Category: Uncategorized

When too many of the people you have known for many years are dying off, it makes you a bit introspective. With not seeing Peter Worthington for many years now, his death is a muted happening but still a sad one. The first time we met Peter was at one of our first Liberal Party conventions in the 1960s when doing news room duty. A young Peter Worthington came in and introduced himself.

Peter had been off in some part of the world for the Toronto Telegram and on returning had been given an easy political assignment. “I am here,” he explained, “to write about the convention jokes.” Not knowing him, we thought he was pulling our leg.

But he was not. He was always fun to talk with and we always had a good grip on our different roles, what was business and what was idle chit-chat. Peter was the consummate reporter. He always wanted to go for the story. It was a pleasure to work with him to make sure he got the story—at least from the proper perspective.

That was why we were surprised when he took on the editorial role with the start-up Toronto Sun. It was quickly apparent that Doug Creighton and his friends who established the Sun had something very different in mind. It was hard to understand how much editing a publication needed that was written for people who moved their lips as they read. Who edited the Sunshine Girl? The Sun was so different from the Globe and Mail that you wondered if it was for people on the same planet.

Peter always seemed wrong in the Sun environment. He always played the role of the guileless reporter in Ben Hecht’s classic play The Front page. He was never the hard-bitten editor who used people. He was good with people. He could draw them out. He could get the story.

But he shut down what could have been a lasting friendship when he decided to run for parliament. The first run was to make a point. The second was as a Conservative. Having made the same mistake with the Liberal Party, we would have advised him not to do it.

Politically, Peter leaned more to the conservatism of a Bill Davis. He saw conservative philosophies as something to choose from more than follow. He was no ideologue. Yet his financial conservatism was still more than the voters could handle. He set out to convince voters rather than to dialogue with them. He was too honest with them. He lost.

But he had the fire, he had the desire and he would have made a difference in Ottawa. He picked the wrong riding and the wrong voters and he went down to defeat. He did not know when to quit. Peter Worthington mattered.

-30-

Copyright 2013 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

The other day, when discussing trolls and blogging, no admission was made of ever reading other blogs. The rule here has been that there is absolutely no need to read any diatribe that starts with the word “I.” You know without continuing that the writer has no interest in the reader. And if you are not interested in your reader, why should what you have to say be of interest?

That being said some collections of blogs allow you to read the first couple sentences of the listed blogs. Skimming these aggregated blogs, does allow you to dig deeper into those that pique your interest. That is how a blog came to our attention that discussed a new approach to voting. This is a subject of interest.

Posted Thursday, May 2 this year, it was entitled A Modest Proposal for Effective Electoral Reform. Written by someone from British Columbia, the writer does not use his name. Maybe he is embarrassed by his lack of editorial rigor but most blogs suffer from that problem. Regrettably, anonymous blogs are rarely of any interest.

What the blogger proposed was a very simple solution to the need for marking your ballot for the candidate known to all of us as “None of the above.” You must admit, everybody has a problem with that one. This gentleman’s solution is that we should be allowed to mark our ballot in the negative. This would at least be a method of indicating the candidate we would least like to see elected.

The writer seemed to believe that having this information recorded might have a salutary effect on the candidate with a large number of rejections. He did not explain why.

What might have a more practical result would be to have a positive vote removed from the count for every negative vote cast. Consider, for example, candidate ‘A’ with 100 votes is followed by candidate ‘B’ with 90 votes. If candidate ‘A’ had more than ten more negative votes than candidate ‘B,’ then candidate ‘B’ would be declared the winner. It might not seem fair to some people but at least you would have fewer people annoyed with the result!

This tends to serve as a reminder of the time an old friend stood up in front of a community audience and made an impassioned speech in support of having stupid candidates for public office. His point was that stupid people deserve representation just as much as the rest of us. Luckily, many of them stick to blogging.

-30-

Copyright 2013 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

Children are often fascinated with the stories about the trolls of Norse mythology. These creatures were believed to live in homes dug in the earth and they were not so much evil as often misunderstood. That does not explain the Internet definition of trolls as people who write blogs or tweets and meet on Face Book or in chat rooms to spread misinformation and libellous comment. To be accused of being a troll today is more of an honorific than a slander.

While most of the trouble-making trolls we read are bloggers, they are relatively immune to legal action because most people do not care what they say. They are usually people with excessive amounts of ego and they tend to slander themselves more than anyone they write about. Those who understand Canada’s Supreme Court definition of libel, in the context of the Internet, know enough to protect ourselves when showing up someone as a blithering idiot. There is also a wider range of fair comment in political commentary that makes political blogs more interesting—and less likely to end up in litigation.

