Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Goderich Signal-Star, 1984-08-08, Page 4• ERICH $IGNiA ' ,.' F,DN4SDAY, AUGUSTS, 984 DAVE SYKES • r _> It doesn't take much of a sporting event to lure my eyes to the television set and hours of daily coverage of the XXIII Summer Olympics from Los Angeles has transformed this writer into a semi -zombie. Fortunately, my hotly -contested annual vacation (a matter seriously questioned by management each year), coincided with the first week of the Olympic games, I was able to consume hours of daily doses of the games and still have enough strength in the wrist to flick on the set the following day. Notorious for falling asleep in front of the television set before Uncle Knowlton concludes The National with that famous toothy grin, the Olympic Games' coverage provided a formidable challenge. The pure excitement and athletic excellence on display at the Games, coupled with the three-hour time differential and the fact that I didn't have to rise early to battle the world of weekly newspapering, kept this correspondent wide-eyed in front of,the set until 11 p.m. some nights. Other -lights I lay motionless on the floor, keeping the set on under the pretense that the audio portion was being registered in my subconscious. It all added up to a rather strenuous and demanding holiday. Buta fellow only goes around once, eh? One of my all-time goals and driving ambitions in life is to remain semi - functional and nearly alert during an entire late show. I have vague memories of flickering credit lines but have no recollection of ever having viewed an entire movie after the late-night news. But the Olympics nearly did the trick and one evening, after making a determined bid to remain rational beyond The National, I am certain that a measurable amount of sortie obscure event remained etched in my meory bank for I have nebulous and impalpable visions of foreign athletes doing strange to each other in the name of sport. And it was well after 11 p.m. I might add. While I may have to be content with daytime viewing, I watch the Games with a "certain„naivete, believing it to be the purest form of amateur competition, bringing nations and athletes together in a spirit of goodwill. It is a global celebration of athletic prowess, endurance, skill and mental and physical capabilities.. But listening to the American network's version of the Games, which has come under considerable criticism and unbearable scrutiny, the Olympics is nothing less than an American showcase and the win-at-all- costsattitude is much in evidence. Even, ABC's executive producer, Roone Arledge, has admitted that while the newtwork'bas a responsibility to focus on the immeasurable success of the American athletes, it has gone slightly overboard, leaning towards American overkill. But, he added, they simply can't turn their cameras the other way. The point of the matter is that there are hundreds of other countries and thousands of other athletes participating in the Olympics. But they come off as something less than human or deserving of credit on a comparative scale with the American gold mongers. It's all a matter of perspective. While the Russians and other communist nations have passed up the '84 Games, their journalists are present, sending back jaundiced reports of the proceedings and a slightly biased view of American life. Regardless of the politics, the Olympics at least serve to offer some exhilirating and proud moments, not to mention decent television fare. Member: Second class mail registration number 0716 BLUE RIBBON 'AWARD 1983 THE NEWS PORT FOR GODERICH & DISTRICT SINCE 1848 Founded in 1848 end published every Wednesday et Godsrich, Ontario. Member of the CCNA, ®CNA and A111,9 - Audit Bureau of Circulations. Subscriptions payable in advance '20.85, (Senior Citizens '17.95 privilege card number required) in Canada, '55. to U.S.A., '55. to all ether countries, Single copies 50°. Display, National and Classified advertising rates available on request. Please ask for pats Card No. 14 effective October 1, 1883. Advertising is accepted on the condition that in the event of typographical error, the advertising space occupied by the erroneous item, together with reasonable allowance for signature, will not be charged for but that balance of the advertisement will be paid for at the applicable rate. In the event of a typographical error advertising goods or services at a wrong price, goods or services may not be sold. Advertising is merely an offer to sell, and may be withdrawn et any time. The Signal -Star is not responsible for the loss or damage of unsolicited manuscripts, photos or other materiels used for reproducing purposes. PUBLISHED BY: SIGNAL -STAR PUBLISHING LIMITED ROBERT G. SHRIER - President and Publisher DON HUBICK - Advertising Manager DAVE SYKES - Editor P.O. BO RED HUCKINS ST. INDUSTRIAL PARK IDDDERICH, ONT. N7A 4B6 FOR BUSINESS OR EDITORIAL OFFICES—please phone [5191594-8331 A case of patronage A good many friends and supporters of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau have found that their loyalty has paid off in a big way. .... In a spate of appointments on the eve of his departure from office, Mr. Trudeau placed well over two hundred former employees in lucrative offices, many of which are lifetime posts.. The Canadian Bar Association was angered by Trudeau's appointment of a judge to the Federal Court of Canada without any consultation with the lawyer's association. The bar association would not name the appointee but it is generally believed the man in question was Yvon Pinard, former Liberal House Leader. Former cabinet minister Bryce Mackasey was named as Canada's ambassador to Portugal -and the Portugese government was not even consulted on the matter - another unprecedented breach of good international manners. A flock of Liberal pals was named to the Senate of Canada, thus further contributing to the uselessness of that expensive public body. Many and perhaps all of these appointments were filled by capable men and women who will indeed serve their country with competence. But the rub comes in the fact that the prime reason for the rewards was a history of useful