The Citizen, 2007-12-06, Page 5THE CITIZEN, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2007. PAGE 5.Bonnie
Gropp
TThhee sshhoorrtt ooff iitt
Earlier the better
The newspaper reporter. The image is 30
years out of date but it’s iconic and
endures.
Look at him there – Johnny Deadline – in
the busy newsroom, wearing that cheap,
wrinkled suit with his loud tie askew, his
snap-brim fedora pushed back from his
forehead.
He’s crouched over his manual typewriter,
pecking out his STOP THE PRESS hot story
with two fingers.
And, but of course, a gasper hanging out of
the corner of his mouth.
Gotta have the dangling cigarette.
A newspaper reporter without a cigarette is
like Harry Potter without his specs.
Snoopy without his doghouse. Ron McLean
without Don Cherry.
Yeah, well forget all that. Employees of
Tribune Co., a giant media conglomerate that
owns a stable of American newspapers and
television stations, have just learned that if
they smoke, they’ll be paying an extra hundred
bucks a month over and above their regular
medical premiums insurance.
A crusade against smoking reporters. Is
nothing sacred?
’Tis but the latest assault on that sorry bunch
of misfits in our midst – the tobacco addicted.
We’ve chased them out of bars and restaurants.
We’ve banned their odiferous practice in our
workspaces and government buildings.
Ontario has just passed a province-wide ban
on smoking in all public institutions. Parts of
California forbid smoking in parks and on
beaches.
How else can we put the boot in? Is there
some new way we can make these wretches
suffer even more?
Smokers fight back, but either their heart
isn’t in it or, thanks to the debilitating side
effects of their habit, they just don’t have the
wind to put up a decent fight.
Their latest pathetic sally is the smokeless
smoke.
Really.
Three Ontario entrepreneurs are looking to
buy the Canadian rights to a Chinese-made
(oh, swell! The folks who gave us lead-tainted
kiddy toys) smokeless, tobacco-free cigarette.
How would a smokeless, tobacco-free
cigarette work, you ask? Well, it involves a
nicotine cartridge, a microchip and some
water-vapour mist. Your smoker sucks on an
imitation cigarette while a battery-driven
microchip activates an atomizer which puffs
out a nicotine-flavoured plume of water
vapour.
Not quite as down-home friendly as lighting
up a Lucky, is it?
Such a change in such a short time. Is it
really less than 20 years since smokers fired up
with abandon on trains and buses, in waiting
rooms and hospitals? Remember when airlines
routinely reserved rows 16 through 18 for
smokers?
Good luck to non-smoking passengers in
rows 15 and 19.
And offices.
Nobody batted an eye if you lit up in the
office. Hell, there was an ashtray on every
desk.
The air in a typical office was blue with
tobacco smoke, both new and second-hand.
Non-smokers were grievously outnumbered
and suffered silently.
When I worked in radio, even the studios
held ashtrays and guests were routinely
offered a cigarette ‘for their nerves’.
How the worm has turned. It’s a brave soul
indeed who would flick his Zippo in an office
setting these days. ‘Firing up’ has become a
firing offence at many firms in Canada and the
U.S.
Most office buildings are identifiable during
office hours by the clots of desperate,
shivering nicotine addicts clustered around
their doorways, getting their fix.
Needless to say, one huge benefit for white
collar workers is that the air in their offices,
once noxious and riddled with carcinogens, is
now pristine and pure as a forest glen.
Not.
The latest news is that laser printers, a
fixture in pretty well every office in the land,
have been quietly spewing out particle
emissions far deadlier than tobacco smoke
since they were installed.
In fact, one study suggests that spending too
much time near an office copier is worse than
sitting by a guy puffing two packs a day in the
next cubicle.
Ironically, the office workers likely to be
least affected by toxic printers are the
smokers. They’ll be out on the sidewalk
having a smoke.
Is that a smoker’s cough I hear – or is it
smokers having the last laugh after all?
Arthur
Black
The end of the start of the work week. A
long and busy Monday is now behind
me and the dreary drive home is
complete.
And there it is — home. Opening the door I
am greeted by the familiar, comforted by the
place I call my own.
In the low kitchen light I noticed the
answering machine blinking a message notice.
Pressing the button I hear a voice that wraps
itself soothingly around me. My grandson has
called with a special request. If it’s alright
with me he’d like to come over some night and
help me ‘make’ my Christmas tree.
With tinsel and bells on I returned the call
and plans were made for his visit, brightening
the week to come.
“But it’s so early,” an acquaintance said
when I told her this story.
Perhaps. So she was even more surprised to
hear that the majority of my other decorating
had already been done by the time my special
visitor came to help with the main event.
And why not? I know the purists argue
rightly that the celebration of Christ’s birth
does not begin at the end of November.
Advent is a holy season for Christians, the
period of waiting and preparation for the
celebration of the Nativity. As such, I assure
you that the Christian elements of my
decorating are placed at more appropriate
times. I am moved by the true meaning of this
special time of year.
