Loading...
The Citizen, 2009-06-25, Page 5THE CITIZEN, THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2009. PAGE 5. Bonnie Gropp TThhee sshhoorrtt ooff iitt I have never taken anybody’s life, but I have often read obituary notices with considerable satisfaction. – Clarence Darrow I’m not sure what it says about me, but I have a confession to make: I troll the Obits. I read the obituary columns in the newspapers pretty much every day. Not for pleasure, you understand. It’s more like a racetrack tout perusing the racing form. I check first to see if anybody I know croaked overnight, and then I check to see if I’m older than the poor souls who actually did. Reading the obits is my way of finding out if I’m still staying ahead in the only competition that we all get to run in whether we’re athletes or not – the Human Race. A strange cultural accoutrement, your typical newspaper obituary. It frequently features a photo of the lately defunct, sometimes decked out in a kilt or a square dance costume, or perhaps wearing a party hat, arms fanned out around some buddies. Champagne glasses, Hawaiian leis and birthday cakes are sometimes in evidence. Often there’s a big grin plastered over the dear departed’s face – which begs the question: why is this person looking so pleased with himself? He’s dead. And that’s when the realization hits you that almost nobody gets to choose the photo that goes on their exit visa – your successors (or some anonymous newspaper editors you’ve never even met) get to handle that grisly chore. That, in turn, is what gives the obituary photos their peculiar, somewhat creepy resonance. The people photographed had no inkling that they were posing for their last public appearance. You think my obituary-fixation is a tad creepy as well? Hey, I’m but an innocent babe in the woods compared to Keith Anderson. In his day job, Anderson is a social-work professor at Ohio State University but he spends his spare time combing the obituary pages of his local rag, The Cleveland Plain Dealer. And not just every afternoon edition. Professor Anderson has made it his business to peruse the past 40 years worth of Plain Dealer obituary notices. Not surprisingly, he’s noticed some patterns. One of the oddest is that, while people are living longer, their obituary photos are getting younger. He would occasionally come across a notice that would indicate a man had died at the age of, say, 94, but the accompanying photo would show a strapping young lad in a Second World War army uniform. Another photo would depict a winsome, nubile lass in her wedding dress; the actual notice would say that she’d been born in 1922. Professor Anderson started classifying obituaries into a category he called ‘age inappropriate’ – in other words, any picture that looked like it had been taken more than 15 years before the person died. He found that back in 1967, about 17 per cent of the photos accompanying death notices were ‘age-inappropriate’. By 1997 the ratio had more than doubled to 36 per cent. Howcum? The professor puts it down to society’s ongoing love affair with youth. He thinks the people who choose the obituary photographs prefer to show the deceased at their so-called prime, rather than how they actually looked. “As a society, I don’t think we see someone who’s 80 years old as at the prime of their life,” he told a Canwest reporter, adding, “which is sort of ageist.” Yeah, sort of. We need to revamp our attitude about aging. As Captain Eddie Rickenbacker said, “If a thing is old, it’s a sign that it was fit to live. Old families, old customs, old styles survive because they are fit to survive…Old-fashioned hospitality, old- fashioned politeness, old-fashioned honour in business had qualities of survival.” Applies to old-fashioned obituaries too. Back in 1891, the great showman P.T. Barnum was in ill-health and realized he was on the way out. He was asked what his last wish would be. “I’d like to read my obituary,” replied Barnum. The New York Sun granted his wish, running a four-column death notice exactly one day before Barnum died. With, I’ll bet, a smile on his face. Arthur Black Other Views Obituaries? Oh you betcha! O ntario’s Progressive Conservatives are nearing the end of a leadership campaign no closer to resolving their biggest problem. This is a split in their party – slightly wider than the Grand Canyon – over whether they should return to the extreme right policies of former premier Mike Harris, who won two elections with them in the 1990s, or more moderate approach that kept them in power for four decades up to 1985 and made them the longest-governing party in Canadian history. Memories of Harris are fresher and the race in which four MPPs are running to succeed John Tory, who has retired, has been dominated by whether the party should bring back Harris’s policies, the most basic of which were cutting taxes and the power of unions. Two candidates want to return to Harris,Tim Hudak, generally seen as the front-runner, although not by a big enough margin anyone can be sure he will win, and Randy Hillier, who is too much of a newcomer and maverick to have any chance. Hudak reminds every time he speaks that Harris’s policies swept the province. The candidate with the best and probably only chance of beating him, Christine Elliott, has replied that the Conservatives need a leader who does not focus on the past and looks forward. The fourth candidate, Frank Klees, who like Hudak was a minister under Harris, has argued Ontario is different from in the 1990s. About half the Conservatives’MPPs support Hudak, but two who speak for many in the party, former deputy premier Elizabeth Witmer and Ted Arnott, a spokesman for small towns and rural areas, are among those who support Elliott and indicated they worry about returning to Harris. Witmer argued that Elliott would expand their party’s reach. Arnott