Showing posts with label wealth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wealth. Show all posts

18 July 2019

The CBC and Trump's tweets about 4 black women

In the CBC article, ‘EU president takes shot at Trump's “unacceptable” tweets after Trudeau meeting’, the original tweets made by President Trump become entwined in news articles with stories of the chants of “Send her back” by his supporters at a Trump rally a day or so later.

At the same time as accusations were being made against Trump, Donald Tusk - President of the European Council, after meeting with Trudeau in Montreal, himself tweeted about being glad not to be met with a’ Send him back’ chant by his audience.

These are just incidents aside from the main one, the tweets sent out by Trump on July 14 which some took to be racist, and others only “unacceptable”.  

But why his tweets should be considered to be something more than unacceptable, in terms of being racist, or him being racist, is unclear. The idea of freedom of speech was mentioned by some commenters in the Comments Section of the CBC news article online. No one had a clear idea, it seems, of what the tweets actually consisted of, only that, for many commenters, they were racist.

Eventually, I posted the contents of the tweets by Donald Trump in a comment, and lo and behold, they were not put under moderation soon to be disabled.

Nowhere, however, are the actaul remarks made by these 4 black women in Donald Trump’s Congress, on the Conservative side, available. And no article I have read on this or seen on tv news programs, mentions what it was that Trump was responding to, what sorts of troubles the female “squad” was probing into, and were questioning, that led to such words from Trump.

I wanted to know what brought this on, because I have been involved in my own situation where at least some non-white doctors who must have been from foreign cultures, had caused me trouble at a local hospital, dragging me into a situation that never should have happened, whereby I was tested for something I never had, and then tested again, in a way I know foreigners coming here as refugees and immigrants are never tested, unless obviously ill. Speaking as I did against these doctors – some of them – got comments I made deleted, as though I had no credibility and could not possibly be telling the truth. And although I took my complaint  - part of it – to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the response I got from them was that I was not telling the truth (or could have been that they knew I was telling the truth but that one does not say things like that about doctors from foreign countries, even though they had been shirking their duty and allowing incorrect information to pass by them, affecting the way I would be treated at the next step.

No one commenting or responding to comments on the news article comments Section online knew or spoke of what the actual tweets were, from Trump, and yet most seemed to have already made their minds up and for the most part were against Trump. Quite a few were against me. Are we not allowed to speak truths against people from other cultures, and are we not allowed to mention their colour when relevant, as a means of identifying who they are? I have been stopped midsentence while speaking to someone at the hospital who supposedly had some knowledge of ethics, but I didn’t get a sense that he had much. Just say the person was black and one gets accused of racism, just as a black person accusing a white person of racism would get the undivided attention of people like Trudeau, and probably a lot more at the local hospital.
The CBC has been called too politically-correct by some readers, but I don’t know what it is about them, and the moderators who look after the Comments Sections of various news articles. But quite a few of my comments were getting moderated and then deleted. How could this be, when so many people say such terrible things about someone who is President of the United States? How is it they are allowed to be so disrespectful towards him, and so intolerant and not believing he may have had a reason to say the things he said. He was judged by people who didn’t have the full story. And I was being judged also, by CBC, and by the CPSO, and probably by the LHSC, to whom I have also submitted a complaint.

In 3 separate but connected tweets on July 14,  Trump wrote the following:

So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly......
5:27 AM – 14 Jul 2019

....and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how....

....it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!


No doubt that the tweets were harsh. But were they racist?

I saved copies of comments made by individuals in the Comments Section of the article about the EU Council President and PM Trudeau, which I shall refer to below without naming them but including them anonymously, and deleting any words or ideas that might betray their identity.  Although they are written for a public forum, the usual practice is for them to be deleted or stored so practically inaccessible from the page the article is on, or anywhere. Mine will have my name on them.


H
Reply to W
She is allowed to speak her mind. Called democracy.


 Sue McPherson              CONTENT DISABLED
 Reply to H:
Trump didn't say, Send her back, or Send them back. He said if they didn't like America they could always go back where they came from /Now this EU guy Tusk is saying Yup, that's what Trump said - Send her back. these distortions of truth have to stop.


Sue McPherson
Now Trump is getting known for apparently saying "Send them back" when what he said was, if the black members of his cabinet did not like America, they can always go back home. This distortion of truth is being carried on into tv and and even this news article by the CBC, as though it is truth.

