Posted by: Sandy | January 6, 2009

Help for parents …

This “what to do to be your child’s advocate” list was taken from one of my earlier posts that was updated based on recommendations from readers (SOR, Mac and Northern Ontario Tory). It is certainly not a definitive list but it will give parents an idea of what to do when they know their kids need help.

(1.) Visit your family doctor or pediatrician.

He or she can rule out disease, infection and/or any genetic or other physiological abnormalities. He or she can also prescribe medication as a last resort if that is necessary.  However, if the physician simply tells you not to worry, be firm. Have the specifics at your finger tips. Don’t take no or wait for an answer. For example, if a infant or toddler is not developing according to regular guidelines, keep a record and share that information — such as when a baby sits, rolls over, crawls (if at all), stands and speaks. Or does the toddler scream or shake their hands at the least bit of provocation? In other words, be prepared and expect answers.

(2.) If your child is school-aged, visit his or her school.

This section was added after posting. As both Mac and Northern Ontario said in comments, sometimes a classroom teacher and/or a school resource teacher can offer helpful advice. When that happens, everyone can benefit. However, since the school system has a different agenda and is under financial constraints, parents need to be aware that there may be a conflict of interest.  And, frankly, parents who are really good at advocating for their child or children are sometimes seen in a negative light by school administrators.  That said, parents should always remember that it really doesn’t matter what the principal thinks as long as their child is getting the help they need. Of course, politics enters into this dynamic as well. There is an old saying “you can get more with honey than vinegar.” That certainly applies in this situation. While these comments are more likely to relate to public and Catholic schools, more will be said in item (5.) regarding looking at the option of a private school — where a parent/teacher partnership made be better.

(3.) Visit the local Learning Disability Association or a related organization.

This is key. I was involved with the Niagara area LDA for many years, both as a parent and as a professional. While they don’t make specific recommendations, they have lists of the types of resources and professionals a parent may need. And, often they will make a referral. I can’t stress this option enough. Make an appointment. What parents will learn will help immensely. Here is the link to the Canadian Learning Disability Association where you can “Find the Chapter nearest you” which is found on the site’s left sidebar. (Link) Of course, other associations can also provide assistance, such as the Association for Community Living or the Autism Society of Canada. For links, see my header bar under “Parent Resources.” 

(4.) Act on physician and LDA recommendations.

Never feel embarrassed or pushy. This is your child we are talking about. Too often pre-schools and regular schools will give parents that impression. Ignore them. Be polite but firm. Have all your facts at your finger tips. Do not blame. Just insist on the help your child needs. Remember, that in ten or twenty years you will still be helping your child and those educators will be retired and have long forgotten about you. In other words, think long term.

(5.) Pay for private testing/treatment/schools if necessary.

If your physician or school system has your child on a waiting list for testing or specialized treatment, find out the name of a registered psychologist who does private testing and/or a behavioural therapist who offers private ABA (applied behavioural analysis treatment for severe autism spectrum disorders). And, even if you have to pay with post-dated cheques or have to borrow money, if at all humanly possible don’t wait. Or, if that option is just not possible, visit the various social services groups to see if they can help — like the Lions, Kiwanis, Rotary, and so on. It can take years, valuable time wasted, if you put all your eggs in one basket. The school systems do what they can with the money they have available, but they can’t be all things to all people. So, parents need to be their own advocate. Some major medical plans through employment also pay a portion of private testing and treatment — as long as there has been a referral from a physician. Lastly, as sor said in a comment, consider a private school.

(6.) Join a parent or disability support group.

Join a parent support group of some kind,  be it for learning disabilities, autism, attention deficit, cerebral palsy or Tourette’s. Talk to other parents. Find out what they are doing. Tell them what you are doing. Be involved. Be known. If possible, be a spokesperson for a group. Share your experiences with other parents at meetings or even conferences. Word of mouth (and now the blogosphere) is one of the main ways for parents to find out what they need or can do.

