Unbelievably, the controversy over the Ontario Liberals' cancellation of two gas-fired power plants back in 2013 is still going on. A court case is currently underway into whether Dalton McGuinty's then chief of staff, David Livingston, illegally "double-deleted" emails about the cancellation.
As part of this trial, Ontario's then corporate chief information officer, David Nicholls, has testified that he went out of his way to make clear to Livingston, in writing and on more than one occasion, that any documents and emails regarding the controversial cancellations should be preserved in the archives, specifically to avoid the type of allegations of improper deletion of documents that have actually come to pass.
The responsibility for ignoring this sound advice, then, seems to rest entirely with Livingston the individual, and his deputy chief of staff Laura Miller, and they will probably answer for it. The Liberal organization as a whole, though, appears to be innocent of the kind of skullduggery imputed to them by their political opponents.
The case has been adjourned until the middle of October now, but it would be very nice if it were soon put away once and for all before the campaigning for the next election begins in earnest, so that yet another election campaign does not get bogged down in useless and distracting speculation and name-calling. I say this not as a Liberal supporter but as an Ontario voter.
Saturday, September 30, 2017
Professor's racist remarks not the fault of college or English language
An inexcusable faux pas by a retired emeritus history professor at a professional lunch engagement recently has Massey College and the University of Toronto (with which the college is loosely "affiliated") panicking and falling over themselves to make reparations, lest they be saddled with the current institutional bête noir, namely being labelled as racist.
Dr. Michael Marrus, a Senior Fellow at Massey College, had the poor taste to make what he probably thought of as a jolly witticism, when he made a play on the formal title of "Master" used by the college (and several other ancient institutions like Oxford and Cambridge) to refer to its head. Remarking to a black junior fellow of the college, Marrus quipped: "You know this is your master, eh? Do you feel the lash?"
One can imagine the sharp intake of breath at the sheer tastelessness and tone-deafness of such a comment in this day and age. It was of course totally inappropriate and deeply offensive, and deserving of any and all of the lambasting it has since received from both the attending students and many other commentators. However, instead of just severing all ties with this dinosaur of a professor emeritus, the college has responded with a public apology on his behalf, and with a promise to look into anti-racist training for faculty members.
Fair enough as far as it goes, although a more proactive response would have been to fire the guy forthwith, which it is apparently not doing. What the college is also considering, though, is another of the students' demands: the replacement of the title of Master. This seems like a ridiculous misdirection of concern to me. The title of Master has been used to mean a master of one's craft or art or subject for many centuries. It clearly has no connection with the concept of a master of a slave unless specifically evoked, as Dr. Marrus did here, and there is normally no element of confusion in the use of the term.
So, yes, please do chastise the professor for being an ignorant SOB, but don't blame the college or the university with which it may be affiliated (no-one really believes that the comment in this context reflects the views and policies of these institutions of higher learning). And, in particular, don't blame the English language for its complexities and ambiguities.
Political correctness is all well and good, but not if it is misapplied, or used to tar the wider community with a brush that would be more correctly applied to one misguided individual, or to make a whipping boy of the wrong person or institution entirely. (Yes, go ahead, call me out on those phrases.)
UPDATE
Dr. Marrus tendered his resignation a few days later, although he still seemed somewhat bemused by all the attention and the negative reaction to his comments, which, if nothing else, demonstrates just how out of touch he really is.
Dr. Michael Marrus, a Senior Fellow at Massey College, had the poor taste to make what he probably thought of as a jolly witticism, when he made a play on the formal title of "Master" used by the college (and several other ancient institutions like Oxford and Cambridge) to refer to its head. Remarking to a black junior fellow of the college, Marrus quipped: "You know this is your master, eh? Do you feel the lash?"
One can imagine the sharp intake of breath at the sheer tastelessness and tone-deafness of such a comment in this day and age. It was of course totally inappropriate and deeply offensive, and deserving of any and all of the lambasting it has since received from both the attending students and many other commentators. However, instead of just severing all ties with this dinosaur of a professor emeritus, the college has responded with a public apology on his behalf, and with a promise to look into anti-racist training for faculty members.
Fair enough as far as it goes, although a more proactive response would have been to fire the guy forthwith, which it is apparently not doing. What the college is also considering, though, is another of the students' demands: the replacement of the title of Master. This seems like a ridiculous misdirection of concern to me. The title of Master has been used to mean a master of one's craft or art or subject for many centuries. It clearly has no connection with the concept of a master of a slave unless specifically evoked, as Dr. Marrus did here, and there is normally no element of confusion in the use of the term.