Canadians aren't really such great people, and Donald Tusk doesn't know that, although it has nothing to do with suggesting that if people don't like it here they can always go back to where they and their ancestors came from. I don't know why he would even raise that issue here in Canada. He has no idea what goes on here.


L  
Reply to Sue McPherson:
he said they're from "broken, crime infested countries" and they should go back there. Was he talking about their homes in America?

(He was absolutely NOT talking about members of his own cabinet!!!)


Sue McPherson    35 minutes ago    AWAITING MODERATION
 Reply to L:
He said that if they didn't like America they could always go back to their broken crime-infested countries and fix them.

What was the racist part of what he said? Was it because he called their poverty-ridden countries broken, or crime-infested? Or was it because he suggested they could go back if they didn't like it here. that's not the same as saying Send them back! Send them bacK!

Do you think Trymp is racist, or that his remarks were? Explain your position.


H   Reply to Sue McPherson: Are you Canadian? If not, please be quiet. If so, please explain "what goes on here".


Sue McPherson   CONTENT DISABLED
Reply to H:
I live in London, Ontario, We are inundated with doctors from Africa and India, in which contagious diseases are rampant, and they're not being checked thoroughly on the way in for TB or other related diseases. Maybe the US doesn't have that problem, It's something Trump doesn't mention, re asylum seekers from the south.

I run into people too, at the hospital - doctors - who seem to have the same attitude that these 4 women from the Trumps cabinet have. They are given so much that they seem to develop a kind of arrogance about their position, wanting more.

I see people - white women, and Canadians, supporting those poor harassed members of cabinet - the equivalent of Christina Freeland whose buddy Trudeau got her a job in foreign affairs. she loves dealing with poor, oppresses, rich girls from abroad, not so much with the ebola crisis or anything that goes on here.

I am fed up with foreigners from abroad - usually wealthy - being treated with more respect than people here and bringing their cultural values with them, of attitudes towards older, unmarried females in Canada. And then we read the distortions of Trump's words, from what he said to "Send them back" which were not his words.

I have put in a complaint to the CPSO about 2 microbiologists at LHSC, which they seem very reluctant to deal with. I have also sent a compliant about D------ and C---------- to LHSC. How they can allow these people to continue when they have made these errors and not do anything about correcting them, and how the respirologist I had could simply refuse (also from a different cultural background) I do not know. What I do know is no one is analyzing what these 4 women have been critical of, in America. It is all blamed on Trump.

M     
Reply to Sue McPherson: You should go back and visit exactly what trump said. You are completely off-base. BTW, please explain "what goes on" here? You don't sound very patriotic of loyal.

Sue McPherson 
Reply to M
I have just finished explaining to H but well you know what. my comment is not there.

Sue McPherson
Reply to H:
My response to you was not published. I have had problems with the health care system here, see my blog sue's views on the news. They are treated me very badly, trying to silence me. Canada - London - is not a nice place.


Sue McPherson   CONTENT DISABLED
Reply to H
I live in London, Ontario, We are inundated with doctors from Africa and India, in which contagious diseases are rampant, and they're not being checked thoroughly on the way in for TB or other related diseases. This is fact - see your public health unit for more info. Maybe the US doesn't have that problem, It's something Trump doesn't mention, re asylum seekers from the south.

I run into people too, at the hospital – doctors – who seem to have the same attitude that these 4 women from the Trumps cabinet have. They are given so much that they seem to develop a kind of arrogance about their position, wanting more.

I see people – white women, and Canadians, supporting those poor harassed members of cabinet – the equivalent of Christina Freeland whose buddy Trudeau got her a job in foreign affairs.

I am concerned about these foreigners from abroad – usually wealthy – being treated with more respect than people here and bringing their cultural values with them, of attitudes towards older, unmarried females in Canada. And then we read the distortions of Trump's words, from what he said to “Send them back” which were not his words. I like foreign people, but not these.

I have put in a complaint to the CPSO about 2 microbiologists at LHSC, which they seem very reluctant to deal with. I have also sent a compliant about D-----t and C---------i to LHSC. How can they allow these people to continue when they have made these errors and not do anything about correcting them, the respirologist too (also from a different cultural background). No one is analyzing what these 4 women have been critical of, in America. It is all blamed on Trump.


G     
Reply to Sue McPherson:
Yes I remember your many complaints about the way you were treated, your escape to England, and despise for men.


