I can't hold back any longer, the "fountain" in the park is a pond with a tiny aerator. What happened to the fountain we were supposed to have? And costs will go up because we'll have to have a security guard at the pond to stop kids playing in it since it's not chlorinated and has been declared a health hazard. Small signs will just get ignored. Over the first week or so of operation, birds, dogs and drunks as well as kids with and without diapers have been seen in the water.Peter Delanty was heard describing to a citizen how he expected something more like a real fountain but it remains to be seen if he'll actually do anything about it. I must admit the rink worked well in winter but we were promised a fountain for the summer as well. The pond design is clever but will be prone to vandalism - already one repair was needed when a park bench was thrown in.
And thanks to Ben for opening his blog for my occasional contribution.
33 comments:
I think a statue of a nude Peter spurting a small stream of water would be great. Purified water, of course.
John:
Perhaps for comparison purposes you could post the photo I sent to you of the fountain in Victoria B.C. -which you quite correctly identified as more of a water park. But, that said, the Cobourg thingy, with the natural addition of children, becomes an accidental water park too. Only proper fencing will ever fix that. I maintain my earlier opinion: So little thought or imagination went into the building of Cobourgs rinky-dink pond that somebody should be held accountable.
DJC
This "water feature" is pathetic. Seeing the kids splashing around in it despite the rules makes me want to know, again, why they ever demolished the lovely wading pool we used to have in Victoria Park.
It was the perfect place to take small children, who could play in the water without larger kids knocking them over. It was supervised by a life guard and fenced in, with a few pieces of playground equipment to play on.
For the toddler set it was ideal and I was one of many parents who took the kids there every day.
Guess it wasn't fancy enough for Peter and his boys. If you're desperate for a legacy, fixing up something you already have just doesn't cut it.
Besides, it's more their style to have something like the water feature, which has water but you can't use it. Kind of like the rules for Victoria Park in general, you can look at it and even sit down, just don't touch anything or do anything, and certainly don't even think about a casual game or two. Verboten!
All style, zero substance. That's Cobourg all over.
Victoria Park is a mausoleum. The gates to Victoria Park memorialize the war dead from Wold War 2. The cenotaph memorializes the war dead of The Great War. A garden at the top of Victoria Park memorializes Ed Haynes and Lenah Fisher. Recently a sculpture was added to memorialize the brutality of males against females.
Victoria Park is not a place to "feel good" because it has become littered with stuff that reminds us daily of the down side of life, particularly males.
Where is the sign that says, "We plant this tree/bush/garden to commemorate the birth of Billy Bob."
As for the "water feature" -- I've seen more spectacular garden hose sprinklers. Pathetic.
Peter's puddle duddle is a frinkenstein scar
I suppose now it is just a pool and rink it should be called the Prink.
I was happy to see small children playing in the pool when it was fist opened. But now the rule seems to be "anything that is enjoyable and not specifically allowed is prohibited". Why is this? Surely the original Frink was justified on the basis of community health and fitness as that is where the provincial money came from.
I have heard that the pool is a reflecting pool, but what does it reflect? There is no adjacent Taj Mahal for it to reflect. Perhaps we should reflect upon its cost.
The problem of building half-baked ideas may well be repeated in the forthcoming "Community Centre". Councillor Frost has identified that the centre has been approved before its uses anbd tenants have been agreed upon. Specifically it is not clear whether the Lawn Bowling Club will be moving there, or even whether they want to. The Old Guard say that the Community Centre will be multi-use so it doesn't matter what it is going to be used for. Strangely, I find it hard to envisage how as space can be a hockey rink in the afternoon but a lawn bowling green in the evening. Perhaps the lawn bowlers are expected to share with the soccer, so there won't be a real problem, until someone decides to put up a notice "no lawn bowling allowed".