That is also why this blog has so much fun with Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s hair. We remain somewhat aghast at the man’s vanity but cannot deny that that this blog gets more hits through Google on the subject of his hair than anything else discussed. It also humbles us when we are so vain as to think we are providing depth for the voters.

This blog started out four years ago as an alternative to writing another book to gather dust with a literary agent. We have now written the equivalent of four good sized novels in this blog and had fun in the process. It has become an interesting hobby. The wife thinks it is an obsession but she is entitled to her hobbies. This one is mine.

Babel-on-the-Bay has a strong following. We gathered a sizeable new audience during the Ontario and federal Liberal leadership races and many have stayed with us. It also explains the heavy readership in Ottawa and Toronto. We find that readership suffers when we talk about Babel politics but you have to admit that Babel’s mayor is not half as much fun to write about as Toronto’s Rob Ford.

While the idea of being thought of as a troll is amusing, please be assured that we are only sharing some of our experience during a lifetime in politics. We only hope it continues to be as much fun to read as we have writing it. If all politicians were perfect as they think they are, we would have to find something different to write about.

-30-

Copyright 2013 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

It happens to all of us. All you have to do is live long enough. No matter how well you planned for retirement, there will be a point where your cost of living will exceed what you planned. If you have reserves, you can make adjustments. If you were going to pass something on to the kids or do some more guided tours, you can say the kids have no needs and the guided tours are boring. Very few of us are philosophical about it.

And that children is why today there are a lot of angry grandmas and grandpas. Too many of us have hit the wall. If we had died five years ago, we would not be in this mess. Thanks to genetics or modern medicine, we are still here. We are just a bit crankier and there is no magic solution. And nobody understands because they can tell us that the current annual cost of living rise today is only about one per cent. If you were doing your planning in 1975 buster, would you have believed that a loaf of bread would now be $2.50 and a litre of gasoline about $1.25?

The truth is that none of us really retired voluntarily. The time was never right. That retirement at 55 advertising only works for people making over $150,000 per year. It is this vague middle class that is getting screwed. We listen to the next boomer generation and wonder what the hell they are complaining about. They seem to think that science should have stopped the aging process. Suck it up kids!

The one thing that is crystal clear to Canadians is that Prime Minister Stephen Harper could care less. Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair and his New Democrats are living in some strange world that is trying to transition out of the 1930s. Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau is speaking out for the so-called middle class but those of us middle class who are left will soon disappear into the pit of poverty.

And, what we really do not comprehend, is that Canadians are supposed to have survived a world-wide financial crisis and we should be proud of it. If the problems are solved, why are the Americans still busy fighting among themselves? They hardly give a damn about the rest of the world.  The European nations are trying to keep the have-nots in line and the Brits want to put a monkey wrench into anything concrete. And on top of all this crap, we are told that free trade with countries with less than half our wage rates can make us richer.

This continuing mess just makes you want to stick around to see how the world turns out.

-30-

Copyright 2013 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

Talking to a regular reader yesterday, he complained that Babel-on-the-Bay is too dense, too parochial and too much of an insider thing. There was nothing else to do but prescribe purging with three rounded doses of Warren Kinsella blog and call in the morning.

But the reader may have a point.

“Dense” is somewhat understandable. There has been an occasional complaint over time that—when reading Babel-on-the-Bay—it is sometimes necessary to consult a dictionary. That is good. Dictionaries are there to be used and they should not be allowed to just gather dust. It is not the intent here to teach but when there is a perfect word for something, no apology should be necessary. And if you read on for a bit, the meaning will probably be quite clear.

“Parochial” is a problem. He had cottoned on to the idea that Babel might just be a stand-in name for Barrie, Ontario. The truth is that Babel is probably not mentioned as much as Toronto. A subject such as Mayor Rob Ford of Toronto or our old friend Mayor Hazel McCallion of Mississauga offer a cornucopia of story ideas for the political commentator. The mayor of Babel might be a nice guy but he seems to lack direction in politics.

“Insider” is the unkindest cut of all. While people in politics often want you to think of them as a friend, they might not be. Telling them when they are full of crap might even earn their animosity. Honesty is not always the best policy in the world of politics. Political commentaries that give an honest report on political machinations of the inept, tend to lose friends. It boils down to a simple choice. You can have lots of fair weather political friends or you can have fun writing about the idiocy of politics. Is that really any kind of choice?

It is a pleasure to report that Babel-on-the-Bay hit all time highs in readership over the past month and more than doubled its readers. The target has always been to be able to boast thousands of daily readers but that target remains somewhat elusive.