Sue McPherson     CONTENT DISABLED
Reply to G
So, another one, You get to speak untruths and distortions, and my truth - my voice - is silenced, even here on CBC my posts are disabled. I was harassed then and I am now. but I know now that I was not to blame. I wrote a piece about a prof who behaved in sexualized ways in the classroom, in order to understand it. It is now published online Maybe that was part of it. He probably got used to women performing for him and doing as he pleased.

T    
Reply to Sue McPherson:
Total BS. The meaning of the words in the tweets sre clear and anyone can plainly see that Trump was enjoying the chant while at his rally.

Sue McPherson
Reply to T:
I'm glad you think what Trump said originally was clear. Please post them. I am doing all the talking here despite most of my comments not getting p[ublished. Perhaps I will place them on my blog. How would that be,.


Sue McPherson  CONTENT DISABLED
Reply to L
last comment disabled, See my blog sue's views on the news.
for now, please say, Didn't Trump say,.
If the girls don't like living in Mercia they can always leave or should leave or can leave. That's not racist. It's a bit nasty but no nastier than these moderators disabling my comments.
!!@Q!@@

H
Reply to @Sue McPherson:
One would have to have a recording, but you're right, even if one does he is not all that articulate to be positive about it. LOL

Sue McPherson
Reply to H
Saying, if you don't like it here why don't you leave is a phrase that foreign people like to promote as a sign of racism, just as they keep saying that people don't like the colour of their skin. It's not the colour that matters, but it is an indication that they may have cultural values different from ours, and as I have learned, being a white, older, woman lacking wealth, spouse and family nearby, it is an opportunity for them to try to take advantage of me. I am fighting that, but without support, it is difficult. See my blog Sue's Views on the News, I shall try to post more. 

J
Reply to @Sue McPherson:
Trump insists he tried to quiet the chants ... by remaining completely silent and basking in the hateful chorus. His tweets were even worse.

Sue McPherson 
Reply to J
Yes, a lot of people in this city have done that to me, too - keeping quiet while my life is being destroyed. In this case, Trump was picked on first, by the media, as usual, after the original tweet. It is not nice to say that to children of immigrants, but it doesn't mean he is a racist for saying that. And the question remains, why don't we get to hear what the women were saying about America?

END of comments I am not pleased to see my comments deleted, when I put effort into them. In the end, they will be deleted, whether after a month or a year, but it is not as though any of us was privileged journalists who get to write not such great articles sometimes but still get something for doing it. I have unknown persona judging my comments and deleting them at will. At the CPSO and HRTO I often have unknown administration clerks judging the worth of my complaints and deeming them admissable, or not. As for the LHSC, there are very few people there I have respect for any more.


Placing this near the end, for your convenience, readers:

Donald Trump’s tweets July 14, 2019

So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly......
5:27 AM – 14 Jul 2019
....and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how....
....it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!


References

EU president takes shot at Trump's 'unacceptable' tweets after Trudeau meeting.
by John Paul Tasker
CBC News. July 18, 2019

Donald Trump’s tweets
@DonaldTrump
The real Donald Trump Twitter account
July 14, 2019

9 April 2012

Baby boomers, longevity, and health care

Life expectancy is going up, as better health care and technological advancements enable that to happen. The baby boomers are often blamed for rising health care costs, though even within the population of over 65s there seem to be different perceptions. It's not a subject that gets discussed in great detail. I imagine that those who are receiving great health care aren't going to share their secrets with those who don't.

One article I saw in the local newspaper briefly alluded to the cost of healthcare. Moorsel wrote that "the key talking points for taxpayers should be what share of total spending they think health care should consume and what other things--from education to social services-- they're prepared to see squeezed out by that cost and by how much." As it happens, the controversy about the extra $10 billion the F35s were going to cost came along at about the same time as this article (see MPs battle, 2012). Not being an expert on actual health costs, I responded in my own way, since discussion on health care seems to me to come along infrequently and such an opportunity should not be passed by. So I responded by taking the subject in a different direction, to one about *class* and *entitlement,* writing within the limiting word limit, as follows:

"A key point of discussion should be people's sense of entitlement to health care, as this is partly responsible for the rising cost, or as GVM (the author, Greg Moorsel) says, taxpayers say "they've paid into the system and expect to get it back." This kind of thinking is based on the false logic that working people pay taxes and thus are better citizens than those who don't.

