HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Citizen, 2007-02-01, Page 5THE CITIZEN, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2007. PAGE 5.
Bonnie
Gropp
TThhee sshhoorrtt ooff iitt
Why do we have to keep hearing
Ontario’s hardest-nosed, toughest-
talking politicians are really warm,
cuddly, loveable pussycats back in the privacy
of their homes?
This tender description is now being applied
to Liberal Deputy Premier and Health Minister
George Smitherman, the most abrasive
politician of his time.
Smitherman, often dubbed “Furious
George” after the children’s storybook
character, called optometrists “terrorists,”
because they threatened to strike after the
province announced a reduction in its
coverage for eye tests.
Smitherman refused to talk further with
them and explained “I don’t negotiate with
terrorists.”
Optometrists have been among the mildest,
most self-effacing professionals – when did
you last hear them quarrelling with
government? — and it is stretching far to put
them in the same class as Osama bin Laden.
Smitherman was similarly excessive in
charging an earlier Progressive Conservative
government under premier Mike Harris acted
“like an axe murderer” in reducing jobs for
nurses.
A hospital vice-president lost her job after
complaining Smitherman’s belt-tightening
would hurt patients and opposition parties said
the hospital let her go because it was scared of
Smitherman.
A mayor who went to Smitherman looking
for hospital funding said “when he talks he’s
always aggressive. There’s no compromise,
because he’s always right.”
Smitherman labeled Conservative leader
John Tory a coward, because he will switch
from a safe, partly rural riding to run in
Toronto in next October’s election, to
encourage his party there, but not run in the
Toronto riding where he lives held by
Smitherman.
Smitherman also said he puts down
opponents in the legislature because they ask
poor questions, which is not exactly language
calculated to restore harmony. Rarely has an
Ontario politician been as combative.
But Smitherman, who was Ontario’s first
openly gay cabinet minister, has now talked
about his personal life and plans for marriage,
since same-sex-marriages have become legal,
and news media have said this has revealed
him as “a completely different person.”
Smitherman said he feels lucky to have
discovered true love and dreams of having a
child and “taking her to dance lessons and
stuff like that.”
His male partner added Smitherman is
gentle, caring and sensitive, particularly
around children, their two pet cats and people
less fortunate.
He also said the deputy premier is
passionate, dedicated and unwilling to accept
mediocrity, and some may mistake this for
belligerency.
Politicians often have made efforts to look
warm and human after they acquired images
as harsh and aggressive.
Harris, the most confrontational premier of
recent decades, used expletives such as calling
an opposition MPP an “asshole,” slashed
welfare benefits to near-starvation levels and
cut government jobs so public services were
unable to cope.
Harris once threatened to visit then Liberal
prime minister Jean Chrétien’s official
residence in Ottawa and “beat up” someone to
get a bigger share of revenues.
But to soften this image Harris said he was
so hard up as a young man he lived mainly on
bologna, although his father, who had
successful small businesses, could not
remember his being so deprived.
Harris began talking more about his then
wife, Janet, but this stopped when he left her
after he won his second election and he was
seen soon afterwards with a younger woman.
The tough-talking premier also spoke more
about his two sons, mentioning particularly he
had to spend time with them describing his
work at the legislature.
Harris’s predecessor as premier, New
Democrat Bob Rae, faced criticisms
particularly that he was a silver-spoon socialist
from a well-off background, who did not know
what it meant to be short of money.
Rae tried to show his human side by saying
he had a mortgage and car loan like most
people and he, his wife and their three children
had to live frugally.
Politicians often put a lot of effort into
trying to show they are warm and cuddly in
their private lives, but voters would do much
better judging them on their policies and how
they handle them.
A perfect place
I’m toying with the idea of launching a
campaign that would surely sweep the
English-speaking world like wildfire.
Its format would be simplicity itself. It
would not be about instituting universal peace,
ending world hunger, replenishing the ozone
layer or saving the habitat of the burrowing
owl.
My campaign T shirts would bear a three-
word slogan:
BRING BACK GRUNTLE
Sure – gruntle. It’s in the dictionary, but
nobody ever uses it.
Back in the Middle Ages it was very
common to gruntle. The word is said to derive
from the little grunts of pleasure peons and
serfs emitted when the lord of the manor
patted them on the head.
But today you’ll never hear anyone say “I
sure was gruntled by that three-game winning
streak the Leafs put together.”
Or: “Roast turkey and gravy! Mmmm,
mmmm! That’s what I call gruntle food!”
To gruntle means to bring pleasure to – but
you’ll never hear anyone use it in a sentence.
Disgruntle, yes, but not gruntle.
And come to that, where is the mirror word
for ‘disheveled’? How come we never refer to
neat freaks like Stéphane Dion and Iona
Campagnolo as wearing ‘heveled’ clothing?
Or how about untidy hairdos? Don King’s
hair looks like he’s got a thumb stuck in a wall
socket, but what about Stephen Harper’s hair?
Why is that Peter Mansbridge never reports
that “The Prime Minister’s hair was
in total array.”?
We’ve got a language that’s limping along
on seven cylinders here. Lots of perfectly good
words are sitting in our semantic garage, just
waiting to be taken out for a test drive and
we’re ignoring them.
