Housekeeping 101

Here's just a couple of notes to make your blogging experience, as well as the experience of other readers of No Dogs or Anglophones more worthwhile.

Even if you don't comment very often, please use an alias, when you do. It takes just a moment to personalize your comment with an 'alias' or 'handle'.
It does not affect your anonymity!
Here's how;

It's that easy!
Now people can refer to you and can follow your thoughts easily.

A note about comments
I try to edit all comments within two hours (during the daytime) but sometimes it isn't possible.
I then open comments without pre-screening. Later, when I review them, if something deserves to be removed it will be.
You'll see this message.;

 If you are deeply offended by a comment or believe it to be overly offensive or threatening please email me privately- anglomontreal@gmail.com.

If you are a lurker¹, try offering an opinion just once, it will enhance your experience.

I like to think that this blog is a place where people can express their opinions freely and even rant when they want to. The Comments section is more interesting than my post which is designed to spur
discussion. Get involved!

Comments in French continue to be accepted. Although this may represent a hardship to unilingual Anglos, the benefits to open debate outweigh that handicap.

We have a lot of francophone readers (which I appreciate a lot) and so I'll often include a link that will provide an explanation to an idiom or phrase.
Many of these words and phrases are not that familiar, even to the most bilingual.

Here's an example; "lurker^1" 

 In the above case, the link will take you to a definition of the word 'lurker' on the Urban Dictionary website. I've added a superscript to denote which dictionary definition is being referred to, in this case, the first one.;

Anyone with suggestions to make this website better please feel free to email me. If you have any suggestions for articles or see an interesting story on the web please don't be shy.

If you have a personal anecdote to share or know of something that would be of interest to our readers please drop me a line.

I get many of these types of suggestions and they all start by saying "I bet you've already seen this...." but most of the time, I haven't!
Contact me at anglomontreal@gmail.com.

If you see typos or factual errors, please use the above email address to advise me.

I never share any address with anyone and I don't even keep these messages on file, once I've responded.

Happy reading and thanks for the honour of appearing on your screen!

What's Your Version of Linguistic Justice?

This last week Louis Prefontaine put a link up to NoDogsOrAnglophones and described us to his readers as a site where  anglophone extremists mouth off. As you can imagine we've gotten a bit more exposure amongst his readers.

I'm glad that my views and those of our commenters provide a convenient foil. I have not provided a link back to that article as it is no longer my policy to encourage anyone to visit his site. Suffice to say I don't agree with his convoluted views, based on misinformation and faulty math. Preaching to the choir, he and Mario Beaulieu can spout just about anything and have it lapped up by his minion who collectively suffer from anglo-itis.

I did get an email (not a comment) from one of his readers asking me what exactly my version of linguistic justice represents and it occurred to me that it'd make sense to explain my point of view on the subject (and have readers give theirs.)  The emailer pointed out, quite rightly, that I spend a good amount of time bitching and moaning, but never actually enunciate a position.

I've been thinking about it for a few days and it is fit and proper (as they say on The Rock ^{def# 21}) to outline my views on the major points of contention vis-a-vis language.

I've saved this piece for the weekend, so that readers can have the time to develop their own responses.

Now when it comes to language in Quebec, there are three basic points of view.

The first is shared by Mr. Prefontaine and his followers, and calls for a blanket rejection of English within Quebec. While some allowances would be made for the 'historic' Anglo minority,(whatever that is) the so-called accommodations are tailored to eliminate  English in Quebec within a generation or two.

The second diametrically opposed view would restore complete and utter freedom of choice, whether that be in education, signage etc. etc.

The third choice is a compromise that lies somewhere between the two above options. Defining this policy is more difficult because there are many versions, depending on ones point of view.

My personal view is based on a personal version of that third way.

You may already have chosen Door number 1 or Door number 2 and so I look forward to reading your comments, but I suspect that most of our readers (on the anglo side) are not the language extremists that we are made out to be and will opt for their own personal version of Door number 3.

My view is based on a compromise, one that respects Quebec's desire to protect its language, which is a legitimate concern, while respecting its Anglophone citizens.

