Dave Dale has written in his column: “It is unclear exactly what she’ll be doing, but it can’t be bad for her Nipissing riding. Let’s hope not, anyway. Revenue means taxes, usually, and fees for government services and other nasty devices no longer called taxes.” Combine this statement with the title of his column, and what you get is failed humour at best. At worst, it is a ham-fisted attempt to equate our dislike of paying taxes with our MPP.

Damn that Monique Smith for inventing taxes …

Dale subsequently speculates on Maureen Boldt’s strategy to retain her seat. Apparently, it boils down to playing possum, and begging for mercy. He also professes to know in advance how she and her detractors will argue their cases. And then, he drops a steaming cow paddy of innuendo onto the page: “Others will want to know exactly what Boldt did for the community, other than attend meetings and stir the political pot for the Grits in the hopes of a riding nomination.”

Who are these “others”, and what role do they play in choosing whether or not to unseat a city councilor?

Will Boldt’s fate be determined by other councilor’s attitude toward her performance? Is that the issue? Is it reasonable to consider her political affiliations (real or imagined) when deciding whether to grant her the leave of absence she is expected to request?

When elected officials can remove another elected official from office, we should not forget that the will of the electorate may be subverted in the process. Maureen Boldt was elected by the citizens of North Bay. The conditions under which she is un-elected should be very clear and free from any mechanism of political tampering. For example, if she is removed, it should not be for partisan-political reasons.

If there is a rule in place to unseat a councilor who can’t fulfill his or her duties, and council can create an exception to that rule, there is potential for inappropriate political manipulation.

As Dale points out in his column, Ms. Boldt’s “professional misunderstanding” is at least a decade old. Therefore, people in North Bay made their voting decision knowing that she was embroiled in such a misunderstanding.

Opinions are just opinions, and people are not obligated to support them with rational arguments. Mr. Dale is merely writing opinion and can’t be faulted for having one. However, in my opinion, it is a belly flop into the turtle pool of hypocrisy to suggest that Maureen Boldt is on council to “stir the pot for the Grits in the hope of a riding nomination”, without also noting obvious examples of councilors who have, or are, stirring the political pot for the Tories in hopes of a riding nomination.

Fair is fair, in anyone’s opinion.

BOB KISMET

www.bobkismet.com

RE: Day care was designed for military families. (Nugget, Oct 25) 

Linda Harvie responded to an article in the Nugget, the subject of which was the fact that civilian families in North Bay, are losing their day-care provider on the base.  

She points out, that military families take precedence over civilian families when it comes to day-care on the base. She says that any civilian family with a child in day-care on the base should be prepared to relocate that child when the child of a military person requires that space in the day-care facility. 

The justification for this outlook is that since military personnel protect and serve our country, they should not be worried about finding suitable child care.  

I have 3 things to say to that: 

1) No parent should have to worry about whether or not they will be able to find suitable day-care for their child. Quality day-care should be one of the nation’s highest priorities, in my opinion, as a spending priority, day-care ranks above military spending. Why bother protecting a nation that doesn’t properly care for its children? 

2) Civilians are very valuable contributors to the military, because they pay for it using their hard earned tax dollars. Every gun a soldier carries is paid for by civilians. Every pair of boots worn, every plane flown, boat sailed, bullet shot, grenade thrown, tank driven, and base lived on, is paid for by civilians. Therefore, so long as we have a volunteer army, let the gratitude flow in both directions.  

3) Every citizen does and will play a role in protecting this country. Currently, the only protective service rendered by the forces is one of deterrence. However, civilians provide another form of deterrence to our enemies. The population of this country, by virtue of its attitudes, actions, and the governments it elects, prevents Canada from having serious external threats. Civilians and military people can thank each other for the fact that no one has a very good reason to attack us.