However, thanks to andrewcoyne.com, we hear that Saskatchewan's provincial flower is a protected species.

Hmmm.

I don't think that there is a big lily conspiracy. What's more likely is that the flower on Mr. Goodale's lapel is not the L. philadelphicum that is protected, but the more common garden variety L. tigrinum or Lilium lancifolium. (And who says that you don't learn anything on the Internet?) Of course, technically, the garden variety tiger lily is not Saskatchewan's provincial flower. Hm.

By the way, if anyone knows the background and history of why Finance Ministers wear flowers for budget speeches, feel free to give me a shout.

Anyway, I do like the idea of wearing provincial emblems for Budget Speeches. (Question: If John Efford were Finance Minister, would he wear a dead animal on his lapel? Just asking.)

(The Tiger Lily photo is courtesy of gimp-savvy.com and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.)

The discussion continues. BusinessWeek describes that there is a "Lesson for Female CEOs... like so many women execs, [Ms. Fiorina] never got the necessary operational experience..."

A quick question: exactly how will industry fix this problem if it doesn't hire women as operators/COOs? It was challenging enough for Ms. Fiorina to get the HP job! Did BusinessWeek really want her to have a COO role before obtaining the HP CEO position?

I dispute the explanation that "female CEOs are not prevalent because many female execs do not have operational experience". Firstly, several male CEOs have little operational experience. Secondly, is operational experience really necessary to be a CEO? I'm just not buying this argument.

(Even so, Ms. Fiorina is not suffering, with a nice cushy $21 million severance package.)

This is a rather old story. In early 2004, cyclist Lance Armstrong's cancer foundation sold canary-yellow rubber wristbands to help support cancer research. On the wristband was the word, "Livestrong". When Armstrong won the 2004 Tour de France, demand exceeded supply, and it was suddenly hip to wear one. I mean, why shouldn't we support Armstrong? Or, at least, cancer research? So anyway, many, many people donned wristbands. John Kerry wore one. So did Bush.

I, being out of the loop, found out about the wristband craze only a few weeks ago, when I asked a 27-year-old grad student about it. But a craze it is. The BBC promoted a blue anti-bullying wristband, championed by David Beckham, Kelly Brook, and Bono. One can purchase a pink wristband in support of breast cancer research. Or an orange wristband in support of AIDS research. Or a green wristband in support of the Philadelphia Eagles' Superbowl run.

But, like any other fad, there are now political and policy pressures as a result.

• What kind of message is sent when Bush and Kerry wear yellow cancer wristbands? Do they value cancer research more than that for heart disease?
• What should society do about "wristband knock-offs" -- those who sell yellow "cancer" wristbands that are not intended for a cancer foundation?
• Do anti-bullying wristbands really prevent bullying? (Indeed, early signs indicate otherwise -- the blue wristbands are so popular in the UK that kids are beating each other up for them).
• Should schools restrict the number of wristbands children wear? (Again, in the UK, several schools are moving to ban wristbands in their dress code requirements.)

(As an aside, in certain hospitals, a yellow wristband also means "do not resuscitate". Hrm.)

I have mixed feelings about the whole rubber-wristband craze. I mean, it's certainly well and good that people are giving money to cancer research. People should, however realize that when they spend $1.00 on a wristband, not all of the $1.00 is going to cancer research. You have to pay for the actual rubber, you know. And, Nike (who markets the "Livestrong" wristbands) states that about 23 cents go to the costs of the wristband. So, when one wears a "Livestrong" band, one is implicitly supporting Nike.

But maybe the 23 cents can be characterized as the cost of making a statement. I know that when I first saw the wristband, I coveted one. (Yes, this makes me shallow.) So, perhaps wearing the wristband is akin to stating our everlasting support to cancer research, or anti-bullying, or breast cancer research, or the Philly Eagles. Still, why don't we spend the entire $1.00 as a direct donation to the cancer foundation? That's why I have difficulties with this fad.

Or am I just an old fuddy-duddy? Perhaps I should wait for the Lance Armstrong hula hoop.

Points of Information wristbands are not for sale.