Well Said!

The other day I wrote a post critical of the 'blame game' being played by the NDP's Andrea Horwath to excuse her lack of progress during the recent Ontario provincial election. In a similar vein, Star letter-writer Michael Foley of Toronto offers his excoriating assessment of her rationalization:

Re: Liberal scare tactics cost party at polls, NDP leader says, June 26

I want to make this very clear, Andrea Horwath. I did not, nor have I ever voted out of fear. I vote for the leader who offers the best ideas for all Ontarians.
Horwath apparently lost because of an electorate that approached voting stations on wobbly knees, casting ballots with shaky hands, nervous sweat beading on worried brows. Not because of any missteps that she may have taken.

She lost and it was her own doing. She insults me and all who turned out to vote. It was her who abandoned her party’s founding principles not me. It was her who turned her back on core party supporters and values, not me.

Be an adult and accept the voters decision for what it is, with grace, and not with petulance and wrath.

.......................................................................................................................................

Canadians have recently been witness to the sad and now seemingly irreversible devolution of the CBC, fueled both by ongoing and deep government funding cuts and betrayal from within. Star reader Kevin Caners of Brockville reflects on the implications of this Harper-led assault on Canadian icons in this perceptive letter:

Re: CBC plan could cripple public broadcaster, June 25

As someone who cares deeply about this country, I can’t fully express how much despair it fills me with to watch as the CBC — one of the few forums we have as Canadians to both connect and reflect our culture and society — is systematically dismantled.

From the CBC to Canada Post, isn’t it symbolic that as we tear up the few remaining avenues we have as Canadians to communicate literally and metaphorically with each other, the Conservatives are busy with their vision of what it means to build a country — namely constructing pipelines to pump oil from one part of the country to another.

What an utterly sad thought that our message to our children, and the world, is that the thing we care most about connecting as a nation is not our communities, our aspirations, and our citizens, but our dirty oil, with export markets. Surely we have the imagination and confidence to see ourselves as something more than climate change deniers and hewers of bitumen.

I hardly recognize this Canada any longer. And it pains me to recognize what we’ve already lost in our haste. My only hope is that we Canadians who still believe in this country, start organizing now to make sure that the Conservatives’ sad impoverished vision for this country, comes to an end as of April 2015.

And then the true work of building a society — through our arts, culture and understanding of one another — can start anew. Time to get working.

Mansbridge Revisited

The other day I posted a report on Peter Mansbridge speaking out against cuts to the CBC and the unprecedented secrecy that pervades public institutions under the current federal government. I gave some praise to the broadcaster for finally speaking out about important issues that potentially affect all of us.

My friend Dave, from Winnipeg, sent me an email last night that offers a different perspective on Mr. Mansbridge's foray into important commentary. With his permission, I am posting it below:

Hi Lorne,

Caught your blog piece about the recent conference in Winnipeg. While the theme was important and more public discussion needs to be generated I was disappointed by my alma mater’s staging of the conference.

Why is Canada’s most ‘famous lost luggage announcer’ and several other fellow CBC employees, no doubt all champions of the public good, speaking at what can only be described as a private function? I wonder how many students shelled out $300 (guess it’s a bargain at $100 a day) to hear Pastor Mansbridge say things he avoids on air? Apparently if you are a student and could only attend one day there was a reduced rate of $50. Guess Petey and fellow public servants speaking fees had to be covered somehow.

If Pete felt so strongly about the issue I’m sure he might have waived the costs (Christ, he makes over 900K a year) and stayed at his family's place here in Winnipeg so more students could have participated.

I am more disappointed with the UofW though for commodifying what should have been an open forum for students, staff and the community to hear and discuss a very pressing issue.

Steaming mad,

Dave

Peter Mansbridge Speaks Out

Readers of this blog will know that I am a frequent critic of both the CBC and Peter Mansbridge. Both 'institutions,' in my view, often fail to live up to the standards ethical and brave journalism demands. They have been far too passive, even complicit in, the Harper regime's scorn for the so-called 'state-broadcaster.' And of course this disdain has culminated in a series of deep and devastating funding cuts to the CBC that threaten the very nature of its existence.

A new dynamic is perhaps now at work. Stung by the latest cuts, have both the corporation and its chief correspondent decided there is little to lose by speaking truth to power?

On Friday, at a conference co-sponsored by the CBC and the University of Winnipeg called “Holding Power to Account,” an international conference on investigative journalism, democracy, and human rights, Mansbridge decried a “culture of secrecy” within Canada’s public institutions.

