I have used terminology that is inappropriate, or given incorrect facts, please let me know and I will gladly make corrections.

Nanny is the New Niquab

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 05 Dec 2015 15:53:00 +0000

Distractionary Politics at its Worst

Am I surprised at how little time it took for a "scandal" to emerge about Justin Trudeau. Um, no. In our current political climate it's more surprising that it took this long.

But this is the best they can come up? Really? He said that he wouldn't accept UCCB because he didn't need it. But now taxpayers are paying for his child care.

Now, I don't spend much time on social media anymore, but I'm told that it was the CBC who originally broke the story. If true, it makes it all the more disappointing the way that this was spun. And believe me, this was spun.

Trudeau Children's Nannies Being Paid for by Taxpayers

Justin Trudeau Billing Taxpayers for Nannies is Hypocritical, Lisa Raitt says

"Rich" Justin Trudeau Should Pay for His Own Nannies, Rona Ambrose says

Funny thing that none of this hew and cry wants to mention? The Prime Minister has always received an allowance for running his household. This is not new. Each PM then chooses the staff that fits his (or her) family. The staff usually includes maids, groundskeepers, drivers, and yes, child care. No one has said that the Trudeaus are exceeding this budget. So is the expectation that he should use less of the budget than any other Prime Minister would be expected to, so that he can pay for his own children's care, or should he just hire other staff that he deems unnecessary to use up the budget and then pay the nannies out of pocket.

And, let's look at this logically: if between the two nannies, they are covering all day, every day, that is 168 hours per week. Given that would mean they were each working 84 hours per week, I don't think that's possible, but let's just go with it. For the sake of math, let's say that it's half day shift, half night shift. So at the highest reported rate, it would be $15/hr x 84 hrs, and $13/hr x 84 hrs, which comes out to $1260 and $1092, or $2352 per week. That comes to $122,304 per year. Over four years, it's $489,216. Rich or not, that's a lot of money for most families. For taxpayers, it means you would be paying approximately $0.02 of your taxes towards the cost of the nannies over the four-year period.

By contrast, Stephen Harper spent $1.2 million shipping armoured limos for a trip to India in 2012 even after the Indian government offered to provide them.

But the truth is that Justin Trudeau is the second youngest Prime Minister in history, and he has a very young family. Stephen Harper's children were six and nine when he was elected, and would have been in school full-time, making childcare during the day, at least, less of an issue. The truth is, I have no idea who looked after them when they weren't in school, and I don't really care, as for all intents and purposes they seem to have been looked after. It's none of my business. Before that, no Prime Minister had required child care since the early days of Brian Mulroney's tenure. And he got flack for it, too, so he ended up calling the nannies "maids." Personally, I like "special assistant" better.

No one has said if Justin Trudeau did, in fact, donate his Tory UCCB bribe cheque to charity. No one has said that the Trudeaus used taxpayer money for their nannies prior to moving into Rideau Cottage. It isn't likely that they will when they move out (assuming that they even need child care by that point). But Prime Minister of Canada is not a "normal" job by any means, and neither is the (unpaid) job of being spouse of the Prime Minister. The Trudeaus can be called away on a moment's notice, for days at a time. The Prime Minister can be called on at any time day or night in the case of an emergency. And the Trudeau children deserve to have consistent, loving care when their parents can't be with them. We owe them that much.

PS - I have more to say about the REAL issues we should be looking at when it comes to child care, but I'll save that for another post.

Thoughts on Tom Mulcair's "Hotline Bling" Dance...

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 00:04:00 +0000

This Hour Has 22 Minutes says that we'll get the full video tonight, but even 9 seconds of Tom Mulcair doing Drake's "Hotline Bling" is well... mindblowing? ...disturbing? ...like the first time someone dipped chocolate in peanut butter?

From @RosieBarton to @nationalpost, Canada's been asking where @ThomasMulcair's been. We found him. He found @Drake pic.twitter.com/MIzgdIrTAE
— 22Minutes (@22_Minutes) November 3, 2015

But when I first saw it, my train of thought completely derailed:

Wow - that's Tom Mulcair doing "Hotline Bling."
Does Tom Mulcair have any idea who Drake is?
Does Drake have any idea who Tom Mulcair is?
Is Drake even allowed to vote?
If he is, for whom did Drake vote?
Am I the only one who rewrites sentences just to avoid misuse of the word "who"?
Have I really become that boring that I'm sitting here wondering about the voting habits of a rap star and poor grammar amongst the populace?
Did I just use the word "amongst"?
And "populace"?
Does anyone else EVER use the word "amongst" anymore?
Quick! Do something cool!
Umm...
Crap. I'm really that boring.
Damn you, Tom Mulcair! This is ALL YOUR FAULT!!!

But here: it's Stephen Harper with Justin Bieber.

I don't feel so bad now.

That Time That I Got on the Wrong Side of the Right

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 14:45:00 +0000

This is Ezra Levant.

He looks like such a nice guy, doesn't he? Kind of like your friendly neighbourhood accountant. But instead, he's more like Canada's version of Ann Coulter, only less accurate and less likeable.

He's been a lawyer, a lobbyist, and a political candidate, but he's best known for his work for Sun Media, until their Faux News-wannabe station folded and they dumped his columns. Now he is the emperor of his own internet media domain, so he can spout out as many misrepresentations, out of context quotes, and outright lies as he wants to.

I don't follow him. I don't search him out. Almost every word that comes out of his mouth does nothing but enrage me. But I have some rather masochistic tendencies at times, and so once in a while when Facebook decides to taunt me by "suggesting" that I check out one of his posts I do get sucked in.

And of course, since the election was announced, and now that the Liberals have won, he's been especially petulant. He's especially gleeful since the announcement came that the Trudeau family will not move into 24 Sussex Drive, but instead will allow the renovations that The National Capital Commission says need to be done desperately and that Stephen Harper would not allow while he was in residence.

He's even claiming that the renovations will cost not the $10 million originally quoted by the NCC (which everyone agrees has increased since 2008 when the estimate was made) but $150 million dollars.

Um, what? (Note: there have, in fact, been several proposals put before the governement by the NCC, one of which included razing 24 Sussex and replacing it with a new, working residence like the White House. However, this was only ONE of the proposals put forward, and highly unlikely, IMO.)

And don't get me started on his campaign to get Calgary International Airport renamed in honour of Stephen Harper. Honestly, I could care less about the name of an airport, I just find the whole thing rather amusing.

But the truth is, I find him, and his band of Con-bots terribly frustrating. And I vented on Twitter. Probably not the smartest move, but hey - freedom of speech, right???

Then that last tweet caught his attention (despite that fact that he wasn't actually tagged in it.) He then decided to use me as an example, and retweeted it, with a comment.

Now, I'm a big girl, and I can take that. Would probably have gone to bed with a smirk on my face, thinking of all of the irony of that statement. Except here's the thing: Ezra Levant knew EXACTLY what he was doing with that tweet. It was like a Bat Signal to his 33,000 or so Con-bots to go on the attack, and they took up the task with all of the vigour of a Conservative making cuts to social services on Christmas morning.

Most of them simply accused me of not understanding freedom of speech (oh, the irony...)

Many honestly thought I wanted to go to Petsmart, buy a dog muzzle and put it on him (note to these people: you might want to look up the word "hyperbole.")

But a good portion of them went on a personal attack. I was accused of being a bad mother. I was accused of being stupid. Someone even thought it was insult to call me a single mother (which I'm not, but I think this was the most offensive of all, simply for the fact that they did think it was an insult.) And some people actually took the time to go through at least a year's worth of my tweets, looking for things to use to insult me. Because my taste in music totally has anything to do with my opinions of Ezra Levant. To these people, all I can really say is, GET A LIFE.

