Archive for January, 2010

Riding the VIA’s Continental looking for a girl with dark hair

Tuesday, January 26th, 2010

The ‘Orient Express’ is no match for the service, elegant dining and comfort of VIA Rail’s ‘Continental’ from Toronto to Vancouver. Not the Eurostar with its flashy style and high speed nor the Trans Mongolian Express for sheer distance nor the efficiency of Japan Rail can compare with VIA’s Continental. As for excitement, ‘The Polar Express’ has to go a long way to beat the Continental.

Leaving Edmonton in the early hours of day, travelling to Vancouver to spend Christmas and New Year with my daughter, Kate, the carriage attendant delivers a note in unfamiliar handwriting. It reads: Mr. Cockerill: There is a surprise for you on the train. Look for the girl with dark hair.

‘Where is this girl with the dark hair?’ I ask. The attendant cannot tell; he doesn’t know. As it is the breakfast hour, I enter the dining car and decline a seat with three other diners because I spy, at the far end of the carriage, the seated rear view of a young woman with dark hair. She is alone and might have written the message, so I pass between the diners clutching the note in my fist to question her. I cough a slight cough to attract her attention.

She turns, her face wreathed in a delicious smile. No! It is more than that. She has the fabulous grin of the Cheshire Cat. Eyes glistening with delight, she flings her arms about me and says, ‘Hello, Dad.’

She is Kate, who flew to Edmonton the night before and, with VIA Rail’s collusion and connivance, boarded the train undetected. She had her note delivered by the stone-faced attendant who was in her confidence. Her surprise is complete – and so is my day.

Abuse of power or the exercise of it?

Monday, January 25th, 2010

Opposition to Prime Minister Harper’s action in proroguing parliament not once, but twice during the present term of this minority government is understandable. The PM is accused of thwarting the will of the people for his own wicked political ends, which is infuriating, exasperating, irritating – or so the opposition and many editorial writers would have us believe, but is it unlawful? No, it is not.

Prime Ministers in previous parliaments have done the same thing, always for iniquitous political reasons, according to those who oppose them. The history of the British parliamentary system is stuffed with occasions when the government of the day shut down parliament. The practice goes back to beyond Cromwell and Monke to those scheming monarchs who would have it their way.

The opposition may be right by their own lights to slag off the government for its unsporting behaviour. It might be disreputable, mean-spirited and disgraceful, but it is neither unlawful nor dishonest. The PM is within his rights to shut down parliament to suit his agenda. If in power, those parties presently in opposition would do, and some have done, the same thing when it suited them.

Facebook opposition is quoted as evidence of dissent. It has reached a whopping 200,000 plus names, which is a paltry number. Given the population of Canada of around 30 million, that figure makes less than one per cent (0.67 per cent to be more precise).

The turn-out at rallies in Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, Halifax et al (even Cobourg mustered a showing) totalling 20,000 at the most hardly constitutes a groundswell. Adding that number to those registering their opposition on Facebook, the percentage is still less than 1 per cent of the total population.

So opposition hype to prorogation amounts to little more than a gripe. Until parliament finds a legitimate way of putting a stop to the practice of shutting down the House, prime ministers will exercise their will to suit themselves. Amen

I’m leaving. What about you?

Monday, January 25th, 2010

Enough time has passed to give the CBC’s revamped news presentation fair and careful viewing. The conclusion, it is found wanting.

For clarity’s sake if for no other reason, news reports should be plain, straight-forward and unadorned. Instead, in the new format the viewer is faced with a screen cluttered with subsidiary messages, duplicate images and distracting graphics. A battery of graphic blocks includes the prominent CBC tv logo, a second rectangle with a distracting rolling colour, and a message to remind the viewer that this is the news show; not programme, show mind. These graphics sit on what one takes to be weather information, yet unreadable. Beneath this is a rolling message, also too small for easy reading while, behind the presenter, a larger, constantly changing graphic tells the viewer this is the CBC news.

Really! This is more than overkill. It is dumb, dumb, dumb. Talk about multi-tasking; the viewer needs a doctorate in split-concentration for comprehension
Normal news viewing is a pathetic experience enough, but facing the Power & Politics show is an ordeal of endurance calling for fortitude and patience. Hosted by an aggressive presenter competing with the same battery of puerile graphics that characterize news show requires stamina. More depressing is the journalist’s raucous competition with those he interviews; boastingly called the ‘power panel’.

It appears more than the presenter can bear to ask a question and listen to the answer, but insists on automatically mouthing his own opinion. From where did the CBC draw its latest generation of journalists? What is CBC tv sinking to if not into a quagmire of despair?

I’ll turn to CTV for the news. What about you?

Cobourg suffers a plague of bollards

Wednesday, January 20th, 2010

Pavement bollards at Royal Hospital, Belfast

This photograph showing bollards installed on the pavement of the Royal Hospital, Belfast, to prevent nurses from parking their vehicles reminds one of the plague of bollards that infests the Town of Cobourg. One wonders how long it was before the workmen in Belfast realized how they were to get home.  

Cobourg owes its pestilence to an over-enthusiastic council with more money than sense. Bollards of the same design and appearance as those in the illustration are installed throughout Cobourg, overrunning the side streets, back streets, main traffic arteries. They are anchored at intervals to lumps, bumps and projections from the sidewalks into the roadway and superciliously referred to as ‘traffic calming’ devices.

Traffic calming may be the clever intent of the Works Department, but they are hazardous to drivers and induce in them a fury of frustration. As a result, calming traffic is the last thing bollards do. To Town bus drivers and tractor trailer operators making deliveries they are pestilential nuisances that add to the perils of negotiating tight corners and parking.

Bollard sales representatives have done a sterling job of selling these monstrosities, for they crowd the thoroughfares of North America and Europe alike. There is no stopping their spread.

A letter to the local rag referring to ‘those bollards on council’ was rejected, one presumes, for the perceived obscene insinuation regarding their parentage when all one meant was they had the same brainless imagination as bollards.

DYRMS Academy

Monday, January 18th, 2010

As of September 2010, the Department of Defence proposes to change the Duke of York’s Royal Military School into an academy within the mainstream state-funded section. A ‘consultation questionnaire’ is circulating to garner opinion even though the change is inevitable.

Significantly, circulation is to the Armed Forces, students, parents, members of the teaching and support staff, and Commissioners of the School. Almost as an afterthought, there is space for anyone  ‘… else with an interest in the proposal’. Courtesy of the OBA, the questionnaire has been distributed to OBA members.

The ‘working title’ of the new academy is Duke of York’s Royal Military School – An Academy with Military Traditions. The first statement deals with the title of the new Academy; comments or optional names for the institution are invited.

I have written elsewhere that management and operation of the School is no business of its alumni. Nevertheless, considering the changed status of the School (or Academy, but not both) means that it will no longer be ‘royal’ or ‘military’. It is just another ‘public school’ although one that caters to children of the Armed Forces.

One would not attach the ‘royal’ to Eton, Harrow, Wellington, Ampleforth or Charterhouse to mention some notable public schools. What justification is there then for attaching ‘royal’ to the Duke of York’s? As for the word ‘military’ that, in the context of the School’s function and raison d’être, no longer applies either. It is a fee-paying institution and totally transformed from its original purpose.

In short, Duke of York’s School – An Academy with Military Traditions, is enough. Let there the matter rest.