First, I'd like to point out that Francophones are a minority in Canada and a majority in Quebec, while Anglophones are a majority in Canada and a minority in Quebec.
It isn't fair, nor does it make sense to refer to Anglophones in Quebec as a minority without acknowledging their majority position in Canada. It isn't splitting hairs. Francophones who remind us that Quebec is French, refuse to admit that Canada is English.
Like it or not, Quebec remains an element of a country that is by any measure,  mostly English. This fact cannot be ignored.

And so, I won't be referring to any group as a minority or a majority.

The rights of both francophones and anglophones to learn the other official language is of paramount importance, as Anglos living in Quebec cannot function reasonably without speaking French, while francophones cannot function reasonably in this world, without English.

Education
There's little doubt that educations remains the most contentious issue, likely because it is believed by most, that children who attend French school will become assimilated on the French side of the language equation and that children who attend English school will be anglicized.
I don't actually agree with this interpretation and hold that it is the language spoken at home that determines what children will become in later life, but that is a whole other discussion.

The government should provide for both English and French education (as it does.) Anglophones should go to English schools and francophones should be streamed into French schools as policy. It's a reasonable compromise to tell francophones that the government won't pay for their schooling in English .

That being said, citizens who disagree, should have the right to opt out of public schools and attend private schools in the language of their choice. These private schools should  continue to be subsidized by the government, but it is reasonable that a student not eligible for French education in the public system, be refused a subsidy in the private English system.

As for college and university I don't believe the government has an obligation to pay for English education for francophones. If they wish to attend English schools of higher learning they should pay for it.
I know many of you will disagree and this point will be contentious, but I believe that the government has the right to pay for what it wants to and if subsidizing francophones to go to English universities is not something they want to finance, so be it. The government would have to live with the consequences of telling these students that they could attend English universities, but would have to pay more than eligible Anglos to attend.

As the French language defenders point out, it means that only rich francophones could attend English schools, but so what?

There is nothing wrong with the government determining what kind of services it provides to its citizens, but at the same time, those who don't like or don't agree with the level of those services should be free to make their own arrangements.

By the way, this principle should also apply to Medicare with the government offering the medical services it determines it can afford and citizens free to accept those services or again, make their own arrangements privately.
This is the essence of freedom, which should always include the right to say 'no thank you.'

As for transition schools, where non-eligible students use a one-year ruse to win eligibility to English education, I would support any law that would eliminate the practice. It's sneaky and unfair.
If parents of non-eligible students want their child to go to an English school, the government shouldn't be obliged to pay for it, but on the other hand, parents should be allowed to  send their kids to English schools if they are willing to pay the full ticket.

All Quebec immigrants should be streamed into French schools, but with some notable exceptions.
Immigrants of school age, who speak only English, should be entitled to go to English schools. This would include immigrants from the USA, Great Britain, Ireland, the English Caribbean islands and Australia and New Zealand.
Forcing these children into French school is an affront to good sense. They will never become Francophones no matter what. Remember, this is still Canada, AN ENGLISH SPEAKING NATION. No provincial government should be allowed to tell an English person that he or she must give up English to live in Canada.
Of all the language restrictions this one is by far the meanest and stupidest. As long as it remains on the books it will remain a testament to nastiness.

Public Service & Signage
I have no problem with French-only signage across the province of Quebec, except in bilingual towns where signs should be posted bilingually (without any preponderance of one language over another.) Bilingual towns should offer bilingual services, but cities where there are few anglos could provide French services only.
The provincial government should provide English services in the greater Montreal area, but in the boonies, service could be French only, with the proviso that English service could be arranged upon special request. This includes all government agencies (like the CSST) and crown corporations (like the SAQ)

I don't believe an English person can expect to be treated in English in a hospital in Chicoutimi, nor be served in English in a SAQ in Abitibi. That being said they should have this expectation in a town like Pointe-Claire.

That's my version of language fairness. It's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Nothing above will affect negatively on the protection of the French language, but it will make anglophones feel that they are treated fairly and remain honoured members of society.

Agree. disagree.
If you're a regular reader of this blog, I know you have a strong opinion. You can critique my views or offer your very own perspective.

I'd ask that if you are going to comment in some length, add an ALIAS so people can comment on your opinion without referring to Anonymous@12:01.

Have a wonderful weekend!