For the most part, I simply blocked them. In a few instances, I couldn't help from responding, but I'm sure that eventually those people will get blocked too. Because it's not that I don't prefer to debate, Ezra. I just simply can't have a battle of wits with opponents who are unarmed. So go ahead, gloat in your victory because the Socialist Leftie didn't fight back. With the Liberals in power I understand that you need to take your victories where you can get them.

This Election Might Be the Death of Me

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 01 Oct 2015 02:29:00 +0000

The statement above is what I posted as my Facebook status a little while ago. And I honestly mean it.

Canada, you're scaring me to death.

I was blindly naive, I suppose, when this election campaign began. I truly believed that the majority of Canadians were adamant that the Conservatives needed to go, and we would soon be rid of Harper and his cronies. I knew that vote splitting was a possibility on the Left, but it still seemed a sure thing that we would have a new Prime Minister on October 20th.

Now I'm not so sure. I'm obsessed with polls - I read one that says the Conservatives are in 3rd, and I start to relax, then a few minutes later I see one where they're close to a majority and I start to lose it a little bit. I know, I know: looking at the polls is like reading the comments on the internet (just don't do it) but I can't help it.

Lately, this has not been the Canada I want to see, and it's not the Canada I want for my kids. Right now, my kids are caring, loving, accepting people. They don't care where you're from, what - if any - religion you believe in, or what your sexual orientation is: they care that you're a nice person.

If Canada elects another Conservative government, what kind of a message are we sending them?

Scientific fact is less important than money, and political loyalty.
It's okay to take money away from social programs and infrastructure and use it to kill innocent people in other countries in the name of "safety."
The environment will be okay, so we don't need to worry. (Is it just me, or is the Conservative take on the environment the equivalent of "and the budget will balance itself"?)
People don't matter if they weren't born here. Unless they're rich. And even if they were born here, if they don't look a certain way, practice the right religion, and have the right sexual orientation, they don't matter, either. Actually, they don't matter even if they were born here, they look the right way, practice the right religion and have the right sexual orientation unless they're rich. Or to simplify: people only matter if they're rich.
The Bogeyman is around every corner. Your next door neighbour could be a suicide bomber, especially if they're Muslim. They only way we can possibly be safe is if we give up all of our rights and freedoms.
First Nations peoples don't actually exist. They are a figment of your imagination, and so there is absolutely no need to wonder why these imaginary women keep disappearing.
You should be happy with the job you have, no matter how many hours your boss demands, or how low your pay is.
A growth in part-time, minimum wage jobs is something to celebrate. Don't pay any attention to the drop in actual career jobs that, you know, pay a living wage.
Keeping up with the cost of living is for wusses.
And if you don't have a job, it's your own fault.
Health care is a luxury.
So is education.
If you want infrastructure investment, you should have elected the "right" candidate.

What have I missed?

Please Canada, if you're thinking of voting Conservative, think very hard before you cast your ballot. This is NOT the Progressive Conservative party of old: that party is long gone. What we have left is the Reform Party in Tory clothing. And shouldn't it tell us something that even Alberta - the birthplace of the travesty that is our current ruling party - has now rejected them?

The future of Canada depends on all of us. Please don't screw it up.

Measles: What Else is There to Say?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 04:21:00 +0000

I have been trying not to get into the vaccine debate, mainly because I have friends who choose not to vaccinate their children, and whether I agree with them or not, I do respect and love them.

This used to be the only protection against measles.

I'm still hesitant to post this: I mean, there's already enough blogs on the subject, aren't there? Why should I post this and risk further alienating those who disagree with me? (I say further, because for the first time tonight I did speak up on a friend's post, and I was torn about whether to do that or not, too.) What more can I possibly add to the ever-mounting din of measles and vaccination debate?

Not much, I suppose. Except this.

I suspect most parents my age or younger have no real concept of measles. The first measles vaccines were around in the 1960s. In 2000, the year before my oldest child was born, measles was essentially eradicated in North America. Most of us have never seen a person with measles. Up until the glut of news coverage lately, I would imagine that most of us thought of measles as similar to chicken pox: a fever, some spots... just another childhood disease to check off the list in the baby book.

But it's not. Yes, it was once a common childhood disease that almost everyone got. But it was also the most lethal one. In the years leading up to the 1963 introduction of the measles vaccine nearly everyone got measles at one time in their life. According to the CDC, 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 people were infected each year, and approximately 400-500 of those would die. Another 4,000 were affected by encephalitis (swelling of the brain that could lead to permanent mental impairment.)

And it nearly killed me.

I was 11 months old, according to my mom (I obviously don't remember the details) and too young to be vaccinated. Mom says she's put a lot of the details out of her mind, which is understandable, I think, but basically she just remembers giving me alcohol baths, and praying that my fever would come down, because there really wasn't anything else she could do.

I can't imagine going through that with one of my children. I went through a life-threatening illness with my husband last year, and that was one of the most traumatic things I've been through in my entire life. If it had been one of my children, I don't know how I would have coped.

Roald Dahl dedicated his book, "The BFG" to his daughter, Olivia,
who died at the age of 7, after complications from measles.

The mistrust I see in my generation - of the political system, of capitalism (or socialism, in some cases), of "Big Pharma" - it's a systemic problem that isn't going to be cured overnight. There's no vaccine for it. This measles outbreak may convince a few anti-vax parents to vaccinate, but most of them, like my friends, will just dig their heels in even further. They will be even more convinced of the conspiracy behind vaccination. It won't matter to them that their children are more likely to be killed in a shark attack than they are to be injured by a vaccine. They are more likely to be struck by lightning.

It's true: you don't know that your child won't be the 1 in 10,000,000 to die from a vaccine complication. You also don't know that they won't have a reaction to peanuts, or eggs, or Tylenol, or any other number of things.

No matter how much we want to, we can't protect our children from everything.

You know what we can protect them from?

Measles.

Dear Justin: A Response to Your Fundraising Emails

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 14 Feb 2015 01:44:00 +0000

Dear Justin,

I got your email today. And the one from a Toronto MP. I got one from your wife a day or so ago. Oh, and the ones from the National Party Director and the Senior Director of Fundraising. Each and every one has made me feel very special that I'm worthy of so much attention that you'd send me at least one per day. I mean, you guys have so much to do - how on earth do you find time to send me so many emails???

I especially like the ones where you remind me that I haven't yet donated to the Liberal party. Seeing that $0 is an excellent reminder of my negligence.

But here's the thing: as much as I'd like to donate, I'd also like to ensure that there's food on the table for my kids, and maybe even manage the mortgage payment, to keep the house where that table sits. And right now, that's a bit of a challenge.

You see, back at the end of October, my husband's company decided that they no longer needed an IT department in Canada at all. They were just going to run everything remotely from the US. (That was almost as good as when the company he was working for decided that they could outsource all of their tech support to India.) So my husband was laid off from his job. That was challenging, but since I still had a pretty decent job, we knew we could manage if we cut back a bit. Sorry, but the political donations had to be one of those cutbacks.

Then last week, my company decided that my job wasn't really necessary, either, and I was laid off. That kind of stung.

So now, here we are: two university-educated, middle class parents of four children, without a single employed person in the house. One person working and one on EI was a stretch. Two parents both on EI will be a disaster.

It's likely that at least one of us will find work before my small severance package runs out, and we'll be okay. We're pretty resourceful, when it comes right down to it. But I have to say, I'm getting really tired of the constant uncertainty of our lives. I'm tired of food prices going up and up, and housing prices continuing to rise, and insane utility bills, and car insurance that was supposed to go down, but instead just keeps on heading north. I'm tired of all of this happening while people like us struggle to provide a comfortable, secure life for their kids, and people like the boss who just laid me off have three vacation homes. I'm tired of people not caring what happens to everyone else, as long as they get what they want out of life. I'm not asking to be rich: all I want is to pay my bills, keep my house, and maybe someday go on a vacation (it's been seventeen years, so I'm pretty sure our family is due for one soon.) I'd like to know that someday I'll be able to retire and not have to live on cat food. I have no need for three vacation homes.