I have read the comments in the newspaper by the committee that researched and recommended the burbler fountain, by the Town administration staff, etc. I interpret them all as saying: if kids wade in the reflecting pool or adults hand sit facing in with their legs cooling in the water, this is good use. They want it to be a people place, BUT --and it is a big but-- there are legal ramifications. If the Town does not post disclaimers that state it is not for wading or swimming, they are open to lawsuits if they do not provide lifeguards, emergency rescue devices, etc. AND the space was not designed to be a wading pool, it was designed as a reflecting pool. If a kid drowns in the reflecting pool, there will be a lawsuit. I don't want my tax money being spent paying out a settlement if that is lost. The response seems to be: officially say "Do not do this" but to turn a law-enforcement "blind eye" if kids and others do. All over Europe and other cosmopolitan places, there are fountains that people wade in, lie in, put legs in, etc, whether it is officially allowed or officially prohibited.
To reflect on a couple of other comments: I agree that the actual toddlers' wading pool with its fenced in play area is sadly missed. It was great when it was there. I think it was removed because the cost of repairs was too high to keep it in place back then. Replacing it with the splash park does not really work. I do see lots and lots of kids in the splash park, though.
There seems to be some suggestion that once people die, we forget them. This is strange. To remember the dead is life-affirming: when we do so, we are not enshrining "the death," we are affirming the life and the contributions of the person who lived that life -- much of which carries forward to us now and benefits us still today. Alongside that, it is a delight to see someone put up a plaque by a tree planting they sponsored in the name of a child or a grandchild or other person who is not dead. This is done. There are many plaques of just this nature in Victoria Park, Peace Park and other places around Cobourg.
So I take it that you do not think there could ever be such a thing as over-memorializing someone? Why name one street when you can name two? Or ten? Or a hundred after the same person?
I take it too that some lives are worth (especially in death) much more than others?
Interesting....
The greatest example of over-memorialization in Cobourg is in the use of the designation "Rotary".
There are several plaques at the waterfront park that contains the Frink and it is often called the Rotary Waterfront Park. Yet when Diversey was demolished and the park was created Rotary put in about 25% of the cost and the Feds, province and town put in the rest. With the building and rebuilding of the Frink the Rotary percentage has gone down even more.
The park across William Street from Tim Horton's is called Rotary. The walk across the top of the Harbour is claimed by a Rotary plaque. If a movie was ever made about Cobourg the Town could be called "Rotary". The irony is that the the Rotary money comes from money that they raise from the public. It is not like the Roy Thomson Hall where the Thomson family provided their own money.
Rotary is a cult -plain and simple. A you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours cult.
The secret of Rotary that Rotarians don't know is this: Their children hate them.
Go ahead. Don't take my word for it -find a Child Of Rotary that speaks highly of his Rotarian parents.
Watch for key words like 'geeks' or 'Ward and June' or 'rid the world of (insert disease here)'.
That's the really annoying thing about teenagers -they see through everything.
Rotary naming mania is rampant all across Ontario, not just in Cobourg. It's all about marketing, just ask United Way.
It does get tiresome though. I would much rather visit a locale named for someone from that town than for a service club, no matter how benevolent that club may be.
Rotary Waterfront Park. A satirist would rename it Rotary Affront Park, because that is the appropoetic name.
The people of Cobourg deserve a name that is distinctive, unique, something that differentiates Cobourg from anywhere else on the map of Canada. Rotary Waterfront Park is the opposite. It is a dreary dollar-a-dozen name.
There is a Midland Rotary Waterfront Trail
There is a Cobourg Rotary Waterfront Park
There is a Yellowknife Rotary Waterfront Park.
There is a Prince Rupert Rotary Waterfront Park
There is a Halton County Rotary Waterfront Pond
There is a Penetanguishene Rotary Waterfront Park
Rotary Waterfront,
Rotary Waterfront,
Rotary Waterfront,
repeat after me,
Rotary Wastefront.
It's just a marking of turf by the Rotary, branding the town as the Realm of Rotary.