Quebec Could Use a Referendum!

A couple of months ago Michael M. Fortier a former Conservative federal cabinet minister suggested that Quebec hold a referendum on a regular basis and threw out a figure of every fifteen years. LINK fr

The suggestion was roundly rejected by federalists and sovereignists alike, a rare agreement that bears discussion.

Although such an arrangement would cost the taxpayers about 100 million dollars, the real price of a referendum can be measured in the pain and suffering it entails.  

As with the previous two referendums, the fear and angst suffered by NO voters before the referendum was neatly balanced with the humiliation and disappointment suffered by the YES side voters after the referendum losses.
For most voters, a referendum is akin to having ones wisdom teeth pulled, perhaps necessary, but not an experience that one would seek out on a regular basis, even fifteen years apart!

But for rabid separatists the desire for a new referendum is overwhelming. 
Many of the most militant among them, those under 34 years old, haven't had the opportunity to vote for an independent Quebec and the unbearable itch needs to be scratched.
These are the militants that are demanding that the Parti Quebecois make an absolute commitment to hold another referendum should the PQ win the next election, come hell or high water, but for Pauline Marois and other veterans of the party, the idea of a third referendum under less than 'winning conditions' is a case of 'twice bitten, thrice shy.'

Although it could never happen, the very best gift that Premier Charest could give Quebec federalists is another referendum, sometime in the next two years before the Liberals face their inevitable Waterloo at the polls.
Mr. Charest could call a referendum in order to 'clear the air.' He would commit, that in the case of a YES victory, his government would resign and abstain in a vote over the declaration of independence in the National Assembly under the new Parti Quebecois government.

Lunacy? I think not. 
It may be the very best federalist strategy available. The very reason Madame Marois fears a referendum is the very same reason we should hold one.

That's because the YES side will undoubtedly lose again and because any loss will mean that support for the sovereignty option is falling (because of the closeness of the last vote.) 

To put it another way, 'losing conditions' are just about ideal and federalists should play their own hand by demanding Quebeckers vote at a time when federalists fortunes are on a high and a time when they can control the timing and the referendum question.

Federalists wouldn't have to change any of the referendum rules other than the question. To do so would have the separatists crying foul.

All that needs to change is the question itself. In the previous two referendums, the separatist PQ government, in an effort to mislead Quebeckers as to what they were voting for, asking two very convoluted and muddy questions that left much to interpretation.

1980- "The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad — in other words, sovereignty — and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will only be implemented with popular approval through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada? 106 words

1995- "Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?" 45 words

 A crystal clear question is in the interests of the NO side. It will leave no illusions as to what is being contemplated and faced with a stark reality, some wafflers will be swayed to vote NO.

"DO YOU WANT QUEBEC TO SECEDE FROM CANADA AND BECOME AN INDEPENDENT NATION" 13 words

To what end you might ask?  
A fair and reasonable question. 


First and foremost it will take the wind out of the movement and put off the next referendum another fifteen years. At current immigration levels, it will mean that by then, close to one million new immigrants will have made Quebec their home and of these one can expect them to vote 90% in favour of Canada, making any chance at all for a referendum win impossible.
Secondly it will strengthen Ottawa's hand vis-a-vis the new Parti Quebecois government that is likely to be elected next time around. A newly elected PQ could not use threats of separation to  blackmail Ottawa. 
The tap dancing would be amusing to watch and all the PQ bluster would be about a threatening as the big bad wolf trying to blow down the brick house!

Hopefully, it will shut up the militants, to some extent anyway. 
The Young Turks of the sovereignty movement will finally taste the agony of defeat, just as their forefathers did before them and that, I have to say somewhat guiltily, pleases me enormously. 
They, like their sovereignist predecessors will inevitably suffer a crisis of confidence and fallibility, much as soldiers who are crushed in a decisive battle. 
Of course, a referendum loss will never make hardliners go away, but it will shut them up for several years until the next gen rises to take their place. 

Finally the Bloc Quebecois will face a true crisis of conscious- stay or leave?
Can the blocheads actually stay on in Ottawa after a humiliating referendum loss and talk about remaining on for another fifteen years until the next referendum?