Is that really so much to ask?

It probably seems like I'm just picking on you, Justin, and for that I'm sorry. The truth is, just before I was laid off I actually did join your party, because I do believe that at the core of it you do have our country's best interests at heart, and I sure don't want to see the Conservatives elected again. But once my family is back on its feet, if I'm going to support you financially, I just want to know that you actually intend to do something about all of this, and that you really do want to see the return of the middle class.

And another thing: in the last election, the Liberals couldn't even be bothered to have a candidate in Oshawa who was actually FROM Oshawa. Instead, they chose this guy as their candidate. Which, to my way of thinking was their way of saying that they knew there wasn't a hope of unseating Colin Carrie, so why bother. If you're expecting support from me, do you think you could at least get a real Oshawa resident as a candidate this time?

Thank you for your time. I'm afraid I won't be able to keep up our daily correspondence. I have resumes to send out.

Sincerely,
Cynthia Hill
Oshawa, ON

GTA Commuters Might Want to Look at This Before Voting

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 30 May 2014 01:59:00 +0000

In my last post, I promised a post about the debacle that is the 407 ETR. The highway that was supposed to relieve the congestion of the 401, and offer another route across the top of the city. The tolls were only supposed to be in place until the highway was paid for.

The the Mike Harris Tories decided to lease it to a Spanish company for 99 years, for $3.1 billion dollars. The result? A luxury route for only those who can afford the exorbitant rates that is many times more expensive than any other toll highway in North America.

Take a look:

Dear Hudak and Ouellette: People Aren't Numbers

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 16 May 2014 14:05:00 +0000

Recent polls are showing that the Conservatives are holding a comfortable lead in the 2014 Ontario election. (Although as I write this, I am somewhat comforted by a new poll from this morning.)

When I think of the repercussions of a Tory win, I can barely breathe.

I get it: after 11 years with the Liberals in power, people think it's time for a change. Maybe they're fed up with hearing about Liberal scandals and controversies. Maybe they've heard the "d" words too often: debt and deficit. But for whatever reason, they're turning to the Conservatives.

And that's the part I can't understand.

Does no one remember Mike Harris anymore? Have we forgotten the cuts to health care and education? Have we forgotten how John Snobelen, Harris' Education Minister, wanted to "create a useful crisis" so that they could slash and burn the education system without public protest? Have we forgotten the 99-year lease of the 407 ETR highway that gave its new overseers the right to charge whatever they wanted? (I will discuss the 407 debacle in another post.)

Now, Hudak claims that he will cut 100,000 jobs from the public sector, as a way of balancing the provincial budget. The majority of those cuts will come from education. I could go on and on about the way these cuts would destroy the education system (and again, I will in another post) but right now, I'd just like to talk about numbers and statistics.

The truth is, that those 100,000 "jobs" are not jobs - they are people. These are people whose livelihood is now dependent on the outcome of this election. Hudak claims that his plans will actually CREATE 1,000,000 jobs, but how many of those will be part-time, or temporary, or low-wage? If those same 100,000 people lose their jobs, how many of them will be qualified to do these hypothetical new jobs? How many Early Childhood Educators do you know who are qualified to work in road construction?

These are not statistics - they are families. 100,000 families who could be in the position of losing their savings, if they're lucky enough to even HAVE savings, or they're homes, if they're not. These are 100,000 people who will have to explain to their children that there is not enough money to pay for housing and food both. These are 100,000 families who will be faced with losing everything they've worked for. And isn't that the Conservative ideal? That people should work hard, and then they will get the "reward" of a middle-class or upper-class lifestyle (AKA not living below the poverty line)?

As someone on Twitter pointed out, 100k is approximately the population of Waterloo, Ontario. This is equivalent to the entire city of Waterloo abruptly losing their jobs. Does that give an idea of the scale of this mass cut?

What about the families put through hell during a medical crisis because of cuts to healthcare? What about families who never get to see a parent who's stuck in a two-hour commute home at night, because they can't afford the astronomical bills to use the 407 instead of the 401? What about families who will lose their only access to publicly-funded speech and language therapies when their school's special education is cut?

And this morning I found out that the Tories intend to put a halt to any further roll-out of the full day Kindergarten program. My children's school is one of the ones who will finally get this program in September 2014. My youngest child is currently is every other day Junior Kindergarten. Our budget for the rest of the year was based on not paying for his daycare this fall, and I'm sure this is the case for many other families. This abrupt reversal will cost us approximately $400 per month, so overall we will have to add $4,000 over the course of the 2014-15 school year. That's $4,000 that our family could have put into education or retirement savings, or used towards maintenance and repairs on our home or cars.

It's easy to talk about "cuts", Mr Hudak, and Mr. Ouellette (my city's MPP). It's not so easy to talk about the people who make up those cuts, is it?

Child Poverty: Not My Job?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 16 Dec 2013 03:25:00 +0000

This week, Canada's Federal Minister of Industry, James Moore (Cons., Port Moody - Westwood - Port Coquitlam, BC) made headlines with - for most people who actually have hearts - should be pretty shocking statements. Especially coming ten days before Christmas.

When asked about record-high levels of child poverty in his province his response was, "Is it my job to feed my neighbour's child? I don't think so." He went on to say that Ottawa's strategy for feeding hungry children was job creation, but that really, it was a provincial issue.

At a event on December 13, Moore claimed that "we've never been wealthier as a country than we are right now. Never been wealthier." He then went on to say that the way poverty is defined is different across the country.

Hmm... really? I would say that going to school with no breakfast and/or lunch, or not having a winter coat or boots in areas where it's necessary, or maybe not even having a bed to sleep in, are pretty much across the board when it comes to definitions. Am I off by much?

Where do I start with this?

First off: Ottawa's strategy for dealing with poverty is job creation. Sounds good in theory. Except how many of those jobs are part-time, minimum wage, and/or temporary? The proliferation of these types of jobs in recent years is a clear indication that this government cares more about the QUANTITY of jobs, rather than the QUALITY of those jobs. They want to crow about the number of jobs created, not how many people are now making a living wage. How does that help poverty levels? Oh, and while we're at it, how does cutting 8,000 Canada Post jobs help poverty?

Second: "we've never been wealthier as a country"??? On WHAT planet is that true? Household debt is at record levels. On a personal level, almost everyone I know is struggling in some way or another. New mortgage regulations are making home ownership a dream that's moving further and further away. Retirement? It's now sounding like a pipe dream.

Third: Yes, Mr. Moore. It IS your job. Just as it's my job, and my neighbour's job, and just like it's everyone else's job. Whatever you may - in your pompous world view - think of their parents, children did not ASK to be born, and they sure as hell didn't ask to be born into poverty. They do NOT deserve to go hungry because you want to punish their parents for whatever transgressions you imagine they have committed by being poor.

When it comes right down to it, Mr. Moore, it's about being a decent human being, and not wanting to see your fellow human beings suffer. How is it you can justify letting children go hungry, while your government spends ridiculous amounts of money on travel expenses, and how about that TEN BILLION each year spent on outside consultants? Bet a bunch of kids could be fed on that...

Let Us Eat Cake

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 28 Oct 2013 13:40:00 +0000

Are We Headed for Another French Revolution?

I'm a big reader (in case you haven't guessed by my other site) and although I read a lot of different genres, I love historical fiction. Being the inquisitive mind that I am, what tends to happen is that I obsessively read fiction about a certain era, and then I start researching, because I want to know the truth, or just MORE.