Take ‘despicable’. I think the world pretty
much agrees that wrestling villains like King
Kong Bundy and Abdullah the Butcher are
despicable.
So doesn’t that make good guys like Steve
Nash and Sidney Crosby positively picable?
And if we could get Steve and Sid to dress a
little better we could call them maculate and
peccable to boot.
Or am I being a trifle petuous here?
When Pamela Anderson takes off her
sunglasses, smiles and flaunts her twin rockets
at the cameras of the paparazzi – does that
signify that Pammy’s traveling cognito? Or
that she’s decided to be communicado?
And the fact that her marriage to Kid Rock
only lasted four months – is that an example of
swerving devotion?
It’s all very…well, the opposite of
concerting.
Take ‘un’ words. Why is it that we never
refer to nervous, excitable people as
flappable? Why does no one ever describe
Michaelle Jean, as our gainly Governor-
General?
And how about admirable, upstanding
citizens like Mother Theresa, Desmond Tutu
and the Dalai Llama. I’d call them prime
examples of savory characters, wouldn’t you?
Words matter, and getting the right word in
the right place matters even more. Jean Paul
Sartre said that “words are like loaded guns”.
Mark Twain said “The difference between
the right word and the almost right word is the
difference between lightning and the lightning
bug.”
The great American lexicographer Noah
Webster knew about the importance of
choosing just the right word better than most.
He is the man who gave his name to nearly
200 years worth of the USA’s foremost
dictionaries.
He is also the man who looked up in his
parlour one day to behold his wife standing
there with a frying pan in her hand, staring
aghast at him.
With good reason. Mister Webster happened
to have the family maid on his lap at the time.
“Noah,” gasped his wife, “I am surprised!”
Webster, ever the pedant, replied, “No, my
dear. It is I who am surprised. You are merely
astonished.”
I like to think Mrs. Webster clocked him an
extra whack upside the head with the frying
pan for that one.
Arthur
Black
Abrasive politician seeks image change
Who’s reading tonight? It’s a
question asked each night of the
weekend to my seven-year-old,
grandson.
And while he’s perfectly capable of reading
to himself and I like to see him do so, I am
also always delighted by his answer. The
honour of turning written pages into magic
every Friday and Saturday night has fallen to
me. I don’t know the reason behind this
selection. It may be that he likes to hear what
kind of idiotic voices I will attempt this time.
Maybe it’s because he doesn’t want to hurt
my feelings.
But I’d rather think it’s because somehow
he knows that it means a lot to me to share
this love of mine with him. Pretty much from
the beginning of his life I have read aloud to
him. As a very little man he often watched me
cuddle into my comfy chair, book in one
hand, coffee in the other, then would climb up
beside me. And even now it remains our
special reading place.
I enjoyed reading to my children as well,
but whether it was because I was Mom and
therefore someone from whom it was best to
gain independence as swiftly as possible, that
bond did seem to separate early. This makes
these occasions with Mitchell even more
special. The times we have spent together
with a book are ones that are the dearest of
my memories and that I will cherish forever.
The picture of a child snuggled onto the lap
of an adult, eyes riveted to pages while ears
absorb the words that weave a fantasy is one
of the most beautiful. It does my heart good.
I did, therefore, jump at the chance to visit
Walton Little School last Friday for the
celebration of Family Literacy Day. The
official date is Jan. 27, which meant this year
it fell on a Saturday. The staff at WLS, well-
known for its focus on early literacy wasn’t
going to let the opportunity go by, however,
so invited parents to a breakfast and book
event. Pyjamas were optional.
Created by ABC CANADA Literacy
Foundation in 1999, Family Literacy Day is a
national initiative that promotes the
importance of reading and learning together as
a family. Families and communities nation-
wide are encouraged to recognize the day with
literacy-themed events.
Few would argue that reading isn’t an
integral component to learning, or that
learning isn’t integral to a child’s future.
Studies have proven that developing a child’s
interest in reading early results in better
academic understanding later.
Yet parents don’t always have the time,
energy or inclination to be as involved as they
would perhaps like to be or should be. No one
would argue either that adults’ lives today
aren’t full. After one’s own hectic day of
career and personal responsibilities, crowded
too by outside interferences and stresses, there
aren’t a lot of moments left. And it’s nice to
use those ones to unwind and recharge.
However, there’s no more restfully
rejuvenating practice than cuddling your
favourite little one and sharing a story with
him or her. Reading to a child soothes, yet
stimulates; enriches and entertains. Both of
you. Such an easy way to do something so
good for you and someone else.
And just watching that dearly-loved face
held enthralled as pictures and words create
wonder, you know you are in as perfect a
place as this world offers.
Other Views In praise of the word gruntle
Eric
Dowd
FFrroomm
QQuueeeenn’’ss PPaarrkk
Letters Policy
The Citizen welcomes letters to the
editor.
Letters must be signed and should
include a daytime telephone number for
the purpose of verification only. Letters that
are not signed will not be printed.
Submissions may be edited for length,
clarity and content, using fair comment as
our guideline. The Citizen reserves the
right to refuse any letter on the basis of
unfair bias, prejudice or inaccurate
information. As well, letters can only be
printed as space allows. Please keep your
letters brief and concise.
Final Thought
Any fool can criticize, condemn and
complain and most fools do.
– Benjamin Franklin