W[IITBY FREE PRESS, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6,1985, PAGE 5 "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson THE CROW'S NEST by Michael Knell Martin Connell, chairman of the Ontario Stadium Corp., dropped what wasn't a totally unexpected bombshell on the provincial taxpayer last week. That monument to Brampton Bill's need for dry comfort while watching that organized mayhem otherwise known as Canadian football will now cost $225 million - 50 percent more than originally planned. That's right folks, the 'Davis Dome' is going to cost all of us a mommoth fortune even before the first spade of dirt is shovelled from the ground. During their last years in office, the Tories managed to really stick it to the oridinary taxpayer - Bill 30 and the Ontario Dome. In fact, the dome ranks right up there with Suncor, Ontario Hydro and Seaton as shining examples of Tory fiscal irresponsibility. But now, treasurer Bob Nixon and the Grits are saying that they may use even more tax money to help reach the Dome's expected cost of some $225 million. Wait a minute, boys, that ain't such a bright idea. Taxpayers don't need a dome - they need schools, hospitals, roads, job creation programs and training programs for unemployed youth as well as new facilities for senior citizens and housing projects. If the Liberals had any savvy at ail (and Bob Nixon did give us a hint that it is part of their thinking) they would scrap the dome. Condemn it to the junk heap, let Davis go without his monument to himself and to a party that seems, with every passing day, to lose touch with reality. (Although, to get off the subject for a moment, I was deeply impressed by Dennis Timbrell's recent efforts to start a real down-to-earth policy debate within the P.C. Party. However, he hasn't met with much success. After ail, it's hard to hold a debate with your- self.) Although Nixon did say that the government might -oss some more of our money into that white elephant, he mentioned in the same breath that the Peterson administration doesn't feel obligated to build it. So they just might refuse to give the breweries and the professional sporting fraternity a new place to play. Even Metro Toronto Council is refusing to give a nickel more than the $30 million they've already pledged. One should also note that there is a strong minority on council trying to get that decision reversed and if Anne Johnson unseats Art Eggleton I think you'Il see Metro pull out. And that's what the province should do. Pull out. If the Toronto Blue Jays and the Toronto Argonauts as well as Carling O'Keefe and the other breweries think having a dome is such a wonderful idea then they should pay for it without coming to the public treasury. I always thought that this country was built on the idea of free entreprise Risk taking and bold investment in new opportunities were supposed to be the key to Ontario's continued and growing prosperity. Both the Jays and the Argos think a dome will increase attendance, it will bring more fans out to see the home tearn. n action. The consortium proudly notes that the facility can be used for other money making activities such as concerts, exhibitions and trade shows. But, God forbid, that they should have to take the lion's share of the risk. Oh, no, let the government do that. Those stupid taxpayers will never miss those hundreds of millions of dollars. (Anyone who thinks the Ontario dome is going to pay for itself quickly ought to take a close look at Olympic Stadium in Montreal.) From where I sit these companies don't want to participate in free entreprise. they want privileged entreprise with the cards stacked in their favor. The government (both this one - which will hopefully exercise some sense. and the previous one) supported the dome on the grounds that it will create thousands of temporary and permanent jobs while bringing $400 million a year into the Ontario economy. For an initial investment of about $225 million that doesn't sound like a bad return. If these figures are correct, then the government has given us the perfect reason why no public money should be involved in this project. It isn't needed. The facility will generate sufficient new revenue for the economy that with a good marketing program and solid management it should be paid for and producing a profit within a reasonable period of time. But, since there is public money going into the project, I can only conclude that the consortium of private business interests doesn't believe that this is so They don't believe it will make a profit, they don't believe it to be a good in- vestment. If they did, they would ail be scrambling for a majority share of the project. They'd ail want the biggest piece of the pie. And they have given us the other major reason why the dome shouldn't be built. So, gentle reader and fellow taxpayer and citizen, there you have two of the best reasons in the world why the dome shouldn't be built. The government says that it will provide