Loading...
The Citizen, 2009-11-12, Page 5THE CITIZEN, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2009. PAGE 5. Bonnie Gropp TThhee sshhoorrtt ooff iitt I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set I go into the other room and read a book. – Groucho Marx Let us pause for a brief moment to give a thought to poor Todd Francis Jollimore of French River, PEI. Unkind Fate has tossed Mister Jollimore under the wheels of the Canadian justice system. Did he rob a bank? No. Did he bilk widows and pensioners out of their life savings? Not at all. Rape, then? Assault and battery at least? Arson? Shoplifting? Indecent exposure? An unfortunate contretemps with an Anne of Green Gables sheep? None of that. All Mister Jollimore is guilty of is turning off his television set. Granted, his method was a tad precipitous. Mister Jollimore did not avail himself of his TV remote control nor did he yank the plug out of the wall socket. He whipped out his .45 automatic and drilled the sumbitch right in the middle of its Cyclopean eye. A neighbour heard the blast, the cops were called, Mister Jollimore was divested of his firearm and hauled off to the slammer in Summerside. First-degree murder of a television set. I’m no judge, but if I was, I think I might have come up with a different punishment. An Order of Canada comes to mind. I can’t count the number of times I’ve fantasized about physically slaughtering my TV, but I’m Canadian, eh? We don’t normally engage in that sort of thing. Now, Elvis, he was a Good Ol’ Boy. One time, the legend goes, he was watching TV in his suite in a Las Vegas hotel when Robert Goulet came on the screen to sing. Elvis whipped out his six-shooter and emptied all six chambers into the set. Did somebody call the cops? Are you kidding? This was Amurrica and he was Elvis. A flunky called the front desk and ordered up another TV. And if you’re feeling judgmental about Elvis’s behaviour you’ve probably never had to watch Robert Goulet sing on TV. I am utterly in favour of summary execution for television sets whenever and wherever possible, but I’m also a fan of non-violence, so I think guns are a bad way to go about it. Baseball bats are probably not wise either, what with exploding tubes and flying glass and all. Better just to bag the brutes in a Hefty sack and let them suffocate. Never killed a television set myself but I had a co-worker who did. He was a mild- mannered father of two who, one afternoon got sick of trying to wean his kids off the electronic teat. Finally he snapped. “They were watching Hawaii 5-0 in the rec room,” he told me later. “I called them five times to come upstairs. Nothing. Finally I just grabbed a carving knife from the kitchen drawer, stormed downstairs and chopped the cord.” “I could have been electrocuted,” he told me wonderingly. Then he added in a whisper “It was worth it.” I’ll never be in danger of being electrocuted by my TV or of going to jail for killing it. That’s not because I don’t harbour homicidal feelings; it’s because it doesn’t infuriate me anymore. How could it? I can’t turn the damned thing on. I’m not joking. The television set that sits in my living room came with a remote browser as long as my forearm. It’s got more buttons than a Soyuz spacecraft and apparently somebody sent me the Transylvanian model by mistake. How else to explain helpful features like: AUX, AUD, MARKER, SETUP, LIST, HD/ZOOM – and, I swear, SWAP. There are, I just counted them, 57 buttons on my remote control browser, not one of which bears the simple legend ON. No wonder the thing comes with its own manual. If the techno-nerds that manufacture these things are reading this, allow me to tell you how many buttons I really need on my next remote. Four. I can use ON/OFF, LOUD/SOFT, BRIGHT/DARK and for channel-surfing UP/DOWN. That’s it. I figure geniuses like you should be able to fit all that, even with extra-big lettering, on a remote about the size of a hockey puck. Which I can then conveniently lose in the couch cushions, get up and go into another room and read a book. Arthur Black Other Views Go ahead, blow up yer TV T he bigger they are, the harder they fall, and Premier Dalton McGuinty now knows this well. The Liberal premier only a couple of months ago could do no wrong in the public mind, but now he is fighting for his political life. The Liberals had been ahead in polls, mostly with enough support to win a third successive majority government, since they won their second in 2007. The opposition Progressive Conservatives and New Democrats were so far behind they needed binoculars to see them. Voters were not rebuking McGuinty, despite months of revelations he failed to prevent insiders abusing the public purse. Nor did they appear to blame him for the huge loss of jobs in the province in the recession, mainly because jobs were disappearing almost everywhere. News media here were concluding no criticism sticks to the premier and theorizing voters overlooked his shortcomings because he is calm and well mannered and has been innovative in education and green energy. The most recent indication the Liberals were untouchable was when they retained a riding effortlessly in a by-election in September and it seemed voters were infatuated with the Liberal premier. But a few more details have leaked out since re-emphasizing McGuinty’s failure to protect taxpayers’ money, which were reinforced when he fired a minister. And he added another woe by announcing a much larger budget deficit than expected. These have proven last straws for voters. One poll has suggested the Liberals have dropped to 39 per cent support and another to 32 per cent, neither of which normally would win an election, although the NDP won in 1990 with only 37 per cent of the votes, because they