Commemorating with a tree, a livbing growing thing, is one thing. Cluttering the park with inanimate memorials about the lethal brutality of males is something else. Stats indicate that females are far more inclined to murder children under five than are men. Why not a memorial for the Child Abuse Project.
To my reading, the series of comments about Rotary are not from different people but all from one poster who hits "publish your comment" but then has an attack of "Oh, should've said 'this' too"
The Rotary Club would hope so!
I will readily confess to making one of the anon. comments, but only one, so the poster who thinks all of the anon. comments are from the same person is WRONG!
However, since the Rotary Club brings us the fabulous Rib Fest, coming this weekend, it can't be all bad. Local Pork lovers will converge in the Park and raise their greasy paws in salute to all Rotarians, BBQ kings and rocking blues bands. Party on!
The baked sweet potatoes are good too.
It says something about the person posting the comment more than it says about the sculpture when an artistic statement against "domestic violence" is intrepreted as exclusively addressing male violence. Anyone abusing a child, whether a female or male perpetrator, would be guilty of domestic violence; any woman guilty of violence to a man would also be encompassed by the term "domestic violence." Perhaps something in this poster's experience lends itself to see violence as exclusive to the male. I think domestic violence is ugly and to be opposed, whatever gender the perpetrator.
I went to the " water feature " the other day for a first hand look at Peter's Folly. The thought struck me too. Does Rotary have an inferiority complex or what - even the picnic tables have Rotary written on them. What's that about not advertising your good works ? Save a lot on signage too.
Actually, anonymous is several people who haven't the spine to own their comments. Are they intimidated by a self-centred service club?
There are four or five separate people commenting on the Rotary issue. Clearly it is a general concern. All the comments seem to be adding additional information and opinions. The overall effect is to make a comprehensive statement. To believe that it is the same person is equivalent to the council's wishful thinking that a 2,000 person petition is only signed by people because they are told to do so.
In one of the comments I was anonymous. I often use my own name, but one of the advantages of the "Anonymous" feature of the web site is that it allows comments to be evaluated for their own merit rather than for the identity of the submitter.
Rotary is the triumph of the bland over the creative, the Republican voice of unchange.
Rotary is ClearChannel or Corus Entertainment at the expense of your local road conditions.
Rotary is to music what Lawrence Welk was to music.
Rotary thinks `Reefer Madness`was a documentary.
Rotary is about the environment because white Cadillacs use less energy to air-condition in Florida than any other colour.
Rotary understands `fireproofing`not as a safety measure, but as a public relations initiative such as ridding the world of polio. After all, who could possibly say anyting bad about a service club dedicated to ridding the world of polio.
Rotary is `fireproof.
Anonymous MM asserts: “It says something about the person posting the comment more than it says about the sculpture when an artistic statement against "domestic violence" is intrepreted as exclusively addressing male violence. Anyone abusing a child, whether a female or male perpetrator, would be guilty of domestic violence; any woman guilty of violence to a man would also be encompassed by the term "domestic violence.”
Not quite. It says more about the current zeitgeist as perceived by the person who witnesses it and describes it. Over the years I have closely followed the issues of “domestic violence”. During the 80’s I did the same with the zeitgeist of the “peace movement”.
Every spring and fall I went to photograph the peace demonstrations in Toronto. The vast majority of placards and banners condemned the USA for its Pershings, cruise missiles, nukes, etc. There were always a couple handful of banners & placards going the generic route; oppose all weapons of mass destruction. There was never a placard or banner denouncing the totalitarian dictatorshit of the USSR, the other side of the cold war.
Graham Woods, devoted a column in Northumberland Today exclusively excoriating males for their centuries of violence against women. Certainly not balanced in terms of the gender neutrality of “domestic violence.” That phrase [domestic violence] is a contrived fig leaf that covers up a lot of female sexism.
