Tory Policy-Making: The Dangers Of Simplistic Thinking

Fallacies of reasoning are easy traps to fall into. Whether it is absolutist thinking, straw man arguments or any number of other errors of thought, we are all prone to them, and I am sure that I am no exception. Our best defense against such faulty thinking is to try to cultivate our critical faculties as much as we can; one of the best ways of doing so is to read widely and deeply. There is no alternative, unless wants to make a virtue of simplistic and lazy cognition.

The latter, of course, is what the Harper regime has excelled at since it was first elected. Most issues have been reduced to an either/or option; perhaps the most infamous was the facile and inflammatory statement Vic Toews made over those who opposed his failed Internet surveillance bill, namely that people “can either stand with us or with the child pornographers.”

The Tory propensity for reducing issues to their simplest forms has done a grave disservice to the people of Canada, who have essentially been told time and again that they need not think deeply and engage vigorously with issues of public policy, but rather let an autocratic majority government decide instead what is best for them. People increasingly seem more and more passive when told, for example, that now is not the time to improve the CPP, OAS must be delayed to age 67, or home mail delivery must end, all due to cost constraints.

And yet, with critical thinking, there is always room for alternative approaches to public policy. One such instance can be found in Canada Post. Although a crown corporation with an ostensible degree of independence from government influence, the recent decision to end home mail delivery and raise stamps to $1 each has all the earmarks of a government bent on the erosion and ultimate dismantling of public programs and institutions. No compromises were seriously entertained, for example moving to three-day a week delivery to cut costs. It is a classically absolutist policy decision that will ultimately see the end of Canada Post.

In his column in Saturday's Star, Thomas Walkom introduces a notion that could, in fact, make Canada Post very profitable and facilitate the retention of delivery services: a postal savings bank, an idea that has been advocated by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.

Arguing that Canada Post has the technology and infrastructure to make such a venture both possible and highly profitable, Walkom points to New Zealand, France, Italy and Britain as successful examples of the concept:

New Zealand’s postal banking system, which was re-invigorated just eight years ago, now accounts for 70 per cent of the profit earned by that country’s post office. The comparable figure for Italy is 67 per cent.

France’s postal savings bank accounts for 36 per cent of its postal service’s pre-tax earnings. Britain is privatizing mail delivery. But it is not privatizing its system of post offices and postal savings banks. They’re too lucrative.

Indeed, as Walkom points out, former Canada Post CEO Moya Greene, who was hired away by Britain's Royal Mail, was an advocate of postal banking:

Speaking to a Senate committee three months before taking up her Royal Mail job, Greene said Canada Post was seriously considering the idea of offering full financial services.

“We . . . need to diversify the revenue stream and be in wholly different businesses than we are today,” she told the committee. “I note, for example, that many postal administrations have made a success of banking.”

Another compelling and potentially gratifying reason to offer such service resides in the conservative nature of our chartered banks which, many feel, should be shaken up a bit by competition. It is their conservative nature that is partly responsible for the fact that upwards of 15 per cent of Canadians are estimated to have no bank accounts at all, making them easy prey to the payday loan operations whose rates in Ontario can exceed 540 per cent.

So again, some reflection, analysis and good policy-making could solve two problems: the end of home delivery and the usurious interest rates that the poor without bank accounts must contend with.

But the Harper cabal is one that cares neither for nuance nor cerebration. After all, the solutions to problems are simple, reflected in just these mantras: privatization good, public ownership bad, and long live the 'free' market.

More Thoughts On Muzzled Scientists

Last week I wrote a post on David Schindler, the retired scientist who wrote about the pernicious effects of the Harper regime's muzzling of government scientists.

These letters from today's Star offer readers' thoughts on the issue:

Re: Remove the muzzle from government scientists, Opinion Sept. 20

In this incisive article Dr. David Schindler has essentially said to our governments: “J’accuse.” Is there any doubt that our federal government is actively encouraging the dumbing down of Canada by following the principle that the less the people know, the better for the government?