(7.) Read and become knowledgeable.

There are lots of books and articles available on line. To begin with, search out all the links on this ”Parent Resources” page on my header bar.

(8) Don’t wait on anyone else.

Waiting! One of the most frustrating things for parents who are trying to find out what may be wrong with their child, or what can be done to help them, is the waiting.  Sometimes there is no other option but to wait. Whatever the case, take other steps that you can do. Always remember you are your child’s advocate.  So, while waiting, get started on item 6. above by gathering together all the necessary information you need to move ahead – test results, special education programs that might be available, where ABA therapy is being offered, and so on.

5 Comments

Posted in Disability Advocacy, Educational issues, Help for Parents, Parent Concerns | Tags: , ,

Posted by: Sandy | January 6, 2009

Ten accomplishments or how Harper gov’t spent part of surplus

The favourite opposition question these days is: What has Prime Minister Stephen Harper done to “squander” the surplus left from the previous Liberal governments? The answer is of course that none of it has been “squandered” because it has been allocated to the Canadian people. 

However, to prove that nothing has been squandered, I have highlighted several items from my list of “Harper Government Accomplishments.” 

First, I wrote about the $37 Billion paid off the national debt which meant fewer interest payments which, as part of a tax back guarantee, would reduce the amount of income tax paid by Canadians — meaning that Canadians now have more money in their own bank accounts.

Then, I wrote about the 2% GST reduction which, although would mean less money in the government’s treasury, meant Canadians were able to keep more of their own money.

Today, the third and last in this series, I will present those items again along with all the other accomplishments (ten from my list of 63 accomplishments) that the government has implemented that help individuals and families.

However, should Canadians have any doubts at all what the opposition coalition would have done with taxpayers money and the power to govern on our behalf, they should read this National Post editorial.  

                                                 *  *  *  *  *  *

Ten Harper Gov’t Accomplishments
that allow Canadians to keep more of their own money


(1) Debt reduction –  The Conservative government has paid off $37 billion since the start of their first mandate in January 2006 (Link), including $10.2 billion in the 07/08 budget (Link). Projections into 08/09 have not been included due to the changing economic circumstances throughout the entire world.

(2) Tax Back Guarantee — a plan to use interest sayings from national debt repayments to reduce personal income taxes, each and every year (Link)

(3) GST — Goods & services tax cut from 7% to 6% and then to 5% (Link)

(4) Child Tax Credit ($2000 for every child under 18) (Link to all tax credits)

(5) GIS — Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors changed to allow for higher earned income (Link) (Plus this link indicates how many different ways the Harper gov’t is helping seniors.)

(6) Registered Disability Savings Plan, part of the 2007 budget is set to begin December, 2008. (See this link for further details and eligibility requirements.)

(7) Income splitting for Canadian seniors and pensioners (Link)

 (8) Kid’s sport tax credit (up to $500 per child) (Link)

(9) Public transit tax credits (Link)

(10) Universal Child Care Benefit — $1200.00 per year for every child under age six (Link)

                                                 *  *  *  *  *  *

Note:  Although we will be travelling for the next few weeks, I will leave this post up in my absence. However, I will moderate comments as often as I can.

7 Comments

Posted in Accomplishments, Conservative Gov't | Tags:

Posted by: Sandy | January 5, 2009

Featuring: Harper gov’t cut GST 2%!

Yesterday I put up a post featuring the fact that the Harper government has, since it came to power in January 2006, paid $37 Billion off the debt.  Today, I am reminding Canadians that their government also used some of the surplus to allow us to keep some of our own money — by cutting the GST a 2 percentage points.

As the list of the “Harper Government Record“ states:

GST — Goods & services tax cut from 7% to 6% and then to 5% (Link)

8 Comments

Posted in Accomplishments | Tags:

Posted by: Sandy | January 5, 2009

Tom Cruise claims Scientology helps dyslexia?