Perhaps they will, but the merciless beating and humiliation they will face on the floor of the House will be amusing. No doubt professional hecklers, like the ever cruel Marlene Jennings, a Liberal from Montreal or the more idiotic Conservative LaVar Payne, a Conservative form Medicine will viciously remind the BQ that they don't really represent the will of Quebec. 

A referendum loss for sovereignists will be a heaping helping of humble pie. I can't wait for that!

It's weird to say it, but I share the very same dream with the most militant of separatists- a referendum as soon as possible!

Let's get it ON!!

Quebec Government's Medical Malpractice

When car manufacturers produce cars that nobody wants or needs, it's inevitable that they go out of business, just as the once mighty General Motors went broke ignoring market realities by refusing to adapt to changing demand.

The private market works efficiently at rewarding those companies that provide products and services that customers want and need and punishes mercilessly, those who ignore market reality.

The danger when governments get into business is that these rules don't seem to apply, as they are insulated from the consequences of bad decisions by taxpayers who are forced to underwrite poor business practices and outright incompetence.

And so the Quebec government continues to produce doctors which they themselves have determined that they don't need and cannot use, at an astronomical cost, with no plans in sight to end this overproduction.

The Quebec health care crisis is much more than a lack of resources. The sad state of affairs can be traced to an egregious lack of planning and sound business practices as well as a bureaucratic nightmare that has by some estimates put the number of pencil-pushers in the system equalling the number of those involved in direct medical care, be they doctors, nurses, medical technicians, and ancillary support staff.

Nothing but nothing can better highlight the utter incompetence of those running the system than the debacle that is the production of the most basic and elemental part of the health system, the doctor.

In a closed system as we have here in Quebec (and all the other provinces), the government underwrites the universities which produces the doctors that flow into the health-care system.

It isn't that complicated an affair, the government is free to determine how many doctors are produced and what type of specialties they take up.

Like car company executives, who determine how many cars and what type of vehicles are produced in consideration of market conditions, so too government planners are supposed to produce doctors in direct relation to need.

But somewhere along the line the government of Quebec got things wildly out of whack and continues to produce doctors that it does not want. Incredibly, there is also no plan to fix this problem and like a tap that is left running for no reason, these surplus doctors are being flushed down the drain, at great expense to taxpayers.

"Since 2003, (the government) has doubled the enrolment in medical schools, but it continues to limit the opportunities for employment at the end of the residency training for doctors. ...

"...According to figures provided by the FMRQ, 22 radiation oncologists are projected to complete their residency training by July 2011. But the government only has seven positions available. A total of 44 doctors are expected to complete their cardiology residency training, but there are 21 positions available."  Link

It has been reported in the Press that it costs upwards of $250,000 to produce a doctor, but when all things are considered, the cost of a Quebec-born doctor who leaves the province after his or her medical training is completed, is infinitely higher.

Add to the cost of the actual medical degree, the cost of a lifetime of education, from kindergarten to high school, to cegep and then undergraduate studies in university. Add twenty to twenty five years of free health-care, baby bonus payments and subsidized daycare and the price easily adds up to another $250,000.

A doctor who remains in Quebec can be expected to pay over his or her lifetime, over two million dollars in taxes, aside from the incalculable benefit he or she provides the community in general and patients in particular!

It is an unconscionable loss.

For the past couple of years, certain medical specialists have been subject to a hiring freeze in Quebec.
While medical schools continue to produce these highly trained professionals, they cannot be hired in Quebec because the government has deemed those specialties redundant.

Each year at least one hundred specialists, even francophones, are given no option but to leave.

Read this story: Even francophone medical grads are leaving Quebec
Read this story: Have medical degree, must travel

Each doctor who leaves is a gift to another province or state.

The cost related to this loss, each year, can be compared to the price of two Ferrari automobiles, each with a price tag of $250,000, for each doctor lost.

That is the economic cost of incompetence and it doesn't even start to measure the human price that is a by-product of giving up so many doctors.

Imagine Premier Charest in a telephone conversation with New Jersey Governor Chris Christi

Premier Charest: 
Hi Chris, How's it going? I hear things are tough down there.