But, what harm, I ask, is there in placing
greenery, lights and snowmen around my
rooms weeks before the time chosen to mark
Christ’s birth. None of these have any
significance to the nativity. Outside the
church, the holiday is known as the season of
Christmas, and it is that I welcome with
festive finery.
Even when it was less in vogue to do so, I
was an early Christmas decorator, always the
first weekend in December. But decorations
became more elaborate over the years often
making it challenging to fit in. People started
getting their outdoor embellishments in place
to take advantage of more pleasing weather.
And the next thing I knew there were many
people far ahead of me, giving me permission
to do the same.
Couldn’t be happier about it. And not
feeling the least bit foolish or apologetic
either.
It’s no secret to anyone that the dark, bleak
winter is a dark, bleak time for me. It is with
pleasure and gratitude that I enjoy the holiday
decor that lights my way home each and every
day. Then being in my house, fragrant with
cinnamon, flickering candles and dancing
lights chasing the gloom away, ribbons and
garlands gracing stairways and mantles, and
smiling snowmen, is therapeutic. The beauty
of holiday decor soothes soul and spirit.
So, yes, as the landscape disappears under a
bland blanket of white I eagerly bring colour
and life into my house. After facing the bitter
bite of wicked winds heading out the door
each day, I return to cocoon amid the warm
glow of twinkling lights. I feel happy and safe.
Actually, all of the good feelings that
typically accompany Christmas are there once
the ‘hype’ begins. I know that my spirit of
goodwill towards men certainly improves
when I start thinking Christmas.
So when you think about it, isn’t earlier
even better?
Other Views Got dem ol’ smokin’ blues
Aspeaker of the legislature has lost his
job because of allegations he favoured
his own party for the first time in
history. But many others have been threatened.
Liberal Mike Brown, who as speaker
refereed debates, failed to get re-elected
mainly because opposition Progressive
Conservatives and New Democrats felt he was
lenient with his own party when it broke rules
and a few Liberals, who were disgruntled for
various reasons, voted with them.
The allegations contained some truth,
because the easygoing Brown permitted more
heckling and obstructionism than speakers
traditionally do. Most of it was by Liberals in
sustained attempts to prevent opposition
parties being heard rather than by the
frustrated opposition.
Almost all speakers have been accused of
favouring their parties. Brown’s predecessor,
Alvin Curling, a Liberal and the first black
speaker, left to enough praise it might have
been thought he was a candidate for a Nobel
Peace Prize.
Politicians tend to be charitable to departing
adversaries. But Curling quit shortly before
the legislature was to debate a New Democrat
motion he was biased and incompetent and
should resign.
The Conservatives felt the same, calling him
a disgrace as speaker, and their entire caucus
once walked out because he refused to allow
them to say the government was suppressing a
report.
But black community groups complained
Curling was being picked on because he is
black, which was untrue, and an
accommodating federal government found
him an ambassadorship far away from the
sensitive situation.
Gary Carr, an earlier Conservative speaker,
was accused by Conservative premier Ernie
Eves of being biased, but on this issue the
Speaker clearly was in the right.
Eves unveiled a budget outside the
legislature to avoid opposition parties’
questions and Carr accused him of putting his
political interests ahead of the institution. But
an election was too close to risk punishing this
outspoken speaker.
Conservatives threatened to remove another
Conservative speaker who showed the
neutrality Speakers are supposed to have.
Chris Stockwell, after being left out of premier
Mike Harris’s cabinet, was elected speaker on
a promise to serve all MPPs equally and made
rulings his party disliked.
Some in it felt particularly Stockwell was
delaying their legislation to merge
Metropolitan Toronto into a single city and
warned him privately they were considering
proposing a non-confidence motion that would
remove him.
Stockwell retorted he would not be
pressured, but any attempt by Conservatives to
eject him as speaker would have made them
look dictatorial and they never followed up
their threat.
Hugh Edighoffer, a Liberal speaker, upset
many because he tried to keep the front of the
legislature free of demonstrations. He barred
groups including disarmament and
environmentalist activists, saying the Liberals
had worked hard to provide a dignified
atmosphere. But opponents finally won the
day by arguing the front of the legislature
should be a “people place” where the public
rather than lobbyists could express its views.
But the speaker who got in most trouble was
Conservative John Turner in the early 1980s.
His rulings included permitting a Conservative
minister to sneer that a Liberal needed to see a
psychiatrist, because he was depressed and
paranoid, and ejecting the leaders of the two
opposition parties, but within minutes
changing his mind and allowing them back in.
Turner also broke the rule the speakers
should be neutral by making a radio broadcast
in his riding supporting government
legislation about which the opposition parties
had concerns and introducing Conservative
ministers at a rally.
The NDP put forward a motion the
legislature had lost confidence in Turner and
asked him to resign. But the Liberals, who
earlier said much the same thing, refused to
support it on the grounds Turner had
weaknesses, but was a fine human being who
should not go down in history as being kicked
out of this prestigious job.
This has been a problem when premiers and
more recently MPPs chose Speakers – they
often have picked the nicest guy and not the
smartest.
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.
Speakers, like referees, often targets