A year or so ago, it was the Tudor era. Lately, it's been the French Revolution.

The more I read, and the more I research, the more it scares me.

A really quick, non-historian rundown of the French Revolution:

Louis XVI (the 16th, for those with Roman numeral issues...) came to power in 1774. He was married to Marie Antoinette, of Austria, and together they had 4 children, two of whom died in early childhood.
By the end of the 1780s, France was going through a very bad economic time, partly due to its participation in The Seven Years' War, and the American Revolutionary War.
However, while the common people were struggling to survive, the aristocracy was living as if nothing had happened. Tales of royal excess were legendary, often focused -unfairly or not - on the Queen (we've all heard the "Let them eat cake" story, right?)
VERY long story short, the people - lead by some lesser nobles (whose motives are more than likely questionable) - decided that they wouldn't take any more, and rebelled. After months of rebellion, The Palace of Versailles was attacked, and the Royal Family forced into a house arrest-type situation at a palace in Paris. They made a rather pathetic attempt to escape France, at which point they were locked down even further. As different factions fought for power in the new republic, the King and Queen - despite being stripped of any power - were considered a threat and were eventually executed.
As the rival factions continued their feuds, the "Reign of Terror" began and tens of thousands of people - both nobles and commoners - were executed, mostly by the newfangled guillotine. The unheaval led to the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte, and went on for decades.
The "rebellion" depicted in Les Miserables actually took place in June, 1832 - nearly 40 years after the executions of Louis XVI and his Queen. During those years, as I mentioned, Napoleon was in charge for 11 years (1804-1815), and the monarchy came and went several times, ending for good in 1848. This all just goes to show that there were DECADES of upheaval before France's current political system was finally settled.

So, what's the point of all of this? Why does it scare me? Because the more I read about the French Revolution, the more it starts to sound eerily familiar.

No, we don't have a real monarchy anymore - not in the way that the French did - but instead of the "First Estate" we have "The 1%" (who, incidentally, pay almost no tax in many cases - similar to how the nobility in pre-revolutionary France paid no tax, while the commoners were highly taxed.) Instead of lesser nobles claiming to have the best interests of the people at heart, we have celebrities advocating not voting as a means of rebellion. Instead of the satirical pamphlets handed out on street corners, we have bloggers who can (although not all do) write whatever they want - whether it's true or not with no repercussions (and yes, I see the irony in this statement). Corporations continue to make higher and higher profits, while their workers struggle to figure out how to pay rent and buy food at the same time.

Think that I'm blowing the similarities out of proportion? In just a few hours yesterday, these two news stories appeared in my social media feeds (the Russell Brand video I linked to above has also been posted all over everywhere recently):

Every day, there is more and more unrest. Every day there is more division between the "Royalists" (the conservatives) and the "Constitutionalists" (the liberals.) More and more people are wondering aloud how it is fair for the gap between wealthy and poor to keep getting wider. Median income - when adjusted for inflation - is actually LOWER than it was a decade ago. The government in Canada - oh, sorry, The Harper Government - claims that the number of people on Employment Insurance is going down, but they neglect to mention the number of people whose Employment Insurance runs out before they find work, or those forced to take part-time and/or low-wage work. In the US, people are forced out of their homes because of predatory lending practices, and people go bankrupt just trying to pay for life-saving medical treatment for themselves or their families. Meanwhile some CEOs are making 1000x the pay of their average employee.

No matter which "side" you're on, you have to admit that our society is broken. And people are getting angry. What frightens me is to think of the violence that can come of a large group of angry people. In the Women's March on Versailles (the event that led to the Royal Family fleeing their home) there were an estimated 6,000-10,000 people who attacked the palace, leaving death and destruction in their wake. Really, when you think about it, there have been VERY few major societal revolutions that didn't involve violence.

So what does that mean for us? The "Occupy" movement was essentially a peaceful protest. Will people continue to utilize peaceful resistance, or are we looking at a future of angry violence? It seems that those in power have no interest in changing the status quo: corporations are intent on continuing their pursuit of profit for the few at the expense of the many; housing prices are becoming completely unsustainable; there is little in the way of job stability for anyone; people are now considered a disposable commodity (AKA "collateral damage".)

What continues to amaze and sadden me is how the economic issues plaguing us are causing those of us in "the 99%" to turn on each other. We say that younger generations have a sense of entitlement, and no work ethic; we say that the Baby Boomers refuse to give up power and revel in the failures of their own children. We blame everyone but those who are truly to blame.

Before you ask, at this point, no, I don't have a solution. Most of what needs to be done will never happen voluntarily under the current "nobility." They - or maybe we - have succeeded in creating such a gap between our factions that instead of working together, we just create barriers to prevent any real progress. I'm just trying to point out what I'm seeing, and where I'm afraid we're heading, and hoping that someone will be able to come up with a solution before it's too late.

I'm Baaaaa-aaaaack...

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 26 Oct 2013 12:43:00 +0000

Yeah, kind of disappeared for a while there, didn't I? Nothing sinister, I've just been focusing on my "author" blog over at Cynthia Hill Books. But lately I've had a whole lot of opinions that I didn't necessarily want to get into over there, and it's been frustrating. Not to mention, as I've learned more about blogging, and sponsored posts and reviews, etc, I wanted to do more of that sort of thing, but again, unless it has something to do with books, or pop culture, I didn't feel comfortable with it over there.

So, here I am. I'm going to have to do some renovations, probably, and may even eventually move to a self-hosted site if I can manage to keep up with two blogs, and still do some of my fiction writing. But for now, there's a post that I've been dying to write for a while now, and I'm hoping to put it up in the next few days, so stay tuned!

Newtown: How can this not be the time?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 02:38:00 +0000

I've been told in the past that, as a Canadian, I shouldn't have any opinion on American politics. However, anyone who knows me knows that it's not like me to keep my opinions to myself, and I'm not about to start now. Not now.

I heard about the shooting earlier in the day, but it didn't really register with me at first. I was at work, trying to get ready for an office Christmas party, of all things. After lunch, I left the office briefly to run a couple of errands. It was then that I saw a television news report, and realized the magnitude of what had transpired in Newtown, Connecticut.

Later that afternoon, on Twitter, almost all of the posts related to the shootings. They came in three varieties: shock and horror, dismay at brands who were continuing self-promotion at a time when people were only interested in grieving, and people saying, "Now is not the time to talk about gun control."

If not now, when?

Memories fade quickly. Right now, we are all grieving, but as our lives return to "normal", and we go back to our Christmas preparations, what about the parents who will have presents remaining unopened? After the Colorado theatre shootings it was also "too soon" to talk about gun laws, and the conversation never happened. How many more people have to die before it's the right time?

"But the Second Amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms!" you say.

As a friend of mine so eloquently put it earlier: "Fuck the Second Amendment." My right to send my children to school and have them come home safely trumps your right to own a semi-automatic.

"Guns don't kill people; people kill people."

This is my all-time favourite gun argument. Especially when they couple it with "Guns kill people like spoons made (insert name of obese celebrity here) fat." You know what I say to that? Spoons serve a purpose other than as an instrument of death. Give me one purpose of a gun other than to kill - just one - and I will give up my argument against gun control.

Larry Pratt, the Executive Director of "Gun Owners of America", had this to say:

Gun control advocates have the blood of little children on their hands. Federal and state laws combined to ensure that no teacher, no administrator, no adult had a gun at the Newtown school where the children were murdered. This tragedy underscores the urgency of getting rid of gun bans in school zones. The only thing accomplished by gun free zones is to ensure that mass murderers can slay more before they are finally confronted by someone with a gun.

So there you have it: the answer to gun crime is more guns. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it? Heck, if EVERYONE had a gun - even little children - no one would ever shoot anyone! Maybe gun training should come right after potty training?