Here is what the New Zealand Herald is reporting that Tom Cruise is alleged to have said in a recent interview about his earlier literacy problems:

“I asked myself if I was normal or an idiot. I would try to concentrate but I felt anxiety, frustration, boredom. When I graduated from high school in 1980 I was functionally illiterate,” he said.

“Nobody gave me a solution and I wanted to know why the system had failed. Finally, as an adult I learned to read perfectly through the method of (Scientology’s late founder) L. Ron Hubbard,” the 46-year-old added.

The Church of Scientology, founded in 1954 in the United States by Hubbard, a science-fiction writer, teaches that technology can expand the mind and help solve problems.

The sentence that Scientology technology helped Cruise “to read perfectly” clearly suggests some kind of cure. Improvement I could accept, but the word “perfectly” is what has me concerned.

Not that a cure for dyslexia wouldn’t be wonderful news for parents everywhere. It would. But, that the help is linked to Scientology has me concerned — particularly because there is no way to validate his claims.

As a result, having been a reading/dyslexia specialist and running my own reading clinic for many years, I have my doubts. What I would like to know is precisely what type of technology Scientology uses.  Otherwise, claims like this are only that, claims.

Dyslexia is an all-encompassing term that can suggest different things to different people. What science does know is that it is a neurological disorder that can involve a wide range of reading and language related difficulties, from simple letter reversal to complex information processing and language organization problems.

For a complete explanation, see this link, as well as this one.

So, Cruise’s claims of having the disorder and then learning to read “perfectly” should not only be questioned, but confirmed — otherwise his assertions are no better than advertisements for Scientology. 

H/T National Newswatch.

7 Comments

Posted in Dyslexia, Learning Disabilities | Tags: , ,

Posted by: Sandy | January 5, 2009

Where is gov’t communication strategy?

I had a post up earlier today about what I perceived to be a lack of communication strategy by the government side. However, I have looked at this matter in more detail and realize that I was out of line to write that point of view because things are very different when the House of Commons is on a break — prorogued.

Moreover, from what I gather, all the parties are in the same “holding” pattern — which is probably why it has been so quiet lately. Even the politics shows are on a break — apart from Mike Duffy Live, which is no more because he will soon be holding forth in the senate. And, I have given up on CBC’s Don Newman show. He doesn’t even try to sound balanced anymore.

So, I will wait until the end of January and see how thing go then.

23 Comments

Posted in Accomplishments, Canadian Federal Politics, Conservative Gov't | Tags: , ,

Posted by: Sandy | January 4, 2009

Featuring: Harper gov’t pays down debt!

When Canadians hear the opposition parties, particularly Michael Ignatieff, the new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, asking how the Conservative government has “squandered” the Liberal surplus (as though it was their own money), you can tell them that, for one thing, they have made a significant payment on the debt. Such a payment means less interest and more money for the programs and services Canadians want and expect.

Debt reduction –  The Conservative government has paid off $37 billion since the start of their first mandate in January 2006 (Link), including $10.2 billion in the 07/08 budget (Link). Projections into 08/09 have not been included due to the changing economic circumstances throughout the entire world.

Note: Click here for the complete list of Harper Gov’t Accomplishments.

23 Comments

Posted in Accomplishments | Tags:

Posted by: Sandy | January 4, 2009

Autism, neurodiversity & hope

Given what Harold Doherty wrote yesterday on his blog, “Facing Autism in New Brunswick,” about the wide differences of opinion (in some cases actual hostility about definitions and treatment options) in the autism advocacy community, I thought I would re-publish this post written in April 2008. It is about finding common ground so that all the children and youth who are diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder can get the help, love and understanding they so desperately need.

                                               *  *  *  *  *  *

One of the most important things we can do in life is listen and learn by reading a variety of opinions on any given topic. Then, be willing to confirm, change or adjust our views based on those opinions. For example, I have learned a lot about autism during the last week since Kathleen Seidel was subpoened for daring to write about the anti-vaccine debate and litigation.