How many shelters are there in Canada devoted to sheltering males suffering from “domestic violence”? How many shelters are there in Canada devoted to sheltering females suffering from “domestic violence”? Don’t forget that Stats Can asserts that “domestic violence” is perpetrated by females as much as males, although professional feminists will actively downplay this into non-existence. There are thousands of shelters for females in Canada, and virtually none for males. Quite a wide discrepancy for “domestic violence”.
Where do the Cobourg males who suffer from “domestic violence” go for shelter?
Some of the speakers at the dedication of the sculpture stayed on the party line, using the phrase “domestic violence” to stay gender neutral, but virtually every speaker included a reference or two to gender, specifically, males beating females. Nothing wrong with this in and of itself, but notably absent is any reference ever to females beating males. Why is that? And it is noteworthy that those espousing gender neutrality often do not abide by this balanced approach.
Feminists espouse Equality, but not practice it.
Anonymous MM asserts: “Perhaps something in this poster's experience lends itself to see violence as exclusive to the male.”
What silly speculation! All I do is describe things as I see them. The zeitgeist of shelters-for-women, not men, shelters for victims of domestic violence, not men.
Anonymous asserts: “I think domestic violence is ugly and to be opposed, whatever gender the perpetrator.”
I concur.
We agree that domestic violence is ugly and to be opposed. That's good. I also agree that there is a degree of speculation that is unavoidable in any communication such as posting back and forth on the internet. I don't want to appear as though I am trying to "score points" because that never leads anywhere fruitful in a discussion like this. However, your lengthy reply brings all manner of new tangents to the exchange --Mr. Wood's columns, a country that no longer exists -- the USSR, a movement as it existed 20 - 30 years ago, your photographic documentation of protest marches, feminism, speakers' remarks at an unveiling, etc. These tangents will be seen by most people as confirming that speculation: you do bring a lot of pre-formed conclusions and "baggage" to your assessment of this sculpture. Of course, that is what every observer does with every piece of art whatever the artform. So, my speculation was not that "wild" or even particularly wise. I was on safe ground.
Hey folks, take a look at the original post of this meandering discussion - suckered again! (by "his dreary middleness of faux poetics, the insufferable Wally K"
'domestic violence and abuse' is an important topic and it should have its own platform, not as an aside to a discussion of the 'leaking puddle in the park'
Perhaps someone more capable could set that stage with an outrageous comment that would restart the fire for that topic on its own.
How does Wally know that anonymous among all other anonymice has the initials MM? Is Wally saying this blog is read by Cobourg Town councillors? Does he imply that she participates as an anon-mouse to defend art in public spaces?
Anonymous MM asserts, "you do bring a lot of pre-formed conclusions and "baggage" to your assessment of this sculpture."
That can be said also of every supporting participant of the sculpture.
Theory is one thing. Practice is another thing.
Peaceniks "espoused" peace between The Democratic West and communist totalitarianism, but they practiced a one-sidedness that chronically pointed the finger to the USA as the main culprit, not the dictatorshit. That was the zeitgeist.
Supporters espoused the gender neutral (inclusive) "domestic violence" but practice it differently.
There is a shelter in Cobourg for victims of "domestic violence". How many female victims of domestic violence have been sheltered there? How many male victims of domestic violence have been sheltered there? None. Why is that?
Who noticed that the speakers at the unveiling of the sculture included content referencing males as the main perps of "domestic violence." There was not a single sentence uttered that would even suggest that a female is an equal perp of "domestic violence" or that a female could even be a perp of "domestic violence". Why that discrepancy? And why am I the only one to point out that discrepancy? And why is it so bad to point this out?
It is best to stick to facts. The shelter you refer to is a women's shelter. It does not pretend to be for men. There are, in fact, similar places that serve men who are victims of domestic violence. If you call the NSW 1-800 number, they can supply a referral to one. I did not say it was "bad" to bring baggage to the assessment of a piece of art. I said it is a fact that everyone does this, including you, including those supporters of the sculpture -- as you observed. We agree again.