This Christmas, 26 families and their friends, will be in mourning. So many other children have had their innocence taken away far too young. How can this possibly not be the time to talk about gun control?

Five Reasons That "Every Man for Himself" Doesn't Work

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 19:14:00 +0000

1. Not every person is capable of being a CEO or executive.

We are not all born with equal opportunities in this life. Anyone who tells you that is either lying or trying to sell you something (probably a right-wing philosophy). It may sound cruel, but in reality, it's true. Every mother may think that her child is a genius, but in the end, we all have differing levels of intelligence. Not everyone is smart enough to run a company, or operate on another person's brain. For some people, running a deep fryer, or working in some other low-paying job is the best that they are capable of. Are you one of the ones who is extremely intelligent? Fantastic. Guess what? It's as much of a fluke of nature as it is that you were born in a first world country, rather than a dictator-run, third world country constantly hit by natural disasters. Consider yourself lucky and have some compassion for those who weren't born with your gifts.

2. If everyone was a CEO/doctor/lawyer, who would serve them their fancy lunches or drive their airport limo?

The world is simply not set up for everyone to be in a position of power and influence. SOMEONE needs to be on the base of the pyramid. They may not be the ones who run things, but they are the ones who keep things running. You can't have a successful factory without the people on the shop floor, running the machines.

3. Working hard doesn't necessarily equal monetary rewards.

"You have no idea how hard a CEO works." Yeah, I've heard that one before. I have worked for senior executives for years. I know the insane hours that they put in. But what about the parent working two minimum wage jobs, 60-80hrs per week, just to pay rent & buy food? What about labourers working outdoors in freezing cold temperatures in winter, and broiling hot in summer? Don't they deserve seven-figure salaries, too?

4. No one NEEDS millions of dollars.

This is admittedly a bit of hyperbole on my part: there are, in fact, people who need, for whatever reason (I'm thinking of medical care, but I'm sure there are other reasons) millions of dollars to survive. These people are not the ones about whom I'm speaking. The average person - or even the average family - does not need millions of dollars to survive. I actually sat down and thought about it once, and if I were to win $5,000,000, taken care of properly, my family could probably survive on that for the rest of our lives, easily, with a comfortable house, food to eat, and a nice vacation every year. I get that people have different priorities, and if you work hard, you should be able to have a new sports car, or a boat, or an emu farm, if that's what you really want. I also know that someone making millions of dollars per year can have all of that, and still afford to pay a "high" tax rate - you know, more than 10-15% - without suffering. Suffering is choosing which meals you're going to eat this week, because you haven't got enough to buy groceries for three meals a day. Suffering is NOT only having one live-in nanny for your two kids.

5. It's just not nice.

Yeah, this isn't a logical argument. I get that. But the truth is, I will just never understand the idea that it's okay to say, "my family and I are okay, so screw everyone else." I hate hearing people make the assumption that everyone who is struggling is a "welfare bum" or is too lazy to help themselves. God forbid that those people ever go through a hard time beyond their control.

Sometimes, a bit of human compassion can go a long way.

It's Not About Free Speech

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:09:00 +0000

I'm sick of hearing the name "Chick-Fil-A" (stupid name, by the way, but not really the point.)

I want to shut up about it. I really do.

But I can't.

I can't sit here and watch you post pictures of yourself gleefully eating chicken sandwiches and waffle fries, or posting about how long the line ups were yesterday for "National Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day" as if this were something to celebrate.

Because hate is not something to celebrate.

"It's not about hate! It's about free speech!"

Dan Cathy has the right to say whatever he wants. I have the right to think he's a bigoted idiot, and move on, but it's not so simple.

Chick-Fil-A has donated MILLIONS of dollars to the "Family Research Council" and "The Marriage and Family Foundation." These organizations not only support the criminalization of homosexuality in the United States, but they go do "missionary" work in other countries, giving support to laws there that would strengthen laws against homosexuality. Including punishment by DEATH. They support organizations like Exodus International who provide "pray away the gay" counselling (I use that term in the MOST ironic sense) that only does NOT work, but it further shames people for simply being who they are - the person that God created them to be.

In the US, it is still legal in 29 states to fire someone solely for being homosexual - and I'm making a totally uneducated guess here that most Chick-Fil-A restaurants are in states where this is true. Still think that CFA has never fired anyone for being gay? They probably did, but it never got any publicity because it was totally legal.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you how this impacts all of my gay friends and family. It doesn't matter. It wouldn't matter if I had never met a single GBLT person in my life. It's about being a decent person, and not reducing a fellow human being to a "less than." It's not okay to discriminate on the basis of the colour of someone's skin, or their gender, so why is it okay to discriminate on the basis of whom they love?

It's not about chicken. I'm Canadian, and to the best of my knowledge, I have never set foot in CFA. It's not about free speech. It's about right and wrong. And hate, however you dress it up ("Love the sinner, hate the sin" anyone?), is wrong.

It Was Supposed to Be the Unsinkable Station...

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 01:32:00 +0000

WHAT A DAY!

I mean seriously: this is the kind of stuff that only happens to me.

This morning I happily went on my way to working thinking, "It's Friday!" I got off the GO Train at Union Station, walked on through to the TTC and was about to get the subway up to my office, when I realized I didn't have my wallet. I went through my bag about 4 times, but it was NOT in there. I started to panic. I called my husband at home, who, although annoyed with me for panicking, calmed me down somewhat and agreed to call The Real Canadian Superstore where I had stopped the night before for a few groceries. Sure enough, I had left my wallet there, some EXTREMELY kind person had turned it in, and they had it. Phew.

However, I was still in downtown Toronto, an hour's train ride from home, with no cash, no cards, and no ID. Great. Obviously I couldn't hop the subway up to work. I was going to have to walk to my office, then figure out what to do from there.

But here's the thing: it was POURING rain. Like, not happy little April showers that somehow ended up waiting until June 1st, but a torrential downpour. Great. This is why my 11-year-old daughter is in my good books today: before I left, when I left the umbrellas for her and her sister, she told me, "Well at least wear a coat with a hood." I was DAMNED thankful for that hood while I was walking 25 minutes or so up University Avenue.

I got to work, where one of my coworkers kindly loaned me $20 until Monday, and although I was still having that uneasy "I don't have my wallet" feeling, I was much better.

Then came the news after lunch that the TTC portion of Union Station had flooded, and the subways were closed from Osgoode to Bloor - so essentially most of the downtown loop. I was going to have to walk back down. Ugh. (I normally do walk in the afternoon, but not in weather like that!) I was very happy when I got out of my office and found out that the rain had stopped momentarily, but WOW, there were a LOT of people on the streets, not to mention news vans, police cars, and a screeching fire truck that I still don't know where was headed. I was SO glad to get on the train and start heading for home tonight!

But, since I've been home, I've been looking at the photos and videos of the flood. Wow!

I've also been loving the memes that I've been seeing tonight. Some of them are absolutely hilarious.

Nuh nah, nuh nah.. nuh nah nuh nah nuh nah...

Rose and Jack try to escape Union Station: "I'll never let go!" "I'm the King of the Subway!"

And my absolute favourite:

Mayor Rob trying to help disperse the water!

I should mention that I don't know what geniuses created these, so I can't give credit, but whomever you are, you're brilliant!

How I Became the Font of Ben Mulroney Knowledge

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:19:00 +0000

Photo Credit: @BenMulroney1976

Two years ago, I did a series on this blog entitled "The 30 Days of Ben Mulroney." It was a tongue-in-cheek look at Canada's favourite political son/entertainment reporter, and it was kind of a poke at my good friend, Sam (AKA The Pop Culture Addict). For 30 days in March and April, 2010, I posted all kinds of fun facts about CTV's Golden Boy. I honestly figured no one was paying attention. I was pretty sure my friends were rolling their eyes at me (I'm still pretty sure that they were.)