I have also discovered, given the traffic from people around the world to my post and two updates on Seidel, both at Crux-of-the-Matter and Jack’s Newswatch, that there are indeed a lot of opinions about autism. For example, there is Harold Doherty at Facing Autism in New Brunswick.  

A dedicated father, he writes on his blog:

“My interest in autism, and my engagement in autism advocacy, began with my son Conor’s Autism Disorder diagnosis and the realization that, locally at least, no serious efforts were being made to improve the lives of persons with Autism or to address the realities of Autism Disorder. Hugs are good, but hugs are not enough. Evidence based treatment, education and residential care by properly trained service providers are required to help the 1 in 150 persons who have an autism spectrum disorder. “

While I can understand most of what he says, I do disagree that no serious efforts where done until recently. In fact, I owned and operated a private special education practice for over a decade (in the Niagara Region of Ontario) from the mid 1980’s to the late 1990’s. I specialized in reading and writing disorders and worked with a wide variety of children, youth and adults with disabilities, including those with an autism spectrum disorder. I used a variety of learning strategies and technical aids, as well as multi-sensory techniques, mastery learning and behavioural modification approaches — all more likely to be long term even after treatment stops.

Besides my professional involvement, I have a son with Aspergers. He is currently 42 [now 43] and we too had to mortgage our home and work at more than one job.  We too worry about what will happen when we are no longer here — and given our current ages — very close to our current reality.

However, while I agree that a National Autism strategy would be effective, I question the notion that medicare pay for autism treatment. It effectively already pays for diagnosis since a physician must be the one to do so — which is covered under provincial health care plans. But, provincial governments are currently doing their best to keep up with the demand for ABA treatment both before and after age six.

That said, although I would be in favour of any policy that got children and adults the help and care they needed, I do have a concern about labelling everyone with an autism spectrum disorder as “sick.” We used to call people who were a little different eccentric and accepted them for themselves. As a society, we have to find the balance. 

Then, we have the concept of neurodiversity. What exactly does that mean? From what I understand, it simply means accepting people as they are. Which is, as it turns out, not that much different from what Doherty believes.

For example, Seidel writes:

“My goal in developing this website is to increase goodwill and compassion in the world, and to help reduce suffering. I seek to help reduce the suffering of autistic children and adults, who often face extraordinary challenges in many domains of life, challenges made more difficult by others’ unrealistic expectations and demands, negative judgments, harassment and economic marginalization. I seek to help reduce the suffering of family and community members who are bewildered and distressed by actions of and interactions with autistic people, and who are concerned for their own and others’ safety and well-being. I seek to help increase the capability of educators and service providers to provide effective, respectful support for those on the autistic spectrum.”

So, at the end of the day, opinions aside, it seems we all want the same thing — hope for a better life for those with autism.

4 Comments

Posted in Autism Disorders, Health Care Related, Parent Concerns | Tags: , , ,

Posted by: Sandy | January 4, 2009

On “partisanship” & “majority” in Canada

Two pet peeves of mine making the rounds at the moment are: (1) the way the words “partisan” and “partisanship” are being used as though they were swear words, and (2) the constant repetition that since a majority of Canadian voters (over 60%) didn’t vote for the Conservatives, the notion of a coalition of the losers is actually more democratic than a minority of one party.

First — on partisanship:

In a recent post, I have been accused by some visitors as being an excessive partisan. I don’t see it that way at all. I see myself as simply supporting one political party at the moment but able to look at the situation in a non-partisan way. In other words, I don’t see the word “non-partisan” as being void of political affiliation, simply that I can look at all angles, even if I disagree with them as I do at the moment with the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition — which I see as nothing more than a desperate power grab.

The Free Dictionary defines “partisanship” as either: (1) a  fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea; (2) a member of an organized body of fighters who attack or harass an enemy, especially within occupied territory; and/or (3) devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause.

Clearly, in Canada, (1) and (2) are not applicable. So, why is it negative to be seen as partisan, as in “devoted to or biased in support of a party, group or cause?” Particularly since under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we have the right to free speech, political affiliation and the right to vote. 