Gov. Christie
Tough isn't the word. I don't know about you guys up there, but we're swimming in a sea of debt. I've just cancelled a big roads projects and I'm going to cut back expenses like crazy. Civil servants, teachers, government employees, entitlements, everything is going to take a hit. The voters are screaming, but what can I do, we are broke. How's it going up there?

Premier Charest:

Can't complain. We've got labour peace and we haven't really made any cutbacks. For us, it's business as usual

Gov. Christie
Lucky Bastard! How do you do it?

Premier Charest:
Oh just sound management, I guess. Listen Chris, the reason I phoned is to ask you if you'd like a Ferrari. We're giving them away.

Gov. Christie
What? You're giving away Ferraris? FOR FREE??? 

Premier Charest:
Yup. For free. 

Gov. Christie
Why? 

Premier Charest:
Because we've got a surplus of them!  

Gov. Christie
Wow I better jump on this fast, it can't last!

Premier Charest:
Nope we do it every year. Maybe you'd like a Bentley next year!! Listen Chris, not to be rude, but I've got to go. I've got another hundred and ninety-nine calls just like this to make!!

Ridiculous? You bet.....

By the way Governor Chris Christie is the most fiscally responsible Governor that I know of, one of the few to face the debt crisis that plagues his state, head on.
If you want to hear a politician dish out a dose of reality, I beg you to watch this inspiring video..... Governor Christie: Day of Reckoning

In Quebec, the ratio between family doctors and specialists is decidedly out of proportion. That isn't to say that we don't need more specialists, it's just that we need family doctors much more.

Over two million Quebeckers don't have and can't get a family doctor. 

It isn't rare to find GP's whose practice services over 6,000 patients and this even on the island of Montreal where the government is refusing to hire more doctors on the basis that the shortage is more acute in the boonies.

It's hard to get a handle on a number like 6,000 patients, but consider that in order to do an annual checkup for each patient, the doctor must see 20 patients each day. Even at fifteen minutes (an average patient visit,) it represents over four hours per day before the doctor can attend to the sick!
The average patient visits his family doctor three times a year, so that means that some doctors are seeing up to 50 or 60 patients a day! Ideally doctors should see no more than 25 patients per day and should work about 210 days a year. LINK
Seeing 6,000 patients a years is unsustainable and leads to burnout as well as inferior treatment.

The reality is that the problem of matching doctors to patient needs is a question of sound management and a commitment to fix what is broken.

A good start would be to tell medical schools to produce doctors that we need, not ones that we don't want.
It's no different from adjusting an ice cream factory production line to produce the right ratio between strawberry and chocolate.

It isn't (pardon the expression) brain surgery.

Academic Fraud at Concordia University!

If you're not particularly familiar with Concordia University, don't feel bad, the school is nothing more than Glendale Community College on steroids, with a worse looking campus.
Concordia is the poor cousin to McGill University, whose shadow casts a mighty pall over everything that Concordia tries to be.

From its ignoble roots as a small night school run by the YMCA called Sir George Williams University, the school is the result of the merger with the Jesuit College of Loyola, way off in the west end of the city and today has grown to become one of the largest second tier universities in Canada.

The school's central campus is the ground floor in a singularly ugly Stalanist looking building in downtown Montreal that enjoys a much deserved reputation as dreary and soulless.

Much as it tries to aspire to greatness, the school will be forever known as the place where you go to earn a degree when you cannot get into McGill.

Now I know there are those who will angrily reply that they did indeed have the qualifications to get into McGill but chose Concordia, for whatever reason. 

It's like choosing to visit the Wax Museum while in Paris instead of the Louvre.

The current board of directors, rubber stamps decisions taken by the elite executive committee, which actually runs the university by fiat. This group is made up, with the exception of one, of a group of business tycoons, representing a who's who of powerful Quebec CEO's.

It's clear that the goal of these rich gentlemen is to play catch-up with McGill and somehow enhance the reputation of the school. They are obsessed with growing the school bigger and have embarked on an impressive building program. Try as they may, the school remains the Hamilton Bulldogs to the Montreal Canadiens. You can dress the team up in new uniforms and build a nicer arena, but they still play hockey in a bush league.

The difference between McGill and Concordia is the qualitative difference in staff and students and that will never change. There are not enough good quality English students to fill two massive universities in Montreal.