To paraphrase the famous two rules about moms: Rule 1. Your government is always right. Rule 2. In case your government is wrong, refer to Rule 1.

Jaggi Tandan, Hamilton

Scientists, remove your own muzzles. Find the courage to speak freely; act together. Stephen Harper can’t fire you all. He would be an international laughing stock.

Terry Watkinson, Toronto

David Schindler is correct that science is being compromised because of political and ideological opposition. Those consequences do not apply to environmental issues alone, but also to scientific facts taught in our schools in regard to evolution.

I agree with the National Centre of Science Education (Scientific American, Oct. 23), which states: “Evolution is one of the most important ideas in human intellectual history and students have the right to learn it. The common ancestry of living things and the mechanism of inheritance explain why the things are the way they are. Students and adults deprived of this knowledge are scientifically illiterate and ill prepared in a global, competitive world.”

Our world is in fatal competition among the various religions. There should be a few restrictions. Those who are intolerent creationists or those who display a specific religious garb should not teach science in our schools because of their own distorted influence on our small innocent children in Canada.

Kurt Heinze, Scarborough

Ignorance Is Bliss (For Some)

George Carlin left us far too soon.

Watch as he offers his trenchant views on what the corporate agenda wants and demands from us.

WARNING: SOME PROFANITY AHEAD:

The Digital Life

The Disaffected Lib recently wrote a post expressing ambivalence about the ubiquitous role that technology plays in our lives. It is an ambivalence I think many of us, especially those of an older generation raised on typwriters, print and analogue television, feel. On the one hand it has been an undeniable benefit, connecting us with a much wider world than we could ever know without the digital technology we now take for granted. On the other hand, the question arises as to whether or not a generation raised on instant access to information may have missed out on key critical-thinking skills that develop as a result of slow, deliberate and careful contemplation and processing of information.

Personally, I am not sure of the answer to that question. Every generation thinks that upcoming ones are not made of the same solid stuff of their elders. I do know, however, that there is the potential of great distraction thanks to today's technology, distraction to which none of us is really immune.

In today's Star, an opinion piece by Doug Mann entitled It's almost midnight for print culture posits a thesis that can be best reflected in this excerpt:

...the midnight of print is only a symptom of a more sinister cultural darkening brought about by digital media. This is a decline of the complex narrative as the centre of public life, the midnight of depth meaning.

Essentially, he argues that society's boredom threshold has declined as a consequence of the digital age, and that boredom is chiefly reflected in the declining interest in three key components of the examined life: complex arguments in theoretical thinking, extended adult narratives in fiction, and long serious conversations in everyday life.

From my perspective as a person of a certain 'vintage,' complex arguments may take a bit longer to process and grasp, but I am still very much interested in them. Mature fiction still appeals to me, and long serious conversations are an ongoing source of delight for me with certain select individuals. However, Mann's concern is not for my generation, but for the aforementioned young people without the larger context that we older guys and gals have.

Is he correct? I hesitate to embrace his thesis wholeheartedly, and even if my instincts suggest his logic is compelling, I could also argue that the above criteria have never had a wide appeal and may not necessarily be a victim of our current digital age, but rather a function of education and extensive and varied reading. While that observation may sound a bit elitist, I think it is true.

I would be very interested in hearing other people's views on this matter. Feel free, as always, to comment.

What I Really Want For Christmas...

Were I given to the Christmas flights of fancy that prompt people to compile impossible wish lists that usually include a desire for world peace, the end of disease, and the termination of world hunger, I would add one more: politicians who show respect, rather than contempt, for the intelligence of the people they claim to represent.

That, of course, has about as much likelihood of achievement as the other three mentioned above. Too many examples abound of the arrogant assumptions politicians make about people as they abandon the interests of the collective to pursue policies that cater to only a certain segment of society. And what especially rankles me is the fact that they so shamelessly tell the most outrageous lies that betray their contempt for the majority of us.