were split almost evenly among the three parties. McGuinty’s is among the swiftest falls from grace in history. Liberal premier David Peterson had 50 per cent in polls in 1990 and felt this was an opportune time to call an election. But it was only three years after he called the previous one instead of the customary four, and he was unable to produce a good reason. When voters looked for his motives, they found the economy was on the verge of declining and Peterson wanted the election over before he got blamed for it. They then remembered he had spent much of his term supporting Quebec’s ambitions for more power in Confederation and not enough on their economic concerns and within a month his stature declined enough he lost his huge lead, the election and his seat. Another Liberal leader, Lyn McLeod, in opposition, had an impressive 51 per cent in polls when the NDP called an election in 1995 and thought if she delayed announcing new polices, her opponents would be unable to pick holes in them. Conservative leader Mike Harris meanwhile built up a huge following with his proposals to cut government and taxes, which were what the public wanted to hear, and in a few weeks McLeod plunged to 31 per cent and lost the election. Frank Miller was stratospherically high in the polls, with 55 per cent, when he became Conservative premier in 1985, mostly a benefit passed on by his admired, long-serving predecessor William Davis. But Miller may have been giddy up there, because despite being a persuasive talker, he refused to debate the leaders of the opposition parties on TV, which raised fears he had something to hide. Miller dropped to only 37 per cent in a few weeks and the Conservatives lost government after 42 consecutive years. These dramatic falls occurred in elections, but many are upset with McGuinty when there is no election to stir them up, which suggests their unhappiness runs deep. The premier has almost two years to recover before an election, but, if he fails, his career as the most successful Liberal politician in memory will have ended and he will be looking for a job – and the momentum now is very much against him. Eric Dowd FFrroomm QQuueeeenn’’ss PPaarrkk I’ve never been prouder of my community then I was the other night. Residents from Brussels and Grey filled the Brussels Public School gymnasium, and into the hall and lobby, to begin the battle to save their schools under the Avon Maitland District School Board’s most recent accommodation review. The case could be made, however, that the battle is about saving a lot more than that. The options thus far presented, which the board staff and trustees continually remind are just a starting point, would be nothing short of a death knell for the village. The quiet streets, recreational activities, community spirit and the school have attracted many young families who want to leave the hustle of nearby urban centres, particularly from the Golden Triangle area. A one-hour commute is a fair exchange for affordable housing and gentler way of life. The school is the integral factor, bringing people, who then support commerce and recreation. Without a school in Brussels, there’s no question that the urban infusion will stall, sustainability will suffer and any hope of economic development will be lost. However, that is an emotional argument. Just as Grey residents aren’t about to pro-create like rabbits to help the board fill spaces, neither is the board about to base their decision on what will happen because of what it will do to the property value of a Brussels home, or the bottom line for a business. Administration must deal with the province’s rules and guidelines in funding education and ensuring that the education students receive is the best for them. Listening to my neighbours the other day, my heart was with them on every level. I felt the same anger, frustration and bewilderment at the information and with the process. However, we’ve had our time for emotion; now it’s time to fight back with common sense and researched articulate debate. We needn’t remove our passion from this battle, but cool- headed logic must be the weapon. Tears and hostility won’t win this fight. This is not the board’s first accommodation review. They have heard all the heartfelt pleas before, the impassioned rationale as to what makes a school important to a community. Instead we must get specific. For Grey it’s the environmental learning ground, an asset that the community has already taken positive steps to exploit organizing a tour this past weekend for board staff and trustees. Brussels’ strength, on the other hand, lies in its success. This school is a bit of an anomaly, actually running over-capacity and projected to continue to be for years to come. This alone proves that it’s worth redemption. The onus is on us to convince the board that as empty classrooms are not a problem now nor as projections show will be, they should fix it up and let it be. The onus is then on the board to explain why they are so voraciously keen on closing this school, when it’s only issue is that it requires some repairs. Why, we must ask, is it being punished for the sins of a previous board, while we have done everything right. And we must keep the pressure on until that question is answered. The board says their decision is based on what’s best for the children. Show us please why ripping a village’s student population apart and sending kids, who walk to school, on buses that will take them to three other schools is in their best interest. Show us how this is a cheaper alternative, what the environmental impact could be. We’ve heard their thoughts. It’s time now to make them defend them. McGuinty has fallen hard On the offence 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.