The new National loses reality ... Star Oct.28/09

After all the hype; the “new National “was a disappointment. It seemed contrived and artificial. Mansbridge looked uncomfortable standing behind his glass desk and Wendy Mesley did not deliver what she promised.

It seems the CBC is trying to emulate CNN. If so, they have failed. I want my old National back, or I will watch CTV News in the future.

“Why Roman Polanski belongs in prison” –Maclean’s editorial, vs “Reflex lock-Polanski up rants are shocking” –Barbara Amiel.

Your editorial is logical, fair and thoughtful. “ If you do the crime, you do the time”, even if you walk on water.

Not so much Barbara Amiel. I am not surprised that she would defend the bourgeoisie, regardless of faults, but her logic and reasoning does not stand up to scrutiny. She worries about the terror he would have of being sent back to an American prison –which I can readily understand considering her husband horrific experience in the Florida prison he now inhabit. Why, next they might take away his computer and e-mail privileges!

“The definition of childhood depends on the culture” she says. Yes, it does. Childhood brides are common in some third world countries, but last time I looked, America is not a third world country and they have laws against older men having sex with thirteen-year olds, even if consensual, and this was certainly not. Polanski confessed as much.

One can sympathise with his sad experience of having his wife, Sharon Tate, killed by a bunch of crazies, and his mother’s demise at the hands of the Nazis; but that does not give him a licence to rape. If anything, it should have made him more empathetic and caring, and not inclined to drug and rape a thirteen year old defenceless child, and then running away from the law.

In Ms Amiel’s world, one would only jail the stupid, poor and powerless. The elites would dance to a different tune. Her apologetics are about par with Whoopi Goldberg’s. Except that Amiel’s English is more refined –though Whoopi is better looking.

Police dip into victims’ cash –Star, Sept 29th

Kudos to Star for digging up this information on the abuse by police force members of the taxpayer’s - funded Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund. Our police are well paid, with benefits that far surpass a majority of workers, many in equally hazardous jobs. To call a policeman injured on duty a “victim” of crime is beyond the pale and stretches credulity to the limit. The police are paid to face work-related risks, and to “serve and protect”. I didn’t think this included lining up at the public trough, while real victims are waiting in line behind them.
In some ways, I cannot blame them for taking what is there for the taking. It should be the task of government to write the law in such a way that this abuse will not happen.
This is not something the public would be aware of –perhaps not even most MP’s. Thus you are performing a much needed public service with your muckraking; whether it is the police or some other organization abusing public money and trust.

A right to defend Sri Lanka – Bandula Jayasekara’s letter to the editor May 22/09.

I am surprised that The Star printed Mr. Jayasekara’s thoughtful letter, gainsaying your favourite Haroon Siddiqui. It has been my, and others’ experience that you never print any letters criticising you favourite columnist.

I have been astounded at the one-sided reporting from Sri Lanka of the media in general, but The Star in particular. I have no axe to grind here, but I truly resent people supporting terrorist organizations and insurrectionists, whether by sending them money or sitting down on the Gardiner Expressway.

Let’s see if you have the balls to print his one too.

Rushing to judge others – Star editorial April 10th/09

Rough night’ for baby Kaylee, Star April 10/09.

Help me out here, but was it not Mr.Wallace, the father, who suggested Kaylee be taken of the respirator so her heart could be harvested and given to the Lillian O’Connor, another child in need of a heart transplant? It is a legitimate question to ask whether Mr. Wallace and Ms.Vitelli, the parents of Kaylee, were not in some way seeking public attention and glory by offering their dying child’s heart to another dying child – something they had no right to do –and by the same magnanimous effort ridding themselves of the liability of a severely handicapped child that would require constant attention for years to come. It seems he is now vacillating between wanting to keep his daughter on the respirator and “pulling the plug,” while putting words in the mouth of hospital staff to the effect that he is wasting resources. I don’t believe him. Mr. Wallace’s last pronouncement is now “that they are ‘not going to go with life support’ for their daughter.”

It is not so that the media pounced on this issue and these people by their own volition. It was Mr. Wallace who brought this to the fore, and kept it in the public eye by repeatedly calling radio stations and newspapers about the situation and their personal struggles.

There seems to be a trend these days, of people in stressful circumstances to air their sorrows and frustrations in public. After a while, it becomes an addiction, where the publicity is reinforcing and supporting their need for attention. There is a downside to this for these Thespians, when their histrionics are no longer news; they are left alone with only themselves and their personal grief and frustrations.