He recalled a headline in the Toronto Star back in April that read, “What the public is not allowed to know. Public information being kept secret.” That headline, he said, was not about blocked access to public information in countries notorious for their secrecy, but about his own country.

“Not China. Not North Korea. Canada,” he said.

While not directly naming the regime responsible, Mansbridge also said:

“My company, my corporation, the CBC, the public broadcaster who has a mandated interest in investigative journalism. Who boasts that we have more investigative journalists that any media organization. This is where we’re cutting back?” he asked.

“We should be investing more in these programs. Not cutting them.”

Perhaps there is some hope, after all, for both 'institutions'?

I Come Not To Praise Flaherty

I have thus far avoided writing about Jim Flaherty's passing for a very simple reason; it is difficult, if not impossible to keep separate his family's personal loss with the man's record as a politician. Yet two pieces I read in yesterday's Star convinced me otherwise, and they allow me to offer my own views without disrespect for the dead.

The first, a fine piece of writing by Jim Coyle, is entitled Jim Flaherty gave up so much to serve us. His thesis is this:

...our politics would ... improve mightily if the Canadian public saw politicians as human beings much like themselves, often making very large sacrifices, rather than as contemptible cartoon figures of vanity, greed and corruption.

His column goes on to describe the tremendous sacrifices Flaherty made in his 25 years of service: forgone remuneration, which would have been likely totaled in the millions given the lucrative law practice he left upon entering politics, and more importantly, the precious time with his family that was never to be recovered.

Coyle states:

But let’s be honest. A life in politics, and especially in its higher reaches, is inherently incompatible with the everydayness and unpredictable crises of family life.

The job, more than most, is all-consuming. By necessity, it demands living away from home part of most weeks. Even when not in Ottawa, the travelling through ridings, the out-and-abouting, the constituency work is unrelenting.

But his piece, which ultimately is an effort to remind us of how politics can still be seen as a noble calling despite the widespread public cynicsm that currently prevails, omits something crucial to any evaluation of Jim Flaherty in particular, and politicians in general. The sacrifices Coyle discusses, while no doubt real ones, become tainted, cheapened and debased when they are made in service to a dark lord. And Flaherty had two such masters: the hideous former Ontario Premier Mike Harris, who did more than any other Canadian politician in memory to disseminate dissension, disunity and class hatred, all of which Flaherty was a willing part.

His second dark master was, of course, Stephen Harper, whose myriad measures to unravel our social, economic and political frameworks need no recounting here.

So without question, Coyle is right in reminding us that Flaherty sacrificed much to be a part of public life. But surely an honest evaluation of that life cannot be made separate from his and his masters' records.

Which brings me to the second piece I read yesterday, by Thomas Walkom, entitled CBC cuts show other side of Jim Flaherty. While acknowledging the grievous loss suffered by his family and friends, the writer makes this key assertion:

... it was under Flaherty’s watch as finance minister that the latest cutbacks in federal government funding to CBC occurred. ....he was also an integral part of a government determined to smash or cripple much of what makes Canada a livable country.

His death is a reminder that good people can do bad things for the best of motives.

Walkom broadens his perspectives beyond those cuts that will untimately destroy the CBC:

Flaherty’s various budgets have called for more than $5 billion in annual spending cuts. Successive parliamentary budget officers have noted that the vast majority of these cuts are to come from as yet unspecified public services.

On top of these, the federal government has decided to dramatically scale back spending on medicare.

Those health-care transfer cuts, announced by Flaherty in 2011, won’t kick in until well after the next election.

The cutbacks in employment insurance, the decision to raise the age of eligibility for old-age security, the reductions in transfer payments to Ontario, the lessening of environmental enforcement — all were collective decisions of the Harper cabinet.

All ministers bear responsibility for them.

But to forget that the former finance minister was a critical part of this ministry is to do him no favours.

And surely, it does no favours to Canada if we bury Flaherty's questionable record along with his earthly remains.

The Ad the CBC Refuses To Air

Are they right or wrong? You decide.



You can read the full story here.

CBC Apologizes Privately for O'Leary

The following has been reported in The Globe with regard to Kevin O'Leary's boorish and abusive recent interview with Chris Hedges:

CBC’s ombudsman says Kevin O’Leary’s heated remarks during an interview with author Chris Hedges violated the public broadcaster’s journalistic standards.