service to the former prime minister. Canada should have an upper house. The senior statesmen who occupy the Senate chairs should provide the guidance of long experience in office but under present rules of appointment there is no way we can expect unbiased or even very useful service from that body. The Liberal party has been in office for so long that the Senate will have a Liberal majority for years to come, even though another party might be in power. How can we possibly expect unbiased opinions from a body, the majority of whose members owe their positions and incomes to the party which appointed them. Wingham Advance .Times A contentious issue The contentious retirement issue is back in the news el„again. The question? Should healthy individuals be allowed to continue in their jobs beyond the age of 65, or be forced to retire? With 73 -year old President Ronald Reagan running again for the highest office in the United States ( he'll be 77 if he wins and completes his term) and a surprising number of Canadian politicians who are over 65, the issue becomes fundamental. If Reagan is capable of running the most powerful na- tion on earth, why can't healthy and capable individuals handle ordinary jobs after the mandatory retirement age? Indeed, with many unions negotiating agreements that force workers to retire at age 60, or even 55, we seem to be swinging in the opposite direction. We're not suggesting that Canadians should be forced to work past retirement age, but neither should they be forc- ed to leave their jobs. Politics, of course, is one of the few professions where there is no retirement cutoff date. The other is small business, where people still maintain the freedom of work after 6.5, Members of the 64,000 strong Canadian Federation of Independent Business, for example, fully support such a right. In a vote among members, a full 77 percent rejecftod lowering the government -mandated retirement age. The open-ended retirement principle also seems to be winning some support from the courts. In at least two situations, courts have decided in favour of individuals who wanted to work after they were 65. While the cases may be appealed, this seems like a move in the proper direction. Like politicians and individuals operating smaller firms, ordinary Canadians should have the right to choose. Exeter Times Advocate Smooth sailing By Anne Narejko DEAR READERS SHIRLEY KELLER My daughter, who was employed -for a while with a government agency, became very angry one day when I said she used what I termed. "government gobbledygook". She argued that there was nothing different or unusual about the way she communicated about her work - that it was as clear and as concise as anything I ever wrote or said. I just couldn't convince her that government people talk differently than newspaper people who talk differently than medical people who talk differently than business people who talk differently than teenagers who talk differently than .... it goes on and on. I believe there's very definitely a jargon- that goes with certain groups .... and that jargon can be totally confusing to an outsider, even though it is spoken in English. To illustrate this point, I am delighted I can point to a speech delivered at the recent Canadian Community Newspaper Association in Penticton, British Columbia by Kenneth Bagnell, editor of the Imperial Oil review. Bagnell claims jargon is cluttering up the English language, making it dreary and confusing and unnecessary. And he warns that cluttered language usually hides cluttered thinking. Or worse yet, a deliberate attempt to evade the truth which is that nobody fully understands the situation well enough to explain it clearly. Bagnell recalled a working paper he encountered recently that had been prepared by the federal government and had something to do with energy. An executive of some oil company was attempting to explain the working paper to a seminar in which Bagnell was involved. And as Bagnell put it, the seminar leader seemed to be as honestly perplexed by the paper as he was when he heard the seminar leader try to explain it. The seminar leader saidl "You never know quite where the feds are coming from but you can bet they'll try to shoehorn in on the ground floor with a surfeit of synergy all configured to hassle you on a couple of toggle points." Said Bagnell, tongue in cheek, "I have a feeling he meant that the external parameters of energy development were being impacted on by a configuration of exogenous variables. That at least, is how I perceived it. Proactively. At that point in time, having, of course, conceptualized it first, then prioritized it and subjected it to the make or buy analysis." This "swollen English" is really funny, especially when you read it aloud. Try this one, which is the explanation by one businessman of the difference between looking for growth and looking for growth opportunities: • "If a growth opportunity is viable enough, and shows a consistent impetus toward upward potential, things may move at an accelerated rate, aiding overall capabilities and predictability enhancement each of which, of course, should be sophisticated through head office in a hands on effort at optimum results that will be the components and configurations and functionalities that • indicate innovative leadership that stimulates burgeoning profits for a corporate entity that impacts creatively on the milieu and penetrates t target area in a time frame that will preciJiitate a maximum of throughput, which in turn will motivate a proactive management team to new high retention capacities and even process rate development." Truly suffocating language, as Bagnell put it. "We smile at this bewildering swarm of words and I suppose it is just as well. At least we should keep a sense od humour in regard to it," says' Bagnell. For a closer look at the pn?oblem from a rather humourous point of view, Bagnell recommends a book on the market entitled, '`The Book of Jargon, an essential guide to medicalese, legalese, computerese, basic jock and 21 other varieties of today's most specialized languages." While all this may sound hilarious, it uncovers a serious problem which we all should