After the 30 days were over, I really didn't think about it again for a long time. Because really, who spends their days thinking about Ben Mulroney? (Except maybe Ben Mulroney.) Then I noticed that despite the fact that I had all but abandoned this blog, barely posting on it in recent memory, I was still getting hits on the site. I was curious to know what people were looking for, and I was shocked at the answer: Ben Mulroney.

It was vaguely amusing to watch the stats, and see just how many people were interested in his wedding photo. It kind of tickled me in the secret places to know that I had become the "go-to" blogger for all things Ben.

Today, though, I noticed a major upswing in the hits on my blog, and sadly they weren't reading my article about the 10 Things Lindsay Lohan Should Do While Filming in Toronto (which is really too bad, because I think it's some of my finer work!) They were LOOKING FOR BEN MULRONEY! What the heck?!?

Then I realized: Ben Mulroney co-hosted "Live with Kelly" this morning. More than half of the hits came from the US, and at least a few of them were from searches for "Who is Ben Mulroney?"

Ben has invaded the US. God help them all. It's not bad enough that they're plagued with Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum: they need Ben, too?

I'm only kidding, I swear. Despite my good friend's rancor, I harbor no bitter feelings towards Ben. He's doing his thang as the kids say. All of my kidding is done with an affectionate virtual pat on the head.

In the meantime, if you've come across this blog searching for answers to the age old question: "Who is Ben Mulroney?" I'll direct you here where all of the answers lie. Good luck, and God speed!

10 Things for Lindsay Lohan to Do While in Toronto

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:59:00 +0000

In case you didn't hear, Lindsay Lohan was FINALLY released from formal probation last week, afer what the judge called "the longest DUI case in history" (this all stemmed from a DUI in 2007!) and now she just has to stay on the straight and narrow, without any brushes with the law, for the next 2.5 years.

Shortly after her probation hearing, a work permit was quickly issued for Lindsay to begin work on her new Lifetime movie - a biopic of Elizabeth Taylor.

I'm not going to even get into how queasy this makes me. Instead, I'm going to focus on all of the fun things that Lindsay could do in her down time whilst in Toronto, rather than getting into trouble and ending up back in a courtroom!

10. Check out a Jays' Game Men, tight pants, balls... need I say more?

9. Casa Loma She'll probably need a very understanding tour guide, though, when she keeps asking where the Prince is.

8. Check Out the CBC Museum Check out all that the history of Canadian television has to offer. Also, if you hang around long enough, Strombo might interview you, and maybe they'll even offer you your own show!

7. Visit Queen's Park She spent time working at the LA County Morgue. She should feel right at home.

6. Hit the Beach at the Toronto Islands Lindsay's not fond of keeping her clothes on, and neither are most of the other people at Hanlan's Point. It's a match made in heaven!

5. Visit MuchMusic They both used to play music, so it should be a natural fit!

4. Take in the ROM The Royal Ontario Museum has some of the greatest collections in the world. Plus, the mummies there are probably considerably more maternal than Dina Lohan.

3. Go to the top of the CN Tower After all, what better way to see our fine city? She could even try the Edge Walk. Of course, she'd have to pass a sobriety test before going out to see the view, but that's nothing new for LiLo anyway.

2. Shopping in Yorkville That man following you, Ms. Lohan? Oh, that's just Vincent. He's just there to ensure you find everything you need (and pay for it on the way out...)

1. Go to The Courthouse Because if she's looking for a place that she can relax, why not go someplace familiar?

Who's in Charge of this Train, Anyway?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 16:02:00 +0000

A friend just "recommended" this editorial by Michael Ignatieff on Facebook. My initial thought was to recommend it myself, with my thoughts. Then I decided to post it here, instead. I've noticed lately that I've lost a few FB friends, and although at first this hurt me, I had to wonder if it was due to my political/ideological postings. If that's the case: too bad. I am who I am, and I believe what I believe. Often very strongly.

What I don't understand is why people who disagree with me about these issues are so offended by the idea of society working together for everyone's betterment. Are they afraid for their own standard of living? Do they honestly believe that every poor person is poor because of laziness and/or drug and alcohol abuse? That every New Year's baby born today has EXACTLY the same opportunities for "success" as his/her peers?

I love the analogy in the article: that living in the Great Depression was like riding a train. If you had a job, "it was like being in the heated parlour car in the front of the train, while the unemployed were in the unheated freight cars in the back." I've noticed that those who are so adamantly against government programs to help the poor are usually those who are not only employed, but have been in the same job for a long time; who haven't had to deal with months and months of resumes and applications, and internet job searches; those who don't know that trying to live on $1800 per month (approximately the maximum amount of EI in our area) is nearly impossible for a family who may depend on that income as their sole source of support. For those who have been riding in those unheated freight cars, it is a ride of fear, shame, and despair, made all the more hard by living amongst those who are eating caviar in the parlour car.

I guess I just will never understand how it is that people can be so unwilling to give up a little bit of their wealth to make sure that other people have a reasonable standard of living. There is no way out of this mess while some are zealously guarding the proverbial Versailles and the peasants are crying for bread.

I once had someone ask me "Who are you to decide what's a reasonable income for anyone else?" That's not an easy question for me to answer. I suppose I have no right to say that no one NEEDS over a million dollars a year, but to me, that's just plain logic. To say, "I work 20 hours a day for that money, so I should get to keep it" discounts those who are working 2 or 3 jobs at minimum wage and barely surviving. Are you working harder than the person who's cleaning your office at 2am? The person who's out collecting your trash in -20 degree or 35 degree weather? Are you working harder than the person building the roads for you to drive to your company? The teacher who's educating your children? Who are YOU to say that what you do is worth more than what anyone else contributes to society?

I've been told that this whole "December 21, 2012" thing is more about a societal shift than about the end of the world. I really hope that's true, because until we all realize that we're all in this world together, I don't see us finding those middle cars on the train.

Jack Layton, 1950-2011

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 02:54:00 +0000

I was in a pretty good mood when I got to work last Monday morning. I'd barely sat at my desk and turned on my computer, though, when I got the news: "Jack Layton died."

It shouldn't have been a shock. Anyone who saw his gaunt appearance at his last press conference knew it couldn't be good. People talked about the possibility that he wouldn't return to Parliament Hill in whispers, as if saying it too loudly might cause it to happen.

Maybe in the end, someone spoke about it too loudly after all. Maybe it was just meant to happen this way. Maybe it was just a fluke of nature - a bad hand dealt in the game of life. I suppose in the end, it comes down to what you believe about life, and death.

In the past week, I've been kind of weepy when I thought about it. It's not because of any personal connection: like most Canadians, I didn't know Jack Layton personally; in fact, I never even met the man, or saw him from afar. Although I'm not registered with any particular party, I've always considered myself a Liberal who occasionally votes NDP. I've never lived in his constituency, so I have never had the opportunity to cast a vote for, or against him.

Really, me being weepy about something isn't all that unusual. Don't tell anyone, but the truth is I can get weepy over just about anything - happy or sad. Any strong emotion can elicit tears from me. It's kind of embarrassing.I don't think the subtle melancholy I've felt the past week has been my usual hyper-emotional state, though. There has been something about Jack Layton's passing that has affected me, and made me think about what I really believe in.

The title of this blog has always been tongue-in-cheek. As much as I've considered running for political office, I seriously doubt that my "30 Days of Ben Mulroney" entries are likely to help my cause. Layton's passing, though, does make me think a lot about what I believe.