In today's world (but also when women were homemakers), we have young people unemployed (thus not paying taxes) while increasingly more women team up with men in their dual-income families. And do they see themselves as entitled to more & better care than non-taxpayers? Read 'Men at work' . http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2012/03/men-at-work-what-does-future-hold.html ." End

The Macleans article, from a month ago, was excellent at approaching the subject in a different manner, acknowledging that older people often bear the brunt of accusations of overusing the healthcare system. In reality, Belluz claims, every age group of the population is spending more on health care. What they don't say is that the ones who are spending the most probably are the middle classes - in whichever age group they belong.

In the piece about baby boomers "reinventing old age," wealth doesn't come into it, the author, Dr Alexandre Kalache, apparently assuming that all baby boomers are well off. What was good about it was the discussion, which included several different strands, some very positive, some more realistic about growing old in today's world. Even the 'Age Friendly' project, to do with making our cities - in this case London - a better place for its older citizens, came under fire in the Comments section, mainly for its intention to build the network using for its model the one they are familiar with - Children and Youth services. I'm sure Dr Kalache would be appalled to know that the Child/Youth Services model was the one being proposed here in London, and furthemore, that it was not being discussed with the older people attending the Task Force meeting, thus not enabling the baby boomers to reinvent themselves. The concept seemed to be simply slipped in, under the communications section, instead of being brought out into the open.

I have referred back to an earlier blog entry I wrote in 2010 (Survey: can Canadian baby-boomers survive our health-care system) written from the perspective of having what I consider to be inadequate treatment for an injury which affects me every day, in everything I do. See http://samcpherson.homestead.com/StoryofMyLife.html . Sometimes, it takes so little to make a difference to a person's life - a small surgical procedure, like pins, but I didn't have the option. Although I had an appointment to see the Orthopedic surgeon a few hours afterwards, on the advice of the Dr in Emerg, he made his decision based only on the xray.


Healthcare: Technology is a bigger cost driver than demography
By Julia Belluz
Macleans
February 10, 2012
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/02/10/healthcare-technology-is-a-bigger-cost-driver-than-demography/

Health costs never get clear debate
By Greg Van Moorsel, QMI Agency
London Free Press, Comment
April 3, 2012
http://www.lfpress.com/comment/2012/04/03/19586546.html

How the Baby Boomers Are Reinventing Old Age
By Dr. Alexandre Kalache
Huffington Post, The Blog
April 4, 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-alexandre-kalache/how-the-baby-boomers-are-_b_1403431.html?ref=world&ir=World

MPs battle over F-35 fighter jet costs
By Laura Payton
CBC News
Apr 4, 2012
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/04/pol-f35-fallout.html

Survey: can Canadian baby-boomers survive our health-care system?
By Sue McPherson
Sue's Views on the News
Aug 23, 2010
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2010/08/survey-can-canadian-baby-boomers.html

9 November 2011

Ageism, Class, and the Wealth Gap Between the Young and Old

The only place in Huffington Post that the generation gap, or aging, or ageism, is being discussed is in the business section. And even so, this piece (the US Wealth Gap) written by Hope Yen could actually be about so many things, and not just about the division of wealth between the old and the young. It is a false division, more than likely intended to create division between the generations instead of explain it.

We all know there are seniors who are living in poverty, just as we know there are under 35-year-old­s who have too much money to spend. Manipulati­ng statistics to arrive at the conclusion one wants to isn't clever. It is devious, it is cunning, and it may even work (depending on one's agenda), but how can people have respect for such a person who writes this nonsense, or for the Huff Post editors who condone it, even encourage it. After all, isn't what counts the amount of reader interest, the number of comments (over 8,000).

Furthermore, why is there still a section called 'Women' in the Living category of this paper? Why isn't it called Gender? And how about one called 'Couples and Singledom'­?

And why isn't there a category called 'Aging' or the 'Generatio­n Gap'? Why are the difference­s between the young and the old all made to come down to money? I would like to talk about aging itself, and not simply about the differences in income between the generations that some writers are treating as the main issue.

The other piece referred to below is another piece of nonsense, placing the blame squarely on the high worth of the top 1% of households in the US. Yet the problem is not the top 1%. The problem is all around us. The problem is in the way some of the higher income earners in the 99% treat others in this immense category, which includes doctors, lawyers, service workers, and receptionists. It reflects the struggle of life, the quest for more, and the effort for some to stop others from getting even a small share fo the scarce resources our world has to offer.