Take, for example, Pierre Poilievre, that earnest old young man of 33 who is now in his fourth term as an MP and has found much favour with the Harper regime. As reported by the Star's Tim Harper, Poilievre, a staunch believer in the kind of 'right-to-work' legislation recently passed in Michigan, loudly, proudly, hypocritically and disingenuously proclaims it as

...“workers freedom,’’ legislation that would give federal workers the option of paying union dues and joining their colleagues in a work stoppage.

“I am the first federal politician to make a dedicated push toward this goal,’’ he says. “I believe in free choice for workers and I am going to do my part to see that happens at the federal level and I would encourage provincial governments to do likewise.

Ah yes, the famous Harper regime concern for workers' rights.

But perhaps the Christmas season will bring an unexpected gift. Despite the fact that the same prevarications are proclaimed regularly by that Ontario emblem of ineptitude, the Progressive Conservative Party's Tim Hudak, there is some evidence of nascent critical thinking on the part of the electorate. An article in today's Star by Robert Benzie and Richard Brennan suggest that young Tim's embrace of all things right-wing is beginning to hurt him in the polls. Now only two percentage points ahead of the NDP, his party, which seems perilously similar to tea-party ideology, is finding some resistance amongst voters, according to a recent Forum poll:

Forum president Lorne Bozinoff said the most recent survey suggests that some of Hudak’s right-wing proposals are not resonating beyond his diehard supporters.

For example, only about a third — 34 per cent — of respondents believe compulsory union dues should be outlawed while 45 per cent disagreed with that plan and 21 per cent were unsure.

Only 8 per cent of respondents agreed that Community Care Access Centres should be shut down with 61 per cent opposed and 31 per cent uncertain.

Bozinoff said a lot of the Tory planks are “just not authentic enough for people in urban areas,” which is bad news for a party with a caucus made up of mostly rural MPPs.

So, we can only hope that as 2013 arrives, more and more people will don their critical-thinking caps and subject all political rhetoric to the kind of thoughtful analysis that a healthy democracy both demands and deserves.

The Taint of Ideology

Although I'm sure that I frequently fall victim to it, I am deeply offended by lazy thinking, our seemingly endless capacity to fall back on ideological bromides as a substitute for careful and reasoned consideration of an issue. Instances of such defective cogitation abound, and are especially noticeable in online commentary, where, for example, those of a left-wing or progressive perspective will regularly denounce their ideological opposites as 'fascists', while those on the right frequently take great delight in dismissing progressive notions as the work of 'leftards' or other such idiomatically imaginative labels.

The challenge in overcoming these reflexive reactions is considerable, but I sometimes wonder if part of the problem lies in how we phrase the issue or ask the question. All too often, the choices are presented as grim absolutes. For example, we are told by our political leaders that any measures to improve our society can be achieved only at a great cost to the economy. Never is there a middle ground, where a tradeoff between the two polarities is presented as a viable option. But perhaps we are not asking the right question.

The following video is a brilliant example of how to reframe the question. The library of Troy Michigan, fighting a well-funded Tea Party campaign opposing a 0.7% increase that would keep the facility from having to initiate severe cutbacks, came up with this strategy:

Stunningly effective in its simplicity, the campaign perhaps suggests that there may be many ways in which to frame a question, many ways to engage people so that they think about the implications of an issue rather than simply dismiss it reflexively on ideological grounds.

My reflections are prompted by Martin Regg Cohn's column in today's Star. Entitled Time to put Flaherty on the spot, his opening sentence says a great deal:

When Finance Minister Jim Flaherty debates pension reform with the provinces Monday, he’ll be counting on Canadians to tune it out so he can wait it out — yet again.