aid she would show compassion for the disadvantaged, which was not a high priority for Harris. Hudak has to be given the best chance of winning, because he is assured of Hillier’s votes when he drops out, but Elliott should not be ruled out. The Conservatives have fought constantly over whether they should return to Harris’s policies since he retired. Ernie Eves, who succeeded him as premier, never received full support from Harris’s admirers and some labeled him, the worst insult they could think of, a Liberal in disguise. Tory, who followed Eves as leader and was indisputably more moderate, obtained only half-hearted help from some Harris supporters and even was undermined by others before he stepped down after twice failing to win a seat in the legislature. The legacies of Harris in the leadership race have included Hudak promising to tear up generous pay raises Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty gave public sector unions before the economic downturn and help employers keep unions out of their workplaces. Elliott has responded that scrapping the wage agreements would provoke confrontations particularly harmful in difficult economic times and, whether chosen leader or not, she will continue to be a leading voice of the anti-Harris faction in the party. Conservatives must have some doubt their party would be helped at the polls by returning to Harris’s policies, because the former premier had lost popularity before he retired and there is no sign the public is lining up behind Hudak to revive him. McGuinty has even calculated every mention of Harris helps the Liberals. He reminded of Harris’s policies every time he could in the two elections he has won. Only a few politicians are remembered a long time, one example being Bob Rae. Earlier this month, when Nova Scotia elected its first New Democrat premier, his first statement was he will not pile up massive deficits, as the NDP premier did in Ontario as far back as the early 1990s. Harris also is remembered. Whoever wins this leadership race, the Conservatives will still have two strong factions, one dedicated to bringing back Harris’s policies and the other much more moderate, and a party this divided is not on track to win an election. Eric Dowd FFrroomm QQuueeeenn’’ss PPaarrkk It’s consumed many minutes of many hours for the past several months, then weeks, then days. It has been fretted over, planned on and anticipated about. Then it was here, then it was gone, and I find myself pondering what I’m going to do now. Call it wedding withdrawal. When something occupies so much of your life for an extended period of time it’s natural to feel a little bereft when the party’s over. Even though it was a party you’ve been looking forward to for some time. When we learned there was going to be another wedding in the family, we couldn’t have been more happy, but there was no sense of urgency. The date had been set for the next year, which at the time seemed forever away. We took the typical approach then. The words, some plans and thoughts worked their way into most conversations, but not ad nauseam. Then we woke up one morning and realized that the momentum had begun to build. Attention to the calendar revealed that the gap between betrothed and being married was closing so working out certain details shifted to priority status. As that urgency caught steam so too did organizing and before we knew it, months had turned into weeks and it was down to fine tuning. We had blinked and the oh-so-distant future was the here and now. So, last weekend we found ourselves gathered in the company of friends and family, old and new at a picture perfect location. The bridal couple, avid outdoorspeople, were eager to share with everyone one of their favourite spots on this earth. About 45 of us took over a lodge in the heart of natural Ontario for a weekend with the wedding ceremony conveniently slotted smack in the middle of it. After all the work, organizing and scheduling, buying and making, plotting and partying, everyone could kick back, relax and enjoy the show, the first act of which began with the beauty around us. From sunset to sundown for three beautifully glorious days we shared one of life’s happiest occasions in picture-perfect serenity. Mark and I arrived on Thursday for some time with the kids to finish last minute details, for sure, but mostly to chill out before swinging into social mode. We boated, picnicked by the rapids, made friends with a snake and listened to the sounds of nature. Despite our mission to distract ourselves for a bit from the wedding, it was inevitable that it was the topic of most of our chatting, on one level or another, of course. The next morning dawned and our excitement built as people began to arrive. Meeting, greeting and getting folks settled into their cabins filled most of the day, then after a beautiful supper we wound down by a campfire. The wedding day, of course, was crazy from beginning to end, filled with more than your typical nuptials, including a two-hour trip on a floating dock. But with the arrival of the final morning, the reality of a shift in focus arrived. Talk of ‘the wedding’ was now a thing of the past, not of anticipation. Visits with the bridal couple to plan were over. Life was resuming, satisfying, but with a certain wistfulness. Watching a tired, but sated group departing was a little overwhelming. Memories, and the thousands of pictures taken, will keep this good time alive forever, but it would never be lived again. It was all a bit sad, but an experience that was appreciated and gratifying beyond expectations. Truly a good time had by all. Tory Party split not resolved Good time had Grief can take care of itself, but to get the full value of a joy you must have somebody to divide it with. – Mark Twain Final Thought 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.