jobs, as well as stimulus to the economy and a healthy return on investment. If that's true, the project doesn't need our tax money. On the other hand, private entreprise isn't willing to invest without government money and is not actively persuing the majority interest. If they don't think it's a good investment the taxpayer shouldn't either. No matter which way you slice, no matter what point of view you take the government should have no part of this cute, but not little, whi!e clephant. One question that's always nagged at me is: what do we need a dome for anyway? To keep a bunch of professional jocks dry when playing in the rain? Aren't there other more important things that our tax money could be used for" Doesn't the government have more pressing financial needs" < They could, after ail, use the money to pay off some of their debts.) Sure, having it would be nice. But it shouldn't be a priority. We don't really need it. We can't afford it. Private sector interests won't in- vest in it properly. Let's not built it and get on with more important issues. WITH OUR FEET UP By Bill Swan The trouble with language these days: too many she can iron, he can iron. chefs wading in the broth. But when ail that's done, who gets to put out the English was intended to be spoken and written as garbage? a clarion bell, a single note bouncing off the hills at We no longer have chairmen at meetings. Now it's twilight. chairpersons, a coined word that I use in public Or, if you eschew poetry, English is a language of because I must but afterward wash my mouth out communication surpasses ail others. with soap. My Grade 8 English teacher would have Or have we gone by the communication era? agreed. See, once upon a time school children learned par- A coleague of mine has analyzed this tendency of ts of speech, grammatical construction and language and has come up with a few discrepencies spelliîng, and would parse sentences with girls in he feels must be ciarified. I worked with hlm one schoolyard corners just for the fun of it. evening to redefine phrases which have so lately But back in the sixties something happened. That been mutilated. A few foilow. something was called "communication", which Take the word "chairperson". people.studied instead of English, or journalism, or Chair, unless one is French, is a sexless word. poetry. Person, at first glance, foilows suit. And advertisers bent the language by making But hark! - "person", a two-syllabie word, must cigarettes "taste good like a cigarette should" and be examined. "Per" passes muster, but "son' the.whole thing has been on the skids since. definitely has maie tendencies. Oh, sure, many kids today know how (or did a Here we can go two ways. We can replace the of- couple of years ago) to spell "relief". But just ask fending maie suffice with one suitably sexless. or the same kid to spell Rolaids, and you've got him we can further differentiate, using "person" as a baffled. word when we mean maie and "perdaughter" when Many of us were the recipients of "conciousness we mean female. raising" a few years back, and agreed that yes, the Hence, o head meetings, we can have "chairper- world should be fair for ail people. sons' or "chairperdaughters". But that also meant - although we did not know it The world "human" becomes as difficuit. "Hu"is at the time - that the generic sender reference in the okay. But "man" makes the word suspiciousiy English language would be forever dead. maie. Generic sender reference? To detoxify the term, we can further break it Weil, you know. That's the part you learned in down, just as we did with person. grade school about asexual references. That is, "a We can thus now talk about the "huperson" race student who studies hard will be pleased when he or the "huperdaughter" race. sees his report card."Stili lacking: a term we could use to refer to both The villain, in today's language, is that little groups together -- which last I recaîl was stili word, "he". necessary from time to time if "huperpeoples" are That's the generic reference - when we don't know to continue to populate this pianet. what we're talking about, we use 'he' instead of Once we get into this, we can see the language 'she'. Many feminists also agreed that "he" is the reaching into awkward areas. A number of words pronoun of ignorance immediately require surgery. But alas! now we must - to placate new guardians Mandatory, for example. "Man" obviousiy needs of the word - replace "he" with "he/she" and replacing. "Da" might pass, except that it is a forever sound when we talk or write, like over- chiid's pronunciation of "daddy". And "tory", we wrought lawyers. ail know, is a political party beyond sex. But there are many other examples, mostly We replace the word, then, with "huper- brought about by sexual equality. Now, I'm ail for peopieparentory". Sounds odd at first, but just sexual equality. What she does in the kitchen, he practice. can do in the kitchen; if she can dust, he can dush e a