He goes on to discuss something many of us are well aware of, namely that far too many of our fellow citizens do not have sufficient savings to ensure a comfortable retirement, and that the average pension afforded by the Canada Pension Plan is hardly adequate to bridge the gap. Real reform that would ultimately lift many retirees out of poverty is very achievable at moderate cost, as attested to by a 30-page discussion paper prepared by federal officials. Unfortunately, Finance minister Jim Flaherty, doubtlessly prompted by ideology and the financial community to which he pays obesaisance, claims that this is not the right time to act, as additional payroll costs would hurt employment in Canada.

Cohn dismisses this fatuous defence of inaction effectively, and I hope you will take a few minutes to read his piece.

As a retired teacher who enjoys a pension that provides for a decent standard of living, I am acutely aware than many others struggle tremendously in life. However, unlike those commentators who disparage and debase people like me for my good fortune and would like to see me brought down to a more hardscrabble existence, I am very much interested in seeing the opportunity of comfortable retirement living extended to as many people as possible. And that can only be achieved by confronting and challenging the conventional 'wisdom' of our political 'leaders'.

We have become a nation of complacent people, content to use our cynicism about the political process as an excuse for our inactivity, our refusal to advocate for an improved society.

We can do and be so much better than this.

A Humbling Lesson About Critical Thinking

I am going to be offline for a few days as I join two of my fellow retirees on a trek to Algonquin Park, so I leave you with the following rather lengthy blog post:

While I am always mindful of the vital importance of critical thinking, logic, and clear writing, and try to practise all three, I also know that I regularly fall short of those ideals. Recently, I had a humbling reminder of my shortcomings.

It began innocently enough with an email from my son, who works in Alberta, about the IPhone5 that was just announced. I sent him an email I received about how, despite earlier promises by Apple, the conditions and wages under which the phone are assembled at Foxconn in China have not improved. Here is a link for further details on those conditions.

In response, my son sent the following:

Ya, I remember when the Foxconn head told the media that managing his one million animals (his employees) gave him a headache.

It's a trade off. If you mandate higher wages, that will be passed along in the price, making goods in Canada more expensive, which disproportionately lowers the standard of living of poor people here, which pushes them back into poverty living conditions. It's like what my policy ethics professor was saying about while its true lower class wages are stagnant, poor people are still much better off than ever before when almost every poor person now can afford a flat screen tv with Blu Ray, and a computer, and a smart phone, etc. These things used to be available to only the high income earner, but because of goods made cheaply in China, everyone can afford electronics today. I'm not saying increasing Chinese wages is the wrong choice to make, but keep in mind that it will contribute to poor people in Canada having a lower standard of living. But maybe from a big picture perspective higher prices are worth it.

One thing I learned from the MPP [Masters of Public Policy] degree is that what seems like a good policy on the surface often has devastating unintended consequences. An example is in Greece currently, where people weren't paying property taxes, so the government added it onto home electricity and gas bills to ensure people pay. A lot of people stopped paying their natural gas bills, and a court ruled it was illegal for utility companies to cut off people's gas, resulting in utlility companies being unable to pay for their gas, resulting in threats by the gas company to cut off all gas to utilities. Ultimately, the government stepped in to avoid this with a huge payment, and now it basically pays everyone's gas bills, AND still no one pays their property taxes. Let me know if you want me to send you an article on this.

Another example we were taught is in medieval England where rats were out of control. The King stated that you'd get paid a lot of money for each rat corpse you turn it. The end result for people started breeding rats, and the rat population exploded, and rats were everywhere. I can think of a dozen examples of unintended consequences.

My point is that on the surface the Apple situation seems difficult to oppose; who doens't want better working conditions? But unfortunately the people who are starting this petition probably aren't economists or public policy analysts, and cannot begin to predict the cascading and potentially devastating effects such a policy might result in. I'm quite skeptical these days of any publication which promotes a certain policy. That's why government is so slow moving, because they have to consult with every stakeholder to ensure they understand every possible implications, and be prepared for it.