The problem is not that the healthcare workers are overworked. It is that they spend their effort on taks that are non-productive, on trying to give more to some individuals and making sure others get less. The system is not so much overburdened with too may sick or old people. It is overburdened with too many who have health insurance making sure they get every dollar's worth, and then some.

I don't believe that 'generational warfare' was designed by the 1% to distract the rest of us from looking at class differences, as stated in 'One Percent.' The complexity of our world is such that different agendas collide as they pursue their own interests, and sometimes join forces to gang up on one group - usually the most vulnerable, and for the purpose for protecting their own interests. Get people to blame the 1% and they won't be so ready to place the responsibility where it lies - in the way boys and girls are raised, and indoctrinated, into pushing their way forward, seeking more money, and more power. What's more, the main divide isn't between the young and old; it isn't a generational divide. It's between each level of society, between those struggling for more and those who have it and are trying to keep it!


The One Percent Turns Class War Into Generational War
By Dean Baker
Huffington Post - Business
Nov 7, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/the-one-percent-turns-cla_b_1080141.html

U.S. Wealth Gap Between Young, Old Is Widest Ever
By Hope Yen
Huffington Post - Business
Nov 7, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/us-wealth-gap-young-old_n_1079372.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=110711&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FeatureTitle&utm_term=Daily%20Brief#comments  

7 November 2011

Widest-ever wealth gap between young and old in the US

This very one-sided article has appeared in numerous newspapers' websites today. It places blame for economic disparity between the young and the old strictly on the shoulders of the old, regardless of income, home ownership, marital status, or work history.

One reason the economic division between young and old can be seen as increasing over the last 30 to 50 years is the effect of feminism and increasing numbers of women in the workforce - changing norms, in other words.

Whereas 50 years ago a wealthy man might have a wife who stayed home and did charity work, now, older men are sought out by women for what they have to offer - in the firm, or as an influential, hidden, character reference for other careers. Thus the household with the head at age 65 plus might have a 45year old wife with high earning power in today's world.

I am not surprised that whoever wrote this piece didn't want to include this probable effect. It's not something the middle class really wants to deal with. And as women continue to marry men with the best resources, how can we ever expect the situation to get better. One of the side effects of feminism. What's that called again - oh, collateral damage.

Another problem with this article - something omitted - is that many old people, particularly older women, live in poverty. They may not be in debt, and so would not be included in the 8% mentioned in the last sentence. But despite receiving old age benefits, many will be struggling to get by.

So often we see articles and blogs that onlty serve to create more antagonism between the generations. Would I be right in assuming that the author of this piece is under 40, and female, and has her own agenda?

One other issue is the comment made by Harry Holzer, labor economist and public policy prof at Georgetown University, who is quoted as saying "It makes us wonder whether the extraordinary amount of resources we spend on retirees and their health care should be at least partially reallocated to those who are hurting worse than them." Apparently he called magnitude of the wealth gap "striking."

Note that he, like the other 'experts' mentioned in this piece, places the blame on old people in general, when it is obvious that the ones who will lose out if money allocated for healthcare is taken away are those with limited resources. It will be the ones without private medical insurance who will have to try to make do with even less proper healthcare.

I don't know if we can assume that the situation is the same in Canada., regarding health care matters and more importantly, the gap between the old and the young, but knowing the effects that feminism has caused in Canada, it sounds as though it could be the same here as in the US.


U.S. Wealth Gap Between Young, Old Is Widest Ever
By Hope Yen, Associated Press
Huffington Post Business
Nov 7, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/us-wealth-gap-young-old_n_1079372.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=110711&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FeatureTitle&utm_term=Daily%20Brief#comments

U.S. wealth gap between young and old is widest ever
By Hope Yen, Associated Press
USA Today
Nov 8, 2011
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/story/2011-11-06/wealth-gap-young-old/51098910/1

Links updated July, 2012

2 November 2011

Gender, sex and aging: What do we owe our spouses?

A trio of stories on the Huffington Post drew my interest recently, all related matters, to do with gender, sex, and aging. Sex was the drawing card in D A Wolf's 'Do We Owe Our Spouses Sex?', and is an inviting resource for anyone wanting to know what other readers think about sex between two people in a relationship. The comments section attracted an enthusiastic crowd, each one either telling their own personal story, or making one up, or simply letting everyone know what they thought about the subject of Wolf's piece.

