Saturday, July 23, 2011

THE GREEN THING

The Green Thing
In the line at the store, the cashier told an older woman that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.

The woman apologized to him and explained, "We didn't have the green thing back in my day."

The clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment."

He was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.

Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.

But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.

But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.

Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry the clothes. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that old lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana.



In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us.



When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used a wadded up old newspaper to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.



Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then.



We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water.

We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But we didn't have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service.

We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.

But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?

Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smartass young person.



The Green Thing writer unknown

Thursday, July 14, 2011

YOU'RE ALL ALONE AGAINST THE BUREAUCRACY

You’re all alone against the bureaucracy
Jul 14th, 2011 | By Staff | Section: Politics
This ran in the Toronto Sun ………. comments invited below

By Alan Shanoff ,Toronto Sun

There is a good reason for the Ontario Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. We want municipal politicians to act for the public good and not to make decisions or attempt to persuade others to make decisions based on self interest.

So you’d think this legislation would be user friendly and have stiff enforcement procedures.

As Michael Baillargeon, a 64-year-old marketing consultant, can attest, that couldn’t be farther from the reality.

The truth is no authority is prepared to take responsibility for the enforcement of the legislation and, as currently interpreted, the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) forces ordinary residents to act as investigator and prosecutor.

When Baillargeon believed Toronto Catholic District School Board trustee Oliver Carroll violated the act, he couldn’t persuade anybody to take action. Not the Ministry of Education, not the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, or the Catholic school board.

He said, “no authority was willing to assist or act; all I got were eloquently transparent excuses.”

He had to either let the matter drop or retain a lawyer at his own expense to investigate and prosecute. He hired a lawyer and took action. This was no minor expense, as it included drafting a court application, affidavits, attendances at cross-examinations and in court.

I don’t see how this could be done without expert legal assistance or for under $50,000. And if he lost, Baillargeon could have been on the hook for legal expenses incurred by Carroll.

As Baillargeon correctly states, “the legislation is not designed to deter contraventions, but is designed to deter enforcement.”

It’s no wonder conflict of interest applications are about as common as Toronto streets without potholes during winter.

Once Baillargeon started the application, no one at the Ministry of Education would take his calls and he says he was treated as an adversary.

At the same time, Carroll proclaimed the application was “frivolous and vexatious” and he’d be “absolved of any wrongdoing.”

Well, last month Superior Court Justice Jane Kelly released a decision declaring Carroll violated the conflict of interest rules multiple times when he “participated in discussions, moved and voted on motions in circumstances where there was clearly a conflict of interest.”

The 10 conflicts were “serious and indefensible.” Carroll’s daughter is a young teacher and his son had recently applied to be on the list of approved supply teachers, yet he participated in discussions and votes that could have benefited his children.

The details are mind boggling. He even introduced a motion requiring Toronto’s Catholic school board to pay the legal costs of trustees charged under the conflict of interest act.

The act is also overly generous to municipal politicians. It requires that legal action be taken within six weeks after the facts come to one’s attention. That’s a ridiculously short period.

The other problem is there is a defence if the politician can show he acted with “inadvertence” or was merely guilty of a good faith “error of judgment.”

Those are two huge loopholes which make it very risky for anybody to take action under the conflict of interest act.

Carroll, however, was unable to successfully use these defences because he knew or ought to have known he was conflicted. He, along with all other trustees had received two legal opinions which “addressed the issues of conflict of interest.” He attended at a meeting where a lawyer explained the legal opinions.

Worse, he was warned he should not partake in any matter where his or his children’s financial interests could be affected.

How anyone could have ignored the obvious conflicts shows the extent to which the culture of entitlement has infected certain trustees of the Catholic board.

POSSIBLE APPEAL

Carroll is reported as having announced an intention to appeal. If so, there will be more legal expenses and risks for Baillargeon. It will be up to Baillargeon to respond to the appeal. Shockingly, we not only leave it up to private citizens to enforce this legislation but we also expect them to continue paying for a lawyer and funding the costs of any appeal.

If we are serious in our desire that municipal politicians abide by conflict laws then we must give enforcement powers to an official body.

We can’t count on the Michael Baillargeons to be there for us.

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/alan_shanoff/2009/03/01/8576261-sun.html?utm_source=sharing&utm_medium=addThis&utm_content=You%27re+all+alone+against+the+bureaucracy

Sunday, July 10, 2011

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY..........

EVERBODY WANTS TO CHANGE THE WORLD........BUT NOBODY WANTS TO CHANGE
TOLSTOY