To Manfred: I have never participated in an online exchange that did not meander. It is the nature of the beast. You and others are not compelled to read. You can choose not to if it meanders into an area that is not interesting to you.
It is interesting to me that John Draper started this and produced one of the longer threads of comments on Ben's blog but John is letting his Cobourg Blog die its natural death because of his own dissatisfaction with the response.
Manfred, perhaps you wish for a more active and strict moderator role? There are internet exchanges that offer that, too.
MM are initials?
BS are initials?
PJ are initials?
Town councillors reading this blog? Silly me, I didn't know they could read.
I repeat, more directly this time, What the hell does 'domestic violence' have to do with the original subject of this post?
Another Anonymous asserts: "It is best to stick to facts."
Cobourg has a dedicated shelter for male victims of "domestic abuse". Sure. Are the provided services equal in quality and proportion? I doubt it.
Here's a fact: The Vancouver Sun, Dec 6, 1999 published a front-page story written by two women boldly asserting: 'In 1999 Canadian women constituted 98 percent of the victims of spousal violence, kidnapping and sexual assault'.
The above is not a one-off. This demonization of males has been chronic over recent decades -- it was most recently indulged by Grahame Wood's uncle Tom article in Northumberland Today last year when he disparaged males throughout ages for their violence against females.
A bit of balance seems called for. If feminists/women are all for "equality" then they should be as demonstratably concerned about their own prevalent violence against infants and children. The word "equality" and the phrase "domestic violence" are contrived throwaway words that act soley as a fig leaf to deflect attention.
In most communal situations when someone speaks up and out against "domestic violence" and uses that phrase, the listener's mind more often than not strays to an image of a male beating the daylight out of a female than vice versa. That is also a fact.
I know that I am tagged as a bad guy for daring to disparage the orthodoxies of feminism. Let me be perfectly clear: I have contempt for feminism.
In answer to your question, Manfred, `domestic violence`has nothing to do with the frinkenstein. That`s official.
However, let us note that nothing, absolutely nothing is preventing you from posting pieces that stay on topic, and we`d be glad to read them, so, Manfred, start posting...
When a person visits a farm and sees a cow wandering around the pasture, munching grass here, sampling other growth over there, does one yell at the cow, "What the heck does that grass over there have to do with this grass over here? Go in a straight line!" Maybe. However, I guarantee the cow will not follow the instruction. Why not? It is not the nature of the beast.
Wally, you do not need to tell us you hold feminism in contempt. That has been obvious for some time now.
Speaking for myself, your recent vicious attack against me where you have attempted to make me personally responsible for things like the cost of a PSA test as opposed to free mammagrams has left me afraid to even post comments using my name. It's bizarre that you seem to hate me so much, especially considering I am hardly a banner waving feminist and never have been. I just believe in human rights, and I happen to think women are human.
It is very clear to me that you have a deep hatred of women, and I hope I never run into you in a dark alley somewhere, I would be terrified. Is that what you intend with your posts?
I hear you are quite pleasant in person, but I no longer even want to find out.
Since now it's cows that we're discussing, I offer this. When, for some unexplainable reason, the cow tramples over the fence surrounding the crops and starts eating what's beyond the wide open grazing field it has complete access to, the cow gets persuaded to return to its more than opulent domain to satisfy its hunger and munch on more 'appropriate' fodder. Pointless meandering is just that, pointless; why bother, unless it's just for something to say to fill the air with aimless chatter.
I wonder how many readers simply lose interest and go elsewhere because the point of the discussion gets buried in irrelevant chatter?
Personally, when that happens I often drop out because apparently the interest in the topic has waned enough to derail the discussion onto an entirely unrelated issue, perhaps because some simply can't keep their fingers off the keyboard, or can't keep from coming back to the same very old and very worn dogma.
This comment has been closed because of personal invective being hurled. It is unseemly and rude, despite how well it is written. Comments and arguments between identifiable individuals will not be tolerated, and I'm a tolerant guy. So confine the writing to polemics and arguement
Post a Comment