I believe:

That everyone should have equal rights - including the right to marry and raise a family.
That every child deserves the best possible start in life. Sadly, this doesn't always happen at home, so our schools, and our community programs are pivotal, and deserve nothing but the best.
That healthcare is a right, not a privilege. No one should go bankrupt paying medical bills. Families going through catastrophic illness deserve support.
In justice, not vengeance.
That higher education and apprenticeship training should be available to everyone. While it may not be realistic to assume that it could be free, there needs to be a better way of making it accessible, without students going into massive amounts of debt.
That Canada needs to be at the forefront of finding alternative energy sources, while still keeping costs in line, so that families can afford to pay their utility bills.

In Jack Layton, we saw optimism, and hope for the future of Canada. Not that I'm generally a fan of Stephen Harper anyway, but I just don't see that kind of positive energy from him. He just always seems pissed off and angry. He appears - to me, anyway - like he's looking down on those he claims to represent. Jack Layton never did that. One of the best photos I've seen the past week was of Layton and his wife, Olivia Chow, riding in the Toronto Pride Parade, and looking like they were having a fabulous time.

I want to see Canada have a leader with that kind of vivacity. Not that personality alone makes a leader: you need the brains to back it up; but to see someone leading this country who actually cared what Canadians thought, and what they needed to make their lives better. Isn't that what we need?

As we talked on the day of Jack Layton's death, my husband said, "He was never meant to be Prime Minister." That may be so, but I truly hope that in the next few years of the Harper majority, a leader will emerge who will give Canadians a sense of optimism, and energy. I am so proud to be Canadian. I want the world to be able to see what an amazing country this is, and I want every Canadian to feel the same way.

"My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful, and optimistic. And we'll change the world."

RIP Jack.

Election Rant #2: Mid-Afternoon Phone Call

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 23:17:00 +0000

This afternoon I received a phone call that has me... somewhat concerned. It was to do with the election, which is not surprising, given that there is only a week to go.

A very YOUNG girl called here asking if Colin Carrie (our local Conservative candidate) could count on my vote. At the time, because she'd woken me up from a nap and I was worried that she was going to wake up my toddler, I just told her flatly no, that I didn't vote Conservative.

Now that I've had time to think about it though, several thoughts occur to me about this phone call.

A) The call came directly to me, by name (not my husband, and not "Mrs. Hill" which I often get); Dr. Carrie, just because I wrote to you about the potential Quebec violations of the Canada Health Act does NOT make me your supporter. PLEASE take me off your lists! I've already unsubscribed from your preening "Look what I can do!" newsletter.

B) I'm kind of concerned that a girl that young is supporting him. I know some people just SOUND young, but I would be incredibly shocked if this girl was old enough to vote. Is she doing volunteer hours for high school? Does she have ANY idea of the Conservatives' anti-women policies? Is she just there because her parents are going to vote for him?

C) No, no he cannot count on my vote. In fact, I'd suggest exactly the opposite. Oh, wait... I already mentioned that.

Election Rant #1: The Outsider

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 18:02:00 +0000

It suddenly occurred to me this morning, as I was ranting to my husband about an election issue, that I hadn't used this blog in a LONG time, and, coincidentally, that this blog was originally intended for, among other things, my political rants. Hmmm...

So here's the rant of the day:

I am a Liberal. Not an official member of the Liberal Party of Canada, although I am now seriously considering it, just so that I can yell at whomever came up with this hairbrained idea. But I live in an area that is very much NOT Liberal. The last several elections have had a Conservative win the riding. You would think, given the GM plant, that it would be an NDP area, but I haven't seen much of that. However, back in the days of the Chretien government, my riding was Liberal. It seems that it's kind of a "go with the majority" kind of area.

The last several elections, both provincial and federal, the Liberal Party has run the same candidate, over and over and OVER again. Said candidate, Louise Parks, was a councilwoman on the City Council for many years, until she lost the mayoral election this past year. Said candidate is also a very polarizing figure: you either love her or hate her. I've tended towards the latter, and I believe that the majority of the city feels the same way. Something about her just rubs me the wrong way. Perhaps it's just the feeling that, rather than working for the electorate, she's working for her own political ambitions. Realistically (and somewhat cynically) I think most politicians may be that way, but most of them hide it a little better.

Anyway, the Liberals have dumped Louise Parks this time. Originally, when I saw a lawn sign showing another name, James Morton, I rejoiced in that they had listened to my rants (although, since I never expressed my dismay to the local party leaders, I wonder if they've been bugging my house or something...)

But then I saw our local paper, listing the candidates and their backgrounds, and I knew that the Liberals haven't got a snowball's chance in the eternal fires of winning this riding. The Liberal Party, Oshawa riding, have decided that rather than finding a local candidate, they should put forward a Toronto lawyer who lives in Thornhill, but has "signed a lease" in Oshawa. In other words, they think they've brought in a ringer.

Pardon my language, but WHAT THE FUCK?

They honestly don't believe that there is a single qualified person anywhere in the city of Oshawa who could put up a fight for this Parliamentary seat? I believe that Whitby tried this in the last election, and it failed miserably. Oshawa people, if they actually read the news, will NOT be happy about a person who knows NOTHING about Oshawa being brought in to potentially represent their interests. Oshawa is a totally different kind of city - truthfully, it's one of the things that I like about it. Despite being a part of the GTA, it isn't Pickering, or Ajax, or Whitby, and it sure as Hell isn't Thornhill.

I will say that I'm sure he's perfectly qualified to be an MP. Reading about him on the website I'm not totally unimpressed, I'm just frustrated to be backing another sure loss.

Nice going, Liberals.

Blue Skies, Smilin' at Me

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 18:39:00 +0000

My blogging has been less than zero lately, here and on my other blogs. Blogging rules say that I'm not "supposed" to apologize for long absences, so I won't, but I am going to explain where I've been anyway. It's my blog, and I can do what I want!

I've been a more than a little preoccupied lately with a musical that I've been working on now since August. It's a production of "White Christmas" that the Scugog Choral Society in Port Perry is doing. (Tickets are almost sold out, but you can get what's left here) It's based on the old Bing Crosby/Danny Kaye movie, for those who don't know. It has fantastic music, a lot of dancing, and a whole lotta love! And the parting of the Red Sea! No, seriously!

The show closes tomorrow night. We have three shows left between now and then. Honestly, despite the show taking over a large chunk of my life lately, I am pretty bummed about the end.

I hear a lot from people in my life that I shouldn't "waste my time" being in the chorus of shows. These are people who love me, and care about me, and know my background in theatre. They think I should hold out and only do shows if I have lead roles. I understand where they're coming from, and truthfully I'm always a little bit bummed out to be "in the chorus AGAIN" but I don't have the strongest singing voice, and I know that, so even though it's always a bit disappointing to be given yet another chorus role, I end up accepting happily, because I know that in the end I will enjoy myself. I also don't do these shows in the hopes of being discovered by an agent, or a major movie director who just HAPPENS to go see a show in small town Ontario. I do them because I love musicals. I have them in my blood. I love the fact that in musicals it's okay - even expected - to have BIG emotions. If you're happy, you're the happiest guy in the world, but if you're not, it's the biggest trauma you've ever experienced. There's no in between in musicals. I love the costumes, and the dancing, and most of all, the music.

I openly admit that I wish life were like a musical. I truly believe that I should have an orchestra follow me around at all times who could just play along to whatever song fits my emotional state at the time. It's one of the reasons I love Glee - they just HAPPEN to have a band who can play any song, any time. It's my dream for life.

This show has been so much more to me, though. I always enjoy doing shows, but sometimes the cast gels better than others. This has been one of those times. I knew a lot of the cast members before, through other productions with various companies, and some were good friends, but there were some I had never had the opportunity to work with previously. There were some I had "known" but didn't really know. There were a few that I was already good friends with. This particular combination, though, has proven to be magical (yes Liz, I'm stealing your word!)