In my opinion, the use of the term “partisan” is now being used by all sides to belittle, but in particular when the individual happens to support Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government. I have no idea why it is being used in this derogatory way but it is a prime example of the state of what passes for political discourse in this country at the moment.  

Actually, it is really getting scary. We in Canada have never been so divided and in my opinion it is all because Liberals cannot fathom being out of power for any length of time. So, when the Conservatives won 19 more seats two months ago, it became apparent for all to see that the 2006 election win was not a fluke, that the Canadian people were shifting their votes to the Conservatives.  And, then of course, there is the irrational hate some in the MSM and blogosphere have on for Stephen Harper — a hate I simply do not understand. I didn’t like Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney or Jean Chretien but I voted for each of them at one time or another.

Whatever the reason, we need to take back the term “partisan.” It is not a dirty word. It is part of anyone’s voting franchise. It is one of our basic rights as citizens of Canada. I am a partisan. I support the Stephen Harper government. I also believe I am a balanced non-partisan writer. My problem at the moment is, however, while I can write positive things about each of the leaders, there is nothing positive I can write about their grasp at power through the coalition or the attempt at the moment to rewrite history.

Second — Over 60% of voters voted for another party…  

By stressing the numbers of people who voted for party candidates other than the Conservatives, there is a subtle attempt by some in the MSM and blogosphere to rewrite history. They wouldn’t see it that way.  Their argument is if you want a fair and more democratic system, put a coalition together that represents most of the voters.

While that makes some sense on the surface, it is news to Canadians and therein lies the problem. If we are going to change the way we decide who is going to govern this country, then the voters should be told ahead of time.

A related theme that goes along with this is that we don’t vote for our prime minister. No, that is true, but then we never have. Every voter I have talked to, no matter what their political preference, understands that the party with the most seats wins and that their leader is PM. No surprises there.

Here are some electoral statistics. They outline all the Canadian election results for the past thirty years right back to the Joe Clark government in 1979.  Whether the governing party was Liberal, PC or Conservative, you will notice that in EVERY single case, the losers counted together are actually the majority — or in one single instance, tied at 50%. Why did no one complain about a supposed lack of democracy before now?

So,using the “First Past the Post” system that has been Canada’s primary tradition:

2008 (October 14th):

Conservatives — Minority Government
143 seats of 308 & 37.65% of popular vote
All other parties: 62.35%

2006:
Conservatives — Minority Government
124 of 308 seats & 36.25% of popular vote
All other parties together: 63.75%

2004:
Liberal — Minority Government
135 of 308 seats & 36.7 of popular vote
All other parties together: 63.3%

2000:
Liberal — Majority Government
172 of 301 seats & 40.8% of popular vote
All other parties together: 59.2%

1997:
Liberal — Majority Government
155 of 301 seats & 38.5% of popular vote
All other parties together: 61.5%

1993:
Liberal — Majority Government
177 of 295 seats & 41.3% of popular vote
All other parties together: 58.7%

1988:
Progressive Conservative — Majority Government
169 of 295 seats & 43%
All other parties: 57%

1984:
Progressive Conservative — Majority Government
211 of 282 seats & 50% of popular vote
All other parties: 50%

1980:
Liberal — Majority Government
147 seats of 282 & 44.3% of popular vote
All other parties: 55.7

1979:
Progressive Conservative — Minority Government
136 of 282 seats & 35.9% of popular vote
All other parties: 64.1%

There you have it. Only once in thirty years has any government even come close to a real majority and that was 50% of the popular vote, not 51%. So, why are those numbers relevant now – apart from rationalizing putting the Liberals back in power somehow.  

No, the numbers speak for themselves. No government, whether majority or minority, in the last thirty years, using our “first past the post system,” has won 51% of the popular vote.

So, whether on “partisanship” or what constitutes a “majority” in this country, let’s quit trying to rewrite history!