So, yes, please do chastise the professor for being an ignorant SOB, but don't blame the college or the university with which it may be affiliated (no-one really believes that the comment in this context reflects the views and policies of these institutions of higher learning). And, in particular, don't blame the English language for its complexities and ambiguities.
Political correctness is all well and good, but not if it is misapplied, or used to tar the wider community with a brush that would be more correctly applied to one misguided individual, or to make a whipping boy of the wrong person or institution entirely. (Yes, go ahead, call me out on those phrases.)
UPDATE
Dr. Marrus tendered his resignation a few days later, although he still seemed somewhat bemused by all the attention and the negative reaction to his comments, which, if nothing else, demonstrates just how out of touch he really is.
Republican tax reforms to favour the rich - surprise, surprise!
Those poor benighted people who voted for Donald Trump, the downtrodden working class masses ignored by mainstream politics, well, if they were starting to have a few doubts about the tweeter-in-chief, they might really start smelling a rat now.
Trump's tax reform bill, a major plank of his election campaign (along with repealing Obamacare, which is looking pretty much moribund now) has been revealed for what it is - a tax cut for the wealthy at the expense of the midde class. The Federal Reserve, America's central bank, is warning that the proposals will probably lead to rampant inflation and a ballooning of an already critically high national debt, but it is the inequity issue that really has people incensed.
The prominent nonpartisan think-tank, the Tax Policy Centre (TPC) has issued a preliminary report on the Trump administration's tax proposals ("the biggest tax cut EVER!"), showing that fully 50% of the tax benefit of the plan goes to the top-earning 1%, which in America is apparently those earning over $730,000 a year (which in itself is mind-boggling). These fat cats would see their after-tax incomes increase by 8.5% next year under the Republican proposal.
Taxpayers in the middle class, on the other hand, the segment of society the tax reforms are supposed to help, can expect much more modest gains (the whole of the bottom 95% of earners can expect an average increase of just 1.2% next year), and many may well see their tax bills increase, mainly due to the elimination of many itemized deductions. About 12% would see tax increases next year, including over a third of taxpayers making between $150,000 and $300,000.
What is worse, the number of taxpayers who will see tax increases under the plan will grow over time, mainly because the Republican plan would replace personal exemptions (which are index-linked to inflation) with non-index-linked tax credits. By 2027, taxes would increase for about a quarter of Americans, including nearly 30% of those earning between $50,000 and $150,000, and 60% of those earning between $150,000 and $300,000.
The TPC's analysis is preliminary mainly because the Republican plan is woefully short on many important details, like the new tax brackets that will be used. But it seems clear that the Republicans are just being Republicans here, and Trump is just being Trump, and any naive voters who expected anything different have only themselves to blame.
Trump's tax reform bill, a major plank of his election campaign (along with repealing Obamacare, which is looking pretty much moribund now) has been revealed for what it is - a tax cut for the wealthy at the expense of the midde class. The Federal Reserve, America's central bank, is warning that the proposals will probably lead to rampant inflation and a ballooning of an already critically high national debt, but it is the inequity issue that really has people incensed.
The prominent nonpartisan think-tank, the Tax Policy Centre (TPC) has issued a preliminary report on the Trump administration's tax proposals ("the biggest tax cut EVER!"), showing that fully 50% of the tax benefit of the plan goes to the top-earning 1%, which in America is apparently those earning over $730,000 a year (which in itself is mind-boggling). These fat cats would see their after-tax incomes increase by 8.5% next year under the Republican proposal.
Taxpayers in the middle class, on the other hand, the segment of society the tax reforms are supposed to help, can expect much more modest gains (the whole of the bottom 95% of earners can expect an average increase of just 1.2% next year), and many may well see their tax bills increase, mainly due to the elimination of many itemized deductions. About 12% would see tax increases next year, including over a third of taxpayers making between $150,000 and $300,000.
What is worse, the number of taxpayers who will see tax increases under the plan will grow over time, mainly because the Republican plan would replace personal exemptions (which are index-linked to inflation) with non-index-linked tax credits. By 2027, taxes would increase for about a quarter of Americans, including nearly 30% of those earning between $50,000 and $150,000, and 60% of those earning between $150,000 and $300,000.
The TPC's analysis is preliminary mainly because the Republican plan is woefully short on many important details, like the new tax brackets that will be used. But it seems clear that the Republicans are just being Republicans here, and Trump is just being Trump, and any naive voters who expected anything different have only themselves to blame.
