News Leader News
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR - October 4, 2005
To The Editor;
What the American people donšt know about the world outside Uncle Sam's gates is storied in books and documentaries - indeed, it is widely rumoured that much of what transpires inside them is a source of puzzlement to many of its denizens; and may very well overload several databanks.
Nevertheless, there is one indisputable fact about the world that has been practically an article of faith for every man, woman and child with feet fortunate enough to fit the golden stars and stripes slippers.
It changed forever with 9/11. A bigger change was 7/11 - a chain of convenience stores - but that went virtually unnoticed.
Whilst the loss of life is lamentable, it still remains that many countries around the world had been suffering deaths and torturings for years before the so-called 9/11 event, (no small amount of which reportedly backed, at least, by U. S. foreign policy); and yet the world trade towers still stood and it was business as usual; the nimbys (not in my backyard) unaffected.
7/11 was a mere one of countless minor ripples in the tidal wave set in motion by the founder of the world's first commercial empire - Avaricius Ripofficus.
Avaricius emerged from his cave one morning, bright and calm, to shave his perfectly reflected whiskers in a placid rain puddle - a consequence of the night's all too infrequent precipitation - suddenly...a thought struck - ouch; then, water. Soon after, another 'bottle'; bottle?
The pupils of Avaricius' eyes were magically transformed into shekel signs, and the rest is World Trade History.
Yes. The world changed on 9/11. That is, what is now synonymous with the "world" - World Trade; and it's twin symbols reduced to rubble.
The Pentagon too broad and horizontal to be levelled; but nevertheless the military partner in the acquisition of more shekel-generating enterprise.
Perhaps, rather than the demagogic claim that "they hate our freedom" the motivation was a rage against the fact that all life's value has been reduced to its trading price in shekels.
Yes, yours and mine, too!
- Michael McNulty, Princeton
Dear Editor:
Everyone will remember the tragedy that befell little Matthew Vaudreuil in 1995. On a daily basis the newspaper and TV headlines screamed for social workers heads, the heads of those representing the provincial welfare ministry; and, of course, a government that purportedly represented the weakest in society was called on to resign in shame. Fast forward to 2002 and the death of Sherry Charlie who also died as the result of abuse at the hands of a relative.
From that date until the present the Provincial Liberal Government has received no unfavourable comment by the media for firing half of all social workers and used all means at their disposal to ward off criticism of themselves and their depleted welfare ministry. The latest roadblock the Provincial Attorney General has thrown up is that we may no longer use the little girls name, ostensibly to protect the family.
This means of course that you will no longer see her name in print; but the Liberals know that out of sight, means out of mind to the population at large----long range election strategy?---is censorship now part of Victoria's version of democracy? Now please allow me to change the subject.
In 1998 the NDP in BC brought in legislation to sue Big Tobacco for health costs caused by their products. Their suit was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada. As of today the same suit, reinitiated by the Provincial Liberals was unanimously allowed to proceed, opening the door for all governments to follow suit. What is wrong with this picture? Obviously, only a Liberal government is allowed to pass progressive legislation.
The previous NDP government also outlawed smoking in all public buildings. It was the first government in Canada to act on this problem, much to their detriment. Their action resulted in the media, bar owners and the big bosses starting an incessant anti-government lobby ending in the NDPs ultimate defeat. Fast forward once more; after a brief courtship with bar owners circa 2001, the Liberals realized public opinion was against them---once more, what was good for New Democrats was adopted by the Liberals----but, did you also notice that there was no adverse media reaction?
Last but not least, let me remind you of the reams of editorial copy devoted to the NDP- run ICBC for allowing that publicly owned corporation to spend some of their surplus on accident prevention. Did you notice last weekends edition of a major daily, devoting a whole pull-out section to the Liberal-run ICBC, and how they intend to spend our premium excess on---yes, you guessed it accident prevention.
I suppose I should be thankful that some progressive ideas have been allowed to proceed under the present administration, but can someone please tell me why all that is encompassed in the last few paragraphs was bad when initiated by the previous government?
Sincerely,
A very confused HPToews
To The Editor;
"Your Children - Our Students"
Princeton teachers understand that parents are concerned about their child's learning being disrupted in a job action situation.
We have taken a strike vote, but are working hard to achieve a negotiated settlement.
We did not want to take job action. This is always a last resort. But we are worried about students' learning conditions and are determined to make improvements for students.
The employer says it doesn't have the ability to bargain improvements in learning conditions and a fair salary settlement for teachers, because the provincial government won't allow it.
We are asking parents to join in calling on the government to work for a solution, not to legislate more problems.
There is a great deal of common ground. Parents want to put the best interests of their children first. Teachers want to put the best interests of students first. Parents and teachers, working together, are powerful allies for public education.
Yours truly,
Robert Tarswell, President
Princeton District Teachers' Union