I am really sad to know that after Saturday night I won't see these people again, in this particular grouping, on a regular basis. As much as I know my husband is dying to have me home again all the time to help with the kids, it has been a joy to go to the Town Hall, knowing that I was going to see them, and spend the evening running up and down stairs for copious costume changes, sitting backstage and whispering along to songs I don't get to sing, but wish I did, and occasionally making somewhat obscene comments - away from the younger members of the cast, of course! I've gotten to spend more time with one good friend than I have in years; I've gotten to know people I've worked with previously, but didn't really spend time with (even if some of them are total divas who have to have a follow spot everywhere they go!); and I've been lucky enough to get to know a few new absolutely fabulous people that I hope will stay in my life after the curtain closes for the last time.

There's almost always a camaraderie amongst a cast, and over the years I've learned that those fast friendships formed backstage can quickly fade after the final curtain call. I really hope that won't be the case this time. The friendships I've made, and strengthened, are far too valuable for that.

Why Do I Care?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:27:00 +0000

I haven't lived within the boundaries of Metro Toronto since 1998. The last Toronto election I voted in was also the FIRST Metro Toronto election after the "megacity" was created. Since then our family has moved around, but for the most part we've been within the boundaries of the Greater Toronto Area (some "greater" than others).

So you might wonder why I care about who was elected Mayor of Toronto. Here are a few reasons:

I may not live there anymore, but I really do love Toronto. I love wandering around downtown. I love Queen West and the Beaches (wait, the Beach?). I love the entertainment district and all of the mega-musicals put on by Mirvish Productions and Dancap, among others. I love the smaller theatres like Passe Muraille, the Factory, Soulpepper and CanStage. I love the fact that I can walk all over downtown Toronto in the middle of winter without a coat using the PATH system. I love watching baseball games at SkyDome (I will never admit that it's no longer called SkyDome, so don't even try to make me.) I love the Toronto Islands. Most of all, I love the people - well, most of them, anyway. So I don't want to see a loudmouth politician screw up "my" city. I also don't want any Lastman-sized international embarrassments (African cannibals, anyone? How does that compare to wanting someone's wife to be go over to Iran and be raped? Hmmm...)
The truth is, what happens in Toronto affects the whole province to a certain extent, most notably the 905 area (for those not familiar with Toronto, this is a horseshoe-shaped area outside of Toronto thus called because of their "905" area codes.) If not a majority, then a lot of 905-ers are commuters. We may start our mornings in Oshawa, Pickering or Mississauga, but we spend our days firmly in the 416. Gridlock and public transit are issues that don't just affect Toronto residents.
Again, because so many 905-ers work in Toronto, if you mess up the economy of Toronto, you mess up the economy of a much wider area. Even if you don't take into account the commuters, products and services are regularly traded amongst the cities of south-central Ontario. The economy of the country's largest city has a ripple effect across the whole area, at minimum.
I was talking to someone last night who works in social services in Toronto. The look on his face when told Rob Ford was elected said it all. Outside of the Great Depression, this may be the worst thing to ever happen to the poor, under-privileged, and mentally and physically-challenged people in Toronto's history.
Why is it that the right wing is so against funding for arts organizations? My guess is that most of them can't read a book or have the attention span to sit through a play, but that's just my (somewhat biased) opinion. Arts organizations in Toronto are surely quaking today. Hopefully many of them have been making plans based on this possibility, because they can be sure sure to lose most, if not all, of their funding if Ford gets his way. It amazes me how people think this is such a huge waste of their tax dollars. Do you know how much Toronto currently spends per capita on the arts? THIRTEEN DOLLARS. Yes, that's right: $13 of your hard-earned money goes to support the arts. How much do you spend on coffee in a week? Or on take-out meals? Or anything else. You can't afford $13 per year to support thousands of artists and workers in arts organizations that bring in millions of dollars to Toronto's economy not only through ticket sales, but through hotels and restaurants as well? An article in the Star says that Pantalone and Smitherman both hoped to raise that spending to $25 per year. San Francisco, to compare one city to another, spends $86 per year on the arts. Yet Toronto, for example, is the third-largest centre for English-speaking theatre in world, behind only New York City and London.
Toronto will host World Pride Day in 2014, just a few months before the next mayoral election. Can anyone picture Rob Ford riding on a float in the Pride parade? Me neither. With the cuts that he surely wants to make to their funding, the entire experience will likely be embarrassing. However, I have faith in the Pride Week organizers, and I'm sure they'll find a way to get around the whole "bigoted mayor" thing.

I am not completely terrified of Rob Ford as mayor - just yet. I admittedly do not know much about those who have been elected as councillors, and so I don't know how much of his mandate he will really be able to pass. It could be - as many have speculated - that we'll have gridlock until the next election. Not that four years of a stalemate is a good thing, either, as we've seen in our years of minority federal governments, but at least it may mitigate the damage Ford will likely do. With any sort of luck, we can all just look back on the Rob Ford experience in four years as an amusing anecdote, and let the grownups go back to running the city.

An Evening in Yorkville

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 02:52:00 +0000

I used to work at Bloor St and Avenue Rd in Toronto, but that was a long time ago. It's been over six years since I spent a lot of time down there. If this tells you anything, I can count on two hands the number of times I've ridden the subway since we returned to Canada in 2008.

Truthfully, I preferred it when I worked further downtown. At least there I could afford to shop! In Yorkville (as the area around Bloor and Avenue is called) the stores are more Chanel and Versace than Wal-Mart and Dollar Giant. Being near the Eaton's Centre was great. I liked being within walking distance of the SkyDome (you can call it the Rogers Centre from now until Kingdom come, but it will always be the SkyDome to me!) and the Mirvish empire known as the "Entertainment District". I just love the feel of that area of Toronto.

But that being said, the one time of year that it's cool to be in Yorkville is during the Toronto International Film Festival, commonly referred to as "TIFF." During TIFF the entire area changes and starts dripping with celebrities. My big story from TIFF was always in 2002, when I saw Nick Nolte eating lunch at an outside cafe outside the Club Monaco store on Bloor. I went back to my office and was talking to a coworker who also saw him, and we both agreed that he looked like one of the homeless guys who sleep on the back ledges of the Club Monaco store. A few days later a certain famous photo of him was taken:

Tonight, for the first time in seven years, I wandered around Yorkville during TIFF. I was only there for about an hour, and it was the wrong time of day for celebrity-spotting. In fact, the most exciting thing I saw was - I think - Jon Hamm. And I've never watched Mad Men, so not all that exciting for me.

So, I had a lot of time for observations, and here are the ones that I remember:

Walking around Yorkville during TIFF, everyone looks like they could be somebody. 90% of them, aren't.
There are a lot of Escalades with tinted windows during TIFF.
During TIFF, I think that the population of Toronto (usually around 2.5 million) becomes much closer to the population of New York City (around 8.5 million). Seriously, I have not seen so many people crowded on to one section of sidewalk since the last time I was in Manhattan.
No offense to my American friends, but it is SO easy to tell the Americans when you're walking around Yorkville right now.
I don't like cigar bars. This has nothing to do with TIFF, but I just didn't like the giant cloud of smelly cigar smoke that got puffed into my face.
I did not see Ben Affleck. Despite being told that he's a jackass, I'm still disappointed.
I also did not see Ben Mulroney, despite hanging around a building with ETalk logos all over it.
I do miss being in Toronto. Hopefully as my kids get older it will be easier for me to just go and hang out again the way that I used to. Roger Ebert has made me a fan for life with the way he's been tweeting Toronto's praises in the past couple of days.

So that's it! My random thoughts after a brief evening in Yorkville. Anyone else have TIFF experiences or thoughts to share?