Friday, September 29, 2017
Naming a stadium after Rob Ford would be the worst kind of revisionism
Current Toronto mayor John Tory has blotted his copy book with his plan to rename Centennial Park's sports stadium after the late, disgraced Toronto ex-mayor, Rob Ford.
Tory says that we should "put politics to one side" and recognize someone who "gave a big part of his life to public service". In reality, what Tory is probably doing is avoiding giving brother Doug Ford political capital before he joins the race for Toronto's next mayor. Another way of looking at it is weaselling out and taking the easy route rather than coming out with the truth that Rob Ford was the single worst and most divisive mayor Toronto has ever had, and that he inflicted substantial damage on the city's reputation during his tenure which is only now being repaired.
Maybe it is churlish to speak ill of the dead, but sometimes you just need to tell it like it is. Rob Ford was not a hero or a national (or even municipal) treasure, he was an unmitigated disaster. To reward him for bad behaviour is wrong-headed, sends the wrong message completely, and represents the worst kind of historical revisionism. Grow some political balls, Tory.
UPDATE
Cooler, or at least more sensible, heads have prevailed, and Toronto City Council has voted 24-11 against a Rob Ford Stadium.
I have a suspicion that John Tory was maybe relying on that, and is probably heaving a deep sigh of relief right now.
UPDATE
Cooler, or at least more sensible, heads have prevailed, and Toronto City Council has voted 24-11 against a Rob Ford Stadium.
I have a suspicion that John Tory was maybe relying on that, and is probably heaving a deep sigh of relief right now.
Don Cherry's latest lame contribution to political debate
Don Cherry, that cartoon character of the Canadian hockey world, has stuck his oar into the ongoing debate on the protests spreading like wildfire in the NFL and NBA against police violence and institutionalized racism (and, more recently, since Donald Trump's predictable involvement, against Donald Trump).
In a Trumpian late-night tweet - yes it would be a tweet, wouldn't it, no other platform lends itself quite so readily to inanities - Cherry pointed out that when former Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow knelt before a game to pray, the "left wing media" mocked him mercilessly, while they play up the protesting NFL players as "heroes" (something of an exaggeration there, but let's leave the point for the sake of argument).
Now, like it or not, when Don Cherry speaks a lot of people listen, although it has to be said that a good percentage of them are suppressing guffaws or rolling their eyes. Cherry is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and his politics (and his public persona, for that matter) is well known to be close to that of Donald Trump.
Mr. Cherry seems to feel that he has made a genuinely incisive contribution to the debate, by juxtaposing Tebow's kneeling with Kaepernick's (oh, yeah, they both kneel!) But comparing the flaky religious antics of a single player with the full-blown protest movement of Colin Kaepernick (who is also an ardent Christian, incidentally) and now hundreds of others in the professional football and basketball worlds is worse than lame.
All I can think is that Cherry is going through a phase of feeling like a bit of an underappreciated has-been at the moment, and feels the need to put himself about a bit (people with egos like Cherry's and Trump's get anxious when they are not constantly the centre of attention). But don't confuse this with a pithy and poignant political triumph. See it as the feeble and flimsy commonplace it really is.
In a Trumpian late-night tweet - yes it would be a tweet, wouldn't it, no other platform lends itself quite so readily to inanities - Cherry pointed out that when former Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow knelt before a game to pray, the "left wing media" mocked him mercilessly, while they play up the protesting NFL players as "heroes" (something of an exaggeration there, but let's leave the point for the sake of argument).
Now, like it or not, when Don Cherry speaks a lot of people listen, although it has to be said that a good percentage of them are suppressing guffaws or rolling their eyes. Cherry is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and his politics (and his public persona, for that matter) is well known to be close to that of Donald Trump.
Mr. Cherry seems to feel that he has made a genuinely incisive contribution to the debate, by juxtaposing Tebow's kneeling with Kaepernick's (oh, yeah, they both kneel!) But comparing the flaky religious antics of a single player with the full-blown protest movement of Colin Kaepernick (who is also an ardent Christian, incidentally) and now hundreds of others in the professional football and basketball worlds is worse than lame.
All I can think is that Cherry is going through a phase of feeling like a bit of an underappreciated has-been at the moment, and feels the need to put himself about a bit (people with egos like Cherry's and Trump's get anxious when they are not constantly the centre of attention). But don't confuse this with a pithy and poignant political triumph. See it as the feeble and flimsy commonplace it really is.
Wednesday, September 27, 2017
Doubling Twitter character is really not going to help
It seems like 140 characters just isn't enough for Twitter users to say anything interesting. Twitter Inc., which has seen its usage stagnate in recent years, has decided to increase its character limit from the iconic 140 characters to 280.
