Martha wears the white hat
Article content
About last week's discussion on the colour of hard hats, Martha and Doug make some observations that I pass along.
The basic point of last week's offering was accurate. Hard hats are required by law for anyone attending a construction site. The details need further comment lest knowledgeable readers spot the holes in my story and dismiss everything on the assumption if he's that ignorant we can't trust anything he writes.
When Martha, as supervisor of the Straffordville branch of the Elgin County Library, helped cut the ribbon for the official opening of the new building, she was presented with a souvenir, the hard hat worn by the head builder. She still has it, and it is white.
Doug is a federal inspector with the ministry of agriculture and food. Part of his job takes him into the holds of ships to look for invasive pests or contaminants, depending on whether the vessel is coming or going. There are lots of hard edges in those cavernous compartments. Hard hats are not only required, they are appreciated by the intrepid men and women who venture into those hellholes.
Doug confirms his mother's remark. White hats signify the boss.
Yellow is worn by other workers. Blue? I haven't found out whether it is a mark of rank or a fashion statement.
Don Stewart's hard hat, souvenir of his time in the nickel mine at Sudbury, had provision for a lantern, but Don didn't use one down here in the banana belt as far as I know. He may have if he was working in a dark basement, like the time he created a doorway in a concrete wall in Everitt McCurdy's house here in Straffordville.
He performed that feat by drilling a hole in the centre of the potential opening and inserting half a stick of dynamite with a percussion cap on a short fuse.
The explosion created an X-shaped fracture floor to plate. Applying his heavy stone hammer he mucked out the hole and poured fresh concrete to tidy things up. Another satisfied customer.
A letter to the editor about the prime minister appearing in a white hard has was the springboard for last week's discussion. Currently the hue and cry over the scandalous behaviour of senators has branched off on a scent that media folk apparently hope leads directly to the prime minister. Do they expect to find him wearing a black hat like the bad guys in old westerns? The cartoonists have had a ball showing him wearing a buffalo headdress which places him on the appropriate set.
The mayor of Toronto has taken some attention off the prime minister lately. Both have eclipsed the mayor of London. The word scandal is losing its sting from repetition. Scandal derives from a Greek word that simply means stumble. It has gained force over the years to mean outrage. When reporters hammer on the door of a senator or a mayor demanding answers that they know perfectly well will not be forthcoming, doesn't that have the stink of scandal on the part of the media hounds? Aren't they simply trying to further embarrass someone?
Such shenangigans are not far from the cyberbullying that media folk deplore.
The endless sniping at senators is adding to the push for sending the upper chamber to the dustbin of history. I have already written about the dangers of such an act.
It pleases me to hear that Rick Mercer has taken the same view as the one I hold. Do not put legislative power in the hands of one body. Clearly people don't trust the present House of Commons. Why would we hand them the joystick without a copilot?
Stop using the senate as a place to lodge people as a way to get rid of them from roles they can't handle, or as a reward for services rendered.
There is no need for a triple E senate. Elected will only result in deadlocks. One E is enough, and that's ‘effective.’