But in the next piece on sex, the attitude of readers/commenters changed considerably. This one was about sex among the baby boomers, and for that reason, it appears, became the target of jokes and ridicule. Could it be that the approach was wrong, and not simply that older citizens are the target of jokes in this ageist society of ours? In an attempt to persuade the world that baby boomers can have sex just like anyone else, and enjoy it, the writers, whoever they were, may have been just a bit on the defensive. What formed the basis of the piece were myths that were then dispelled by the writers' claims. We don't hear who the writers were, and the format of the piece was awkward to read, being fairly short but, including the comments section, split up over 7 pages.

As with the first piece on the subject of sex, this second piece was also clearly about people within the state of coupledom. Those without partners had no real need to peruse the pieces, let alone comment on them, unless they still had hope, or at least intentions, to become half of a couple sometime in the future. This was my main objection to both these pieces, that single men and women were left out or left hanging on the margins, although in the 'ageless' couples and sex article, at least that was a topic many of us knew something about from previous experience. It doesn't seem to even occur to the writers of the boomers' sex piece that most older people aren't going to have casual sex, just for the fun of it (despite what the quoted lavalifePRIME says).

The final point about these two stories is that, as usual with such stories, there is little or no analysis of the society in which it all takes place. We all take for granted that we live in western society and that both men and women have certain freedoms, but there are still the remnants of traditional marriage present in our ways of thinking, as well as the modern ways of looking at our experiences through the eyes of feminism. Thus, women are seen (and speak) from both the perspective of not being equal with men in ways of dealing with sexual matters, as well as at times acting like men and taking on men's ways of dealing with sexual matters.

And that leads us to the last of the stories, also about the older generation, about women in particular. Once again, this piece incorporates aspects of old-fashioned tradition, of a woman being a homemaker, but about doing so after having had a fulfilling career. I think one aim of it was truly to justify and uphold the legitimate choice of women to be homemakers, but quite a number of readers comments were negative about the choices available to the writer, and particularly about the perceived uselessness of her choice, to stay home. At this point in our society, in which the economy has still not rebounded, if some women express the desire to remain at home to be homemakers and/or raise children, it doesn't help to treat them like pariahs. Just as some homemakers may not take their work seriously, or do a good job, so are there women in the workforce who aren't conscientious, or doing their work to the best of their ability. It isn't work per se that makes one person better than another. It isn't the paycheque that a person brings home, or the taxes they pay, that makes them better than someone else. It might lead them to be seen as different, to be living a lifestyle that's not the norm, in this society where occupation and financial resources are the determinants of a person's identity and worth. It's much easier to do after having a career, than rely on an ex to provide a reference, but it's still good to hear about women living this way, so that society does not forget how things were done in the past.

Do We Owe Our Spouses Sex?
by D A Wolf
Huffington Post Divorce
Oct 15, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/d-a-wolf/do-we-owe-our-spouses-sex_b_927484.html?ref=love--sex

Most Common Sex Myths About Baby Boomers
Huffington Post Fifty
Oct 29, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/27/the-most-common-sex-myths_n_1057479.html

Words With Friends and Back to Home-Ec
by Jamie Lee Curtis
Huffington Post Fifty
Oct 11, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-lee-curtis/50s-housewives-home-ec-_b_1006209.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=101211&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

26 May 2010

If Michael Bryant should be judged on his merits, shouldn't we all?

The wealthy and powerful don't always get to know what is meant by the saying, 'life isn't fair,' or 'shit happens.' It's remarkable that the editorial board of the National Post still don't understand what is meant by this. They still seem to believe that bad things don't happen to good people, that sometimes - one more time - life just isn't fair.

And what is this language - militant cyclists? class warriors? Look who are the class warriors in this piece - the journalists, the lawyers and judges, and the politicians who enabled this decision to happen and who decided to blame the guy from the lower class in society and let the privileged one off.

"But no one’s career should be derailed forever by an incident such as this" write the editors of the National Post, as though this kind of tragedy, that forever alters the course of a person's life, doesn't happen very often at all, as though this is an exceptional circumstance, and that it just shouldn't happen. Life is fair, after all, and the good and intelligent always get what they deserve! Right? Wrong. It happens to people all the time - you just don't notice it until it happens to one of you.

Take note of the more than 500 comments on the Globe and Mail article by Christie Blatchford. Not everyone thinks Michael Bryant should have gotten off as lightly as he did - or is it that most people think justice should have been permitted to take its course, through a trial.