 

C/P at Jack’s Newswatch.

54 Comments

Posted in Canadian Federal Politics, Federal Coalition, Federal Opposition, Federal Politics | Tags: ,

Posted by: Sandy | January 2, 2009

Beware: Rewriting history to favour coalition

Beware Canada, there are those who have access to the Internet and the mainstream media who are trying to rewrite history — a positively Orwellian idea. 

Up to now, for the most part, our democratic tradition has always been the “first past the post” system or “winner takes all” approach — particularly when the Liberal Party of Canada is the one with the most seats. 

However, there have been exceptions, such as in the mid 1920’s when the Tories under Arthur Meighen won a plurality of seats but the Mackenzie King Liberals were able to hold on to power for a short while by having an “alliance” with the progressives.

However, when King wanted to call another election to get a majority, the governor general (Byng) of the day refused and asked Meighen to form a government.  While this example is different than what we are being faced with now, if does show how seldom an alliance (or coalition by another name) has be used to gain or keep power.

Whatever the “first past the post” tradition of days gone by, that view has been changing since the Conservatives won the recent election. Perhaps the Liberals and NDP now realize that the Canadian people actually like what the Conservatives have done or are doing.

Because, now, slowly, subtly, we are hearing that a prime minister serves when he or she “has the confidence of parliament” rather than the leader of the party who attains the most seats in a federal election.

First, there are the various Wikipedia links, some of which have been altered. And, as we all know, almost anyone can edit a Wikipedia entry. Then, there are the so-called academic experts and journalists who are bombarding us daily with subtle: “Don’t worry, be happy” messages.

For example, half way down the page on this Wikipedia link it explains:

The political executive consists of the Prime Minister (head of government) and the Cabinet and carries out the day-to-day decisions of government. The Cabinet is made up of ministers usually selected from the House of Commons and headed by the Prime Minister, who is normally the leader of the party that holds the confidence of the House of Commons. (My highlighting.)

Where did that come from? “Holds the confidence of the House of Commons” is exactly what the Liberal, NDP opposition parties and their academic supporters have been talking about and writing about.

Then, there is this Wikipedia link which states something completely different — and obviously has not yet been edited to favour the current coalition.

After an election, the party with the most elected representatives usually becomes the governing party. The leader of this party becomes the Prime Minister of Canada and chooses people (usually MPs of his or her party) to head the various government departments. The party with the second largest number of MPs is called the Official Opposition. (My highlighting.)

So, how come one Wikipedia link says “confidence of the House” and the other repeats our tradition of  “the winner is the one with the most seats, which is also backed up by this Wikipedia entry: 

The most common system, used in Canada, India, the UK, and the United States, is simple plurality, first past the post or winner-takes-all. In this voting system the single winner is the person with the most votes; there is no requirement that the winner gain an absolute majority of votes.

Then, of course, there are the ”experts” who are openly rewriting history, minimizing our concerns about a coalition, such as Stephen Azzi, who says it is Prime Minister Stephen Harper who is ignorant of our democratic traditions when he states:

Members of the Conservative cabinet claim that the opposition parties are attempting a coup, trying to seize power after having been defeated in an election. In fact, parliamentary democracy is working as it should and must. Had the Conservatives a better understanding of Canadian history – had they remembered Pearson and Byng – they could have saved themselves from their current predicament.

Thankfully, however,  some voices ARE being heard (such as Barry Cooper, a professor at the University of Calgary as quoted on this CTV link) that warn a Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition is not workable — although those voices are few and far between.

While this six weeks of proroguing may have seemed like a respite from the chaos in Ottawa, it is obviously NOT the time to sit back and do nothing. In fact, it is time that every Canadian, no matter what their political affiliation, write and e-mail every single journalist who talks about this coalition as no big deal – and tell them loud and clear — if the Liberals and NDP want the option of a coalition government, then they have to have the courage to face the Canadian electorate.

