Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 3/4/2011 (4110 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.
Re: MPI ordered to refund $320M (April 1). This indicates endemic problems with management from the top down at Manitoba Public Insurance. Either they have incompetent people running their organization and setting rates or, and I propose this as a hypothesis, they are under-insuring Manitobans.
Everyone has a friend or neighbour who has been in an accident where it took seemingly forever to be paid their benefits or had their benefits cut because an MPI private investigator snapped a picture of them picking up their crying child after they had hurt themselves.
I believe the organization serves itself and not Manitobans. With our current government so proud of MPI's mismanagement of our money, we should be very skeptical of their ability to lead our province. Hugh McFadyen is completely justified of his disgust at this huge surplus.
Jackboots and Jello
Re: City coke bust ends in acquittal (March 31). A few years back, in an economics 101 class, I learned society has a choice between "guns and butter." In Justice Perry Schulman's world, a criminology 101 course would offer a choice between "jackboots and Jello," with emphasis on the Jello. It is time our judges got out of their ivory towers and applied justice according to what is going on in the streets. How many new victims will be created by letting this man loose?
Since the search of Andy Koczab's vehicle was ruled illegal, I trust the learned judge instructed the RCMP to return all the cocaine they seized to its rightful owner.
Only in Canada can you be caught with $2 million worth of drugs in your vehicle and walk away. Const. Kenneth Walkden should be commended for his police work, but instead Justice Perry Schulman finds it necessary not only to let the accused off but to also chastise the officer. Nicely done, justice system. You have made us proud once again.
Toews release galls
Re: Funding too late for anti-gang programs (March 29). It is tempting to look at this situation and say it's a shame these programs will be lost, as if no one is to blame. It would be more accurate to say the programs and the young people who relied on them will be lost to society, as a result of the shameful behaviour of Vic Toews and the Harper government.
And now Toews has the gall to cite as evidence of his government's commitment a news release he didn't get around to putting out before his government fell, as if that means anything.
The government could and should have confirmed and provided funding long before an election was called. No one but the Harper government is to blame for the collapse of these programs.
Your March 31 editorial Practical politics at work (March 31) doesn't make a lot of sense: "Any suggestion of hypocrisy, however, would be unfair because it is Mr. Doer's job, as Canada's ambassador to the United States, to promote the oilsands and the economic opportunity they represent."
Doer championed the western route for Manitoba Hydro, in spite of the economic inefficiency of this alternative, because he claimed it is the right thing to do from an environmental perspective. This principled decision was to be his legacy to the province he served as premier. Now, the Free Press tells us, principle is irrelevant because he is wearing a different hat.
In both jobs, economic development and environmental impact are relevant. Placing environmental concerns above economic efficiency while premier and then ignoring them as ambassador certainly qualifies as hypocrisy according to my dictionary.
The March 29 column by Gordon Sinclair Jr., Talk of contempt, corruption and coalitions, made me think of a cartoon I saw in the Free Press. In one panel of the Jan. 21, Get Fuzzy strip, Bucky Katt says, "Facts are for people who can't create their own truth."
Based on the commentary in his article, Sinclair would most likely suggest this statement is an appropriate motto for the Conservative party, but given the rhetoric we have been hearing since the election call was made, I expect the general public feels it applies equally to most politicians. Personally, I'll be more apt to vote for the party that appears more capable of co-operation and exhibits the fewest antagonistic qualities.
I generally enjoy Dan Lett's commentary, but his March 31 column, Ignatieff takes page from Muhammad Ali playbook, repeats an error much of the media seems to be making. He refers to Michael Ignatieff as "the man who technically put us in this election mess." This continues the fiction it is the opposition parties and particularly Ignatieff who chose this election. In fact, it was Prime Minister Stephen Harper who exercised that option by ignoring the true results of the last two elections. By governing as if he had earned a majority, he knew he would eventually force the hand of the opposition.
Scores of attacks
Contrary to the March 25 editorial Same-sad-old, the abhorrent terror bombing in Jerusalem that saw one person killed and over 30 injured, was not "the first terrorist attack in Jerusalem in six years."
In fact, there have been scores of terror attacks against Israelis in Jerusalem, some "successful" and others that were "successfully thwarted." Just weeks ago, a small pipe bomb hidden in a garbage bag exploded and blew off the arm of a Jerusalem Arab garbage worker.
I could go on and on with more examples, but in the interests of brevity, indeed the "same-sad-old" story continues, that of Israelis facing unrelenting Palestinian terror directed at innocent civilians.
Bloc-ing a coalition
Re: Coalition politics worth a chance (March 30). Peter McKenna states that the simple answer to why Canadians refused to accept the proposed 2008 coalition agreement by the Liberals and NDP was "because we're not used to coalition governments in Canada."
Coalitions, indeed, are rare, but the 2008 fiasco required the coalition to include Bloc Québécois members to participate in some way to provide a majority of seats and votes for success.
Most Canadians do not want the Bloc, which is committed to destroying Canada as we know it, to sit in Parliament, never mind participating in a form of government.
That's why the 2008 proposal "landed with a big thud," as McKenna states.