Added May, 012

In ‘Michael Bryant should be judged on his merits,’ 2010, The National Post refers to Darcy Sheppard as having engaged in “outbursts of primal madness,” as though that couldn’t have also been explanation for the behaviour of Michael Bryant – reverting to the ‘fight or flight’ syndrome, and in this case choosing a bit of both – attempting to get Mr Sheppard to let go of the car, while trying to remove himself and his car from this situation.

Furthermore, the same piece concludes that “Mr. Bryant should be judged in future — politically or otherwise — according to his merits, or lack thereof.” If this bit of wisdom could also be applied to other people who found themselves in unfortunate, adverse circumstances, instead of having the event used forever as proof of personal, internal failings, the world might be a more just place in which to live.

Christie Blatchford writes,

“He [special prosecutor Richard Peck] went out of his way to speak kindly about the dead man, noting that he brought up Mr. Sheppard’s unlucky background (aboriginal, probably undiagnosed fetal alcohol syndrome, seized by child welfare and placed with his brother David in a staggering 30 foster homes before being adopted) and highlights of his criminal record “not to demonize Mr. Sheppard or for anyone to suggest he somehow deserved his fate,” but rather because in a case where self-defence was claimed, these were relevant facts” (For Mr Bryant, an extraordinary, 2010).

In other situations, bringing in relevant facts may be seen as an attempt to discredit the honourable person being discussed, not as an attempt to discover the truth of the matter. And it’s not simply the words one speaks; it’s the tone in which they are uttered that matter. Running Darcy Sheppard down in a “kindly” fashion, while simply ignoring many of Michael Bryant’s actions that day, can lead others’ understanding of the situation in a certain direction, and not to one that is fair judgement of what happened that day. Bringing in the personal background and past history of Mr Sheppard, knowing that Michael Bryant’s credentials were near perfect, is an unfair comparison. Is this what Mr Peck did, and by doing so imply that the questionable actions taken by Mr Bryant that day were an aberration, unusual considering his personality and background, ie. if he did anything wrong at all?

This must be one of those situations that fit within the realm of the moral dilemma – how to bring justice to this situation. It’s too bad that justice for Michael Bryant could only be achieved by placing the blame on Darcy Sheppard. I suppose, in our world, especially in our legal system, there is no place for matters that fall in between right and wrong, that really are unusual circumstances that need an unusual resolution (and I imagine a lot of cases fall with in that grey area). Whatever Darcy Sheppard’s faults, he didn’t deserve to have this case dismissed so early in the judicial process, leaving Michael Bryant not simply ‘not guilty’ of the charges laid, but completely innocent of anything untoward.

The Toronto Star is right, that Michael Bryant “deserves public understanding,” that “What happened to him could happen to anyone” (Justice in Michael Bryant case, 2010). But the newspaper is not correct in concluding that what happened in the aftermath of the tragedy speaks well of the legal system. For one person involved, the legal system worked well, but not for Darcy Sheppard.

In a similar manner, Franco Tarulli writes, “Ontario did exactly the right thing in this case, and the result is exactly what ought to have happened” (Michael Bryant: “Extraordinary” justice?, 2010). Justice may have been served, for Michael Bryant, but the way the special prosecutor handled the case doesn’t appear to have been fair. Bringing up Darcy Sheppard’s past failings and personal background as evidence that this was what caused the incident to happen was premature. There was no trial, and this should have no more place in the public’s mind than the damage committed, for whatever reason, by Bryant and the car he was driving.



For Michael Bryant, an extraordinary kind of justice
By Christie Blatchford
Globe and Mail
May 25, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/christie-blatchford/for-michael-bryant-an-extraordinary-kind-of-justice/article1580911/
http://www.caledoniawakeupcall.com/updates/100525globe3.html
http://lists.von.ca/pipermail/fasd_canadian_link/2010-May/001763.html

Justice in Michael Bryant case
Toronto Star
May 26, 2010
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/814268--justice-in-michael-bryant-case

Michael Bryant: “Extraordinary” justice?
By Franco P. Tarulli
The Ethical Lawyer
May 30, 2010
http://tarullilaw.com/ethicallawyer/2010/05/30/michael-bryant-extraordinary-justice/

Michael Bryant should be judged on his merits
By National Post editorial board
National Post
May 25, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/25/judge-michael-bryant-on-his-merits/#more-1516

Links updated May, 2012