Poor staff relations and high turnover have always been the hallmark of Concordia which can best be illustrated by the unfortunate  Dr. Valery Fabrikant, who in a burst of rage over apparent slights by superiors, went on a shooting spree in 1992 that forever stained the University.

Screaming bloody murder about academic fraud and threats against his life by his Concordia superiors, who he claimed stole credit for his work, Fabrikant was branded insane and bundled off to jail forever.

It now appears, nutty as he was, that his charges of academic fraud were actually true! Read this.

Since the university has no interest in pursuing the truth in defence of a murderer, the motives for the murders will forever be chalked up to unprovoked acts of a madman.

Cover-up and misinformation has always been the hallmark of the Concordia board of directors and the shameful circumstances of the firing of the current Chancellor Judith Woodsworth has finally got those outside the school demanding an explanation.
The sacking of the chancellor midway through her five year term and the golden parachute of 700k awarded to her, was a bit hard to take considering that the Board of Directors announced that she had left for 'personal reasons.' The press release, announcing her departure was issued just before the Christmas break, causing many to believe that a cover-up was afoot. Link

“Gazette sources say members of the board’s elite executive committee made the decision to let Woodsworth go. This group includes the board’s chair, Peter Kruyt, as well as James Cherry, Brian Edwards, Jonathan Wener and Annie Tobias.” Link

Faced with a barrage of criticism and Ms. Woodsworth's reluctant admission later that she was sacked,

 “I would have been happy to continue as president, but some board members said that they had lost confidence and they felt I should step down,” she said. “I was not given the reasons, so that's all I can tell you.” LINK

In the face of the truth, The board continued to maintain the lie and arrogantly told all who'd listen -"That's my story and I'm sticking to it"

As with Martha Stewart and Richard Nixon, it's the cover-up that will be the downfall of the school.

Ms.Woodsworth's firing may have very well have been justified.
Certainly there is turmoil in the upper hierarchy of senior management with many recent departures costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in severance. Her decision to fire  two senior members of the audit staff, Ted Nowak and Saad Zubair over a wrongly expensed $250 restaurant bill is going to cost the school hundreds of thousands of dollars. Both men made some startling accusations in labour court over unjustified expenses claimed by Woodsworth, where they are disputing the firings. LINK

Ms. Woodsworth is accused of attending the Olympic Games in Vancouver as a guest of Bell Canada, just months before the school awarded the company a huge contract. Link fr

Revelations over huge salaries, lavish spending and obscene benefits accorded to higher ups is being splashed all over the Press with the Journal de Montreal taking extreme delight in exposing 'English' abuse in academia. Link fr

A  'Professional Development' fund of a $150,000 seems to be nothing more than a slush fund used by executives to pay for personal items. No rules exist other than the expenses should somehow be related to work. So personal computers and telephones are all included. Link 

For a long version of events, read the excellently prepared blog piece by Steve Faguy, entitled  The Clique de Concordia

While the media has covered the story admirably, perhaps they are too afraid of the powerful members of the Executive Council to say what should be said.

It's time for all of them to be gone. Telling a bold face lie to the public and refusing to retract it in the face of exposure is unacceptable.

Perhaps in the rough and tumble world of business, lying to shareholders is an acceptable practice, but running a university under that model is not.

Late yesterday, in the face of pressure, Mr. Kruyt finally issued a statement which reaffirmed that the Board of Directors is standing by the ridiculous fiction that Ms. Woodsworth resigned of her own accord.

“It was in this context and following discussions with members of the board during the month of December that Dr. Woodsworth made the decision to resign.”

He said confidentiality agreements limit what he can say publicly about the issue. LINK

DISGRACEFUL.......

I wonder if Power Corporation pays out the balance of employment contracts to people who quit of their own accord. 
It's time for the Minister of Education to react. The millions of dollars in golden parachutes, the inflated salaries and expenses is not something the public should be asked to finance.

As it stands, the actions of the Board of Directors of Concordia University is humiliating the entire Anglo community, which cannot nor should not abide by the continuing cover-up.

No donor should give a dime to the university until things improve.

Its time to clean up Concordia and it starts at the top.

Mr. Kruyt and his posse, need to do the honourable thing and resign. We'll send you a plaque.