This is in spite of the fact that the average English tweet length is just 34 characters (imagine how fascinating they must be!), and the average Japanese tweet just 15 characters.
Perhaps this move is mainly to placate Donald Trump, who doesn't seem to be able to restrict many of his tweets to 140 characters, and just uses ellipses to link together consecutive tweets. Which kind of defeats the object somewhat...
Surely, the point of Twitter - and, quite frankly, just about the only thing it has going for it - is the idea of brevity. It held out the promise (by and large undelivered, apart from some standout efforts in the early days) of some haiku-class economy of language without sacrificing a high quality of discourse. What we got in practice was a lot of mercifully brief drivel, and an ideal platform for short attention spans and those with little to say.
Either way, I am not seeing the logic that doubling the character limit is somehow miraculously going to double Twitter usage. Perhaps halving it might be more beneficial, and more likely to offer a challenge and revive the concept? But then again, I don't really care.
This is in spite of the fact that the average English tweet length is just 34 characters (imagine how fascinating they must be!), and the average Japanese tweet just 15 characters.
Perhaps this move is mainly to placate Donald Trump, who doesn't seem to be able to restrict many of his tweets to 140 characters, and just uses ellipses to link together consecutive tweets. Which kind of defeats the object somewhat...
Surely, the point of Twitter - and, quite frankly, just about the only thing it has going for it - is the idea of brevity. It held out the promise (by and large undelivered, apart from some standout efforts in the early days) of some haiku-class economy of language without sacrificing a high quality of discourse. What we got in practice was a lot of mercifully brief drivel, and an ideal platform for short attention spans and those with little to say.
Either way, I am not seeing the logic that doubling the character limit is somehow miraculously going to double Twitter usage. Perhaps halving it might be more beneficial, and more likely to offer a challenge and revive the concept? But then again, I don't really care.
Friday, September 22, 2017
In war of insults, North Korea has a slight edge
North Korea's Kim Jong-Un and America's Donald Trump are engaged in a personal bad-mouthing contest like few we have seen before.
Like two badly-behaved toddlers playing with nukes in a sand-pit, the two have been gamely trading insults in recent days. Kim's threat to "surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged US dotard with fire" was countered by Trump's description of Kim as "obviously a madman who doesn't mind starving or killing his people". But I think Kim's use of the old English word "dotard" (an old, weak or senile person; one who is in his dotage) definitely earns him extra points, as I am pretty sure Mr. Trump would have had to look that one up in the dictionary.
It also comes hard on the heels of North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho's comparison of Trump's UN speech to "the sound of a barking dog", which has a certain poetry to it.
Ah, has it come to this? Will international diplomacy ever recover?
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Quebec finally accepts that some English words may be here to stay
The redoubtable Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF), the official language watchdog of the French-speaking Canadian province of Quebec, which sees the French language in Canada as under existential pressure from English incursions, has made a surprising volte face in the last few days.
Best known for its introduction and strong promotion of French terms in place of English terms that have become widespread in Quebec - including some rather awkward formulations like courriel éléctronique for email and mot-clic for hashtag, and an insistence on parc de stationnement instead of le parking and fin de semaine instead of the more popular le week-end - the OQLF have taken the surprising step of admitting that some French terms have just not taken off and so perhaps the English terms are OK after all.
Among these persistent (and now allowable) Anglicisms are cocktail (the recommended homophobe coquetel really never really took off) and grilled-cheese (instead of the government-approved mouthful sandwich au fromage fondant, which includes the English word sandwich anyway).
These are minor accommodations to be sure, but from an organization with such a fierce reputation for taking a hard line, they are significant, and, to my mind, welcome. After all, if English had blocked the adoption of all foreign loanwords, it would only be half the immensely rich language it is today.
Best known for its introduction and strong promotion of French terms in place of English terms that have become widespread in Quebec - including some rather awkward formulations like courriel éléctronique for email and mot-clic for hashtag, and an insistence on parc de stationnement instead of le parking and fin de semaine instead of the more popular le week-end - the OQLF have taken the surprising step of admitting that some French terms have just not taken off and so perhaps the English terms are OK after all.
Among these persistent (and now allowable) Anglicisms are cocktail (the recommended homophobe coquetel really never really took off) and grilled-cheese (instead of the government-approved mouthful sandwich au fromage fondant, which includes the English word sandwich anyway).
These are minor accommodations to be sure, but from an organization with such a fierce reputation for taking a hard line, they are significant, and, to my mind, welcome. After all, if English had blocked the adoption of all foreign loanwords, it would only be half the immensely rich language it is today.