There is no question that the interest in the Ontario Liberal party leadership at the end of January contributed to the increase in Babel-on-the-Bay readers. It is also obvious that the leadership candidates and their teams were regular readers. They were quite responsive to some of the suggestions made in the blog.

While never too sure what readers in the Mid-East and Asia think of Babel-on-the-Bay, let’s hope they continue to enjoy what they read.

-30-

Copyright 2013 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

We disappointed some of our regular readers last week. We have never been off the air for so long since starting this blog. We have also spoiled them. Some blogs post something once a month and call it an effort. Babel-on-the-Bay tries to find something interesting to write about five or six times a week.

But we moved. It was a brutal experience. We finally got a patched together computer system on-line after a week. The hundreds of e-mails were staggering. The panic–because we could not be reached–was embarrassing.

Would you believe we went back to Bell Canada? Ma made an offer we could hardly refuse. Then she made us wait a week for a telephone. No reason was provided. All the company had to do was flick a switch.

The Fibe TV Ma is providing is an interesting experiment. That installation is still a work in progress. As for the Internet, it seems faster. We will reserve judgement.

But the good news is that Babel-on-the-Bay carries on. It is good to be back.

It came as a revelation from on high. It was while writing about the idiocy of politicians and other challenged individuals that the thought came. The idea was that before writing or speaking publicly about a subject you had to prove that you had some knowledge of it.

Could we bear the silence? How could we read newspapers with nothing but advertisements in them?

Luckily, we all get a free pass on this. If you have an argument, you are allowed to express it. That is why, as a public service, there should be a ‘Stupid Index’ applied to all publicly disseminated opinion pieces. We think this should be kept simple and be an easy to understand rating for each occasion on a scale of one to ten. We will call it the ‘SI.”

If a speech by a politician has a rating of SI-2, you will know ahead of time that the politician is talking to hear himself and has little clue on the subject matter. At the same time, you might note a scientific paper by a respected professor is rated at SI-9. This paper is based on years of research that has undergone rigorous peer review and is considered a breakthrough in the subject. Get the idea?

Arriving at these SI readings can be a simple matter of mathematics. Like the FOG Index of readability, a number of factors are considered and an average is computed. If the writer has an undergraduate degree in the subject matter, for example, you know that they have at least read something on the subject. Mind you, having studied a subject does not necessarily guarantee you know much about it. A factor for experience with the subject will have to be included.

Other factors would include the writer or speaker’s ability to explain themselves. Clarity of communication has to be an important measure. What the writer’s bias might be on the subject would be similar to the evaluation of a politician’s being an extremist on the left or the right. There is even a factor for the audience of the opinion. And does the writer/speaker want just simple concurrence or is this a call to arms?

There are some drawbacks to this plan. The one we keep stumbling over is the one that tells us who is going to vet the ratings. For example for such a good idea as this, we would award the writer a rating of SI-8. Someone else might note that there is a paucity of political subjects to write on at this time of year and that the summer heat has addled the writer’s brain. That reviewer might give the item an SI-3.

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]

This is an anniversary. Four years ago, Babel on the Bay was established as a personal web site. With more than 400,000 words in the archives, we could have written at least three novels. If you have found what we have written to be interesting, we have accomplished our objective.

But we feel our approach has been too one sided. Maybe polemics is a dying art form. Being controversial without balanced response creates an aura of dissension. That is not what is wanted. Nor is it intended. People do not respond well. They get the impression that you are always angry and nothing can be further from the truth.

At first, we softened the criticism by interlacing the articles with what we called our ‘twits.’ The Twitter form of communication had intrigued us and we saw the 140-character restriction in poetry as an intellectual challenge similar to the Japanese haiku. It was not universally understood. We dropped it.

We are not about to dismiss Babel on the Bay. We have too many loyal readers for that. We also enjoy writing. What we are thinking of doing is commercializing it. There is no reason why we should not make some money on the work. Have you checked the price of gasoline lately? Who the hell can retire? We need money the same as the next guy.

But before we do anything irretrievable with it, we want to hear from you. How do you think Babel on the Bay can better serve its readers? Obviously we know a bit about politics. We are passionate about the environment. We know business and we have a good grounding in technology. As a writer, we start as a darn good researcher. We are a reporter and an editor.

One of the possibilities that appeals to us is alternative media. We have said often enough how badly Babel is served by the news media. People are ready for a good localized news service on the Internet if it is done properly.

What do you think? Send us an e-mail and tell us what you would like to have in Babel on the Bay.

-30-

Copyright 2012 © Peter Lowry

Complaints, comments, criticisms and compliments can be sent to  [email protected]