The watchdog says hundreds of complaints were filed after Mr. O’Leary called the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist “a nutbar” during CBC News Network’s The Lang & O’Leary Exchange on Oct. 6. The remark came during a seven-minute segment about the Occupy Wall Street protests unfolding in the United States.

Unfortunately, like an embarrassed parent covering for an errant child, CBC News correctly issued a private apology to Mr. Hedges after the interview but should also have apologized on air.

A CBC spokesman was not immediately available Friday to say whether that recommendation would be implemented.

Unlike a responsible parent, however, in its on-going quivering deference to the right-wing forces it is constantly seeking to appease, there is no indication in the report that CBC will demand an apology from O'Leary, just as it gave him a free pass earlier when he used the racist term 'Indian giver'.

Until O'Leary is brought to his knees in a genuine apologize, anything the CBC does on this matter is, to me, a mere charade of integrity.

My CBC Letter of Complaint About Kevin O'Leary

For anyone who might be interested, here is the letter of complaint I sent off by snail-mail (not as easily ignored as email, at least that's my thinking) yesterday to the CBC about Kevin O'Leary and his disgraceful treatment of Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and author Chris Hedges:


To Whom it May Concern:

I am writing to express my strong disapproval of Kevin O'Leary's insulting 'interview' with the well-respected writer and journalist Chris Hedges on a recent Lang and O'Leary Exchange. In referring to Mr. Hedges as a 'nutbar' and employing a general tone of sarcasm throughout the segment, O'Leary not only disgraced himself but seriously tarnished the reputation of the CBC, which at one time enjoyed world-wide acclaim for the quality of its programming. To allow one of your employees to resort to ad hominems as a substitute for reasoned discussion is inexcusable, and is a sad extension of the Corporation's unwillingness to demand an apology from O'Leary for his racist statement earlier this year about “Indian givers.”

I suspect the ongoing decline of the CBC's journalistic integrity stems from your desire to placate the Harper government and its right-wing adherents. History teaches us that such efforts at appeasement rarely yield the results intended, but rather exacerbate and accelerate the deterioration of the placating body. I also suspect you will find declining support for organizations such as Friends of the CBC, since the distinctive role the Corporation once played in Canada is quickly becoming just a memory.

It is perhaps ironic that in substituting invective for reasoned discussion in his Hedges' 'interview,' O'Leary was exemplifying the thesis of Hedges' book, The Death of the Liberal Class, which posits that the traditional challenges to the power elite's excesses no longer exist, as unions, the church, educational institutions, the media, etc. have abdicated that role in favour of ensconcing themselves within the power structure.

As a long-time supporter of the CBC, it is a harsh truth that I wish our national broadcaster had proven the exception to.

Sincerely,
Lorne Warwick



For those interesting in registering a complaint, both the snail-mail and website contact information is listed below:

Audience Relations, CBC
P.O. Box 500 Station A
Toronto, ON
Canada, M5W 1E6


http://www.cbc.ca/contact/

As Usual, The CBC Is Under Attack By The Right-Wing

I have written before about how I feel that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has, in many ways, sold out to the Conservative Government. Undoubtedly not having understood the sad history of appeasement, they have pursued that profitless course, trying to convince the government of its bones fides by giving right-wing cranks like Kevin O'Leary his own show, and allowing Peter Mansbrige to play the role of the obeisant sycophant during his interviews with those who hold power.

Nonetheless, the Right is implacable. As is so widely evident in their destructive rhetoric, they cannot tolerate opposing views, even when they hold power. It is therefore not surprising that there is a concerted move afoot to defang ( I mean defund) the CBC even further.

As reported in a Globe story entitled CBC funding under microscope in Conservative survey:

Conservative Senator Irving Gerstein, who chairs the Conservative Party’s fundraising division, recently sent a letter to supporters that included a 10-question “National Critical Issues Survey” seeking input to help the government set its priorities for the fall and into 2012.

One question asks whether the more than $1-billion Ottawa spends on the CBC is “good value” or “bad value.”

Meanwhile, two Conservative MPs, Rob Anders and Ed Holder, are taking it a step further, asking their constituents in surveys whether the government should keep funding the CBC.

Mr. Anders, a Calgary MP who has always been a controversial maverick on the right wing of his party, now features a petition on his website calling on Parliament “to end public funding of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.”

Some may recall that Anders, who had an interesting previous life as a professional political heckler in the U.S., was also the moral and mental genius who was the sole parliamentarian to vote against Nelson Mandela being recognized as an honorary citizen of Canada, labeling him a communist and terrorist.

Need I add more?