recognize. It means that people are not really communicating with each other ... that people don't understand each other even though they are speaking English-language words they all know and comprehend when used one at a time. "A piece of communication which is confusing, takes time to decode and even then, it may be misinterpreted," warns Bagnell. Winston Churchill once sent this message to his First Lord of the Admiralty: "Pray let me have this day, on one sheet of paper, the state of the British Navy." Says Bagnell, " Maybe we should all go back to the office and do a one page memo on the state of our business. Nothing but good can come from the ability to put down our ideas with clarity, but also with brevity." Finally, Bagnell had some harsh words for writers like me. He said we should see ourselves as caretakers of the English language. "Few things are more important than language," says Bagnell. "After all, we all use it." "We do not need a high education to express ourselves clearly. All we need is to know what we want to say and say it, as simply and precisely agi we can," claims Bagnell. I agree with Bagnell who would banish the windy and the pompous. Like him, I prefer people to write and speak the English language as it was intended to be written and spoken - clearly and gracefully. A few years ago The Globe and Mail had a Women's Section. The feminist movement did not like the name, so it was changed to Thursday's Section, with the same content. Later again the newspaper changed its for- mat and topics were redistributed on its pages along different lines. Although I had no difficulty locating what I wanted to read, the argument of the women's activists seemed reasonable enough. They said that women are equal partners in the mainstream of humanity, ., that their individual interests are versatile and their concerns no different from men and that it is sexist to place them in a separate group as if they could not understand politics, economics, sciences and other similar fields just as well as men do. Now there has been a regrettable full turn, with bewildering implications. Oii August 15th the leaders of our three major. political parties are going to debate "women's issues" in a nationally televised encounter that is part of the September 4th election campaign. The event was set up by women's movement activists. The "women's section" is back. We had general debates in our two official languages. Women make up 53 per cent of our population. It is ridiculous and artificial • to group women outside the mainstream of our nation and to attribute altogether separate concierns to them. Just how ridiculous it is becomes even more obvious when one imagines that men might have proposed, with a straight face, a debate on national television on meri's issuei;. No doubt they could come up with .a list, possibly containing alimony, custody, judicial systems, pensions, interest rates, e ent, trade barriets, equality in the workp e, day care and many more items. Stamping the items as 'men's issues" would be rightfully called sexist and ridiculous. Chaviva Hosek and Doris Ander- son would be ever so outraged. Chaviva Hosek is the president of the Na- tional Action Committee on the Status of Women, formed in 1971 to deal1with the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. Ms. Hosek has demanded the debate in question and is organizing it, over the criticism of some other women's groups who claim that the NAC is pushing narrow and extremist views and its policies are not now and have never been represen- tative of the majority of women in Canada. In any case, the Action Committee ex- pects 2000 women to attend the debate. It is a sexist committee and organizes a sexist event. Furthermore, the National Action Committee has outlived its usefulness and has become an anachronism. Sombody else has called it an "outmoded soapbox for mili- tant feminists". Last week I heard Ms. Hosek on a pro- gram in Toronto. She stated that the feminists will not rest until •half of our members of parliament are ulomen. That is right - a quota foi*parliament. Goodbye, democracy! Goodbye, fair illusions that we • are free to elect whom we like and that stan- ding for election is a choice! However, there is something good in everything. The upcoming debate will show us finally what the "women's issues" are. This understanding has always eluded me. Do women in our society live in such incredi- ble, self-interested isolation that their lives touch no part of anyone or anything else? I have never met such a woman. The so-called women's issues the feminists have, stereotyped for themselves usually cover daycare, abortion, power, pornography; censorship and legalizing pro- stitution. Quite obviously women as in- dividuals disagree over such issues the ,same as men do. Equally obviously these subjects are very much matters of general public concern, in many instances counting also on public financing and thus being a part of our total economic and taxation pic- ture. Overlooking reality the women's ac- tivists seem to have in mind a kind of apar- theid based on gender. I am not in favour of apartheid in any form. Men and women are individuals. As women count for more than half of the population, it is indeed stretching credibility too far to pretend that as a group they are one of the disadvantaged minorities. Chaviva lioseld is sending to women's groups 30,000 election kits, telling exactly what to do, where, and how to do it, down to individual questions to be put to the can- didates. Good for her. How would women know otherwise what to do? Look again - it is not men who talk down to women and try to manipulate them. I do not react kindly to attempts of manipulation. That is why I am not impress- ed by militant feminists who hide their ex- tremist goals behind women in general whom they present as forever whining, com- plaining and in need of firm direction by so- meone else. I am not in favour of anybody's schemes powers to expand and enable governments po and self-interest groups to have more con- trol over individuals. My equality does not come froChaviva a Hosek. Perhaps I should say "equality s equality does". ELSA HAYDON .Ori