Then, even if the numbers of seats are the same or similar to what they are now, fine. We would have known in advance that a coalition was a possibility. But until that happens, we need to be aware that we have to stop those who are trying to quietly rewrite our history.

C/P at Jack’s Newswatch.

Update: Lest there be any misunderstanding, I have edited the paragraph where I mention the King, Byng, Meighen affair so as not to give the wrong impression. King had been able to hold on to power, even though the Meighen Tories had a plurality of seats, because they held an “alliance” with the progressives (simply another name for coalition.)

On another point, I fully realize that any minority government can fall on a vote of confidence. That is not the issue here. The Harper Conservatives had JUST BEEN ELECTED according to the first past the post system. Moreover, the motion for the Throne Speech passed after the November Financial Update was read — after — meaning that PM Harper actually did have the confidence of parliament and to suggest otherwise is incorrect.

60 Comments

Posted in Federal Coalition, Federal Politics | Tags:

Posted by: Sandy | January 1, 2009

To Be or Not To Be — Partisan?

To be or not to be — partisan? That is the question. The answer is obviously “yes” — sometimes! 

Recently I said that Crux of the Matter was evolving and I was going to concentrate on education and disability issues. And, that remains true.

However, I am finding it really really hard to ignore Canadian politics, particularly when I read gobblygook on opposition blogs and in mainstream media opinion columns about the benefits of a Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition government. I am also finding it near impossible to ignore so-called academic expert know-it-alls that say Canadian voters don’t understand how our political system works, nor how we don’t elect a particular government or PM.

Excuse me? Technically true. But, ignoring the patronizing, I feel confident most voters actually DO know how the Canadian electoral system works. We know for example, that when one party wins the most seats, they hold the government and their leader is the prime minister. That’s not hard to remember or understand.

Funny though, that apart from a coalition government during one very brief period nearly a hundred years ago, most minority government’s that have been Liberal have been okay. No, it’s only when the  minorities are Conservative that they are a problem. Silly us!

In any event, the crux of the matter has been that, combined with reading and hearing about that kind of nonsense, I also happened to stop by Warren Kinsella’s site yesterday to read his new years predictions — and I refuse to add his link here.

Gag me. Literally. What has happened to Kinsella’s spunk, his originality, his energy? Whatever has happened, it is very sad.

Then, in a related incident this morning, when I was complaining loudly to my husband about the fact that National Newswatch had a link to Kinsella’s predictions but didn’t have anything to balance that drivel with a conservative viewpoint like it usually does, say with a link to Joanne’s predictions at Blue Like You. 

It was then my husband said, “Sandy, try as you might, there is no way you are going to be able to stay away from national politics once everyone is back in Ottawa after January 26th, 2009.”

While I love writing about education and disability topics because I spent thirty years employed or in business in both fields, I also have politics in my blood from the four years I was a staffer in the Harris government.

So, I am not going to fight it anymore. While I’ll continue to concentrate on my key topics and themes, I’m letting it be known so there are no surprises, there will be times I will talk about partisan politics. Oh no! Yes, it’s true.

I’ll also write commentary on politics at Jack’s Newswatch – where I have an open invitation — which I very much appreciate.

So, to be or not to be — partisan? When I feel like it! ;)

Addendum: And, I feel like it right now.

Just prior to the governor general’s return and the threatened coalition, I had posts up about the coalition being a coup d-etat. I had thousands and thousands of hits. And, almost everyone who left a comment was against it. That has not changed folks. People have simply been enjoying the holiday season.

The Conservative government and Prime Minister Harper (and their accomplishments) are the best thing this country has had for a very long time. The media and the academic experts had better start reading this country better — and that includes Mr. Kinsella. While Michael Ignatieff may be a nice man, he is NOT going to be our prime minister any time soon. As Jack at Jack’s Newswatch would say, you can take that to the bank!

41 Comments

Posted in Accomplishments, Conservative Gov't, Federal Opposition, Federal Politics, Liberal Party of Canada | Tags:

Older Posts »

Categories