Sorry for the long email, it just bothers me when everyone on the internet thinks they're a policy analyst these days. Saying "I think higher wages in China are a good idea because poor people need more money" is far too simplistic an analysis for me to accept as valid. But as I type this I realize that it may be geared at Apple voluntarily increasing wages, not the Chinese government mandating it, which is quite different.

To which I replied:

You have obviously given a lot of thought to the issue, Matthew, and what you say makes a lot of sense, but when all is said and done, the cheap labour is being exploited by Apple to maximize its profits, something I know that benefits their shareholders.

Ultimately, a balance between the competing interests needs to be struck, in my opinion.

He replied:

There are many large electronics manufacturer that manufacture through Foxconn; [as a result of wage hikes] their prices would go up as well. It's not just about Apple; other companies' share prices would go down.

How does this affect pension plans, and people retirement savings since a lot of people's nest eggs are in these stocks? There was a story yesterday about the iPhone 5 potentially propping up the US economy up to 0.5% annualized. What happens when all electronic sales go down due to higher prices? Will be have a recession? Probably not, but it will have an effect. Will the jobs go to Bangladesh instead? How much would this hurt the Chinese economy where growth is quickly falling? Could we have a global slowdown because of it?

It's a complicated issue is my point, and there is a lot to analyze before one can say it's a good idea or not. Where is the economic analysis with this policy suggestion? It seems to be missing.

And so the debate goes on. While I still hold that a balance needs to be struck, the correspondence with my son reminded me of how complicated issues are once one delves beneath the surface, and that all of us, manufacturers, corporations, shareholders and consumers have roles to play in the matter of workers' rights, working conditions, and wages.

And so I shall end as I began. Critical and logical thinking are ideals to which I aspire, but I do realize that the ideal can never be consistently attained. In the end, I guess, as with most worthwhile endeavours, all we can do is to consistently try our best.

See you in a few days.

If You Say It Enough Times ...

Recently I have been writing about the vital role critical thinking plays in a healthy democracy; this morning, after reading the letters section of The Star, I couldn't help but think about one of the oldest and most frequently-used techniques to inhibit that process: repetition.

Repetition , a strategy frequently accompanied by displays of demagoguery and fear-mongering, works on the premise that if you say something frequently enough, it will be perceived by many as true. A strategy especially favoured by the reactionary set, perhaps one the best examples is the myth that both small and large-c conservatives are good fiscal managers. A check of the fiscal health of both Canada and the United States over the past 30 years or so when under conservative rule easily puts the lie to that fable.

Yet the belief persists.

This morning, a letter written by Gary Brigden from Toronto, in part addresses this issue. Enjoy:

Re: Canada getting less competitive, Business Sept. 6

Once again the facts get in the way of pronouncements from the Harper government.

According to the World Economic Forum, Canada has slipped to 14th place in world standings in global economic competitiveness. Since 2009, Canada has slipped five spots in global competitiveness. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been in charge the whole time, yet he always speaks about how well Canada is doing compared to the rest of the world.

How is it that with all of our natural resources, our stable banking system and supposedly superior education system, we continue to slide downwards in global competitiveness?

Well, it turns out our education system is not training youth for the jobs of the future. Our research and development lags way behind most countries. And, most importantly, our government’s role in promoting innovation through procurement practices is severely lacking.

Ironically, while the Harper government seems to think lower wages, less safe work environments brought about through legislation and less attention to the environment overall will miraclously boost our GNP, the opposite is true.

As is usually the case, democratic socialist goverments account for 8 of the top 10 placements in global competitveness.

How is it again we keep hearing from Conservative and Republican governments that we must give more tax breaks to the corporations and rich people to create jobs, while the facts claim and prove the exact opposite?

An Embargo On Ideas In The Offing?

One of the pleasures of my retired life is getting together for coffee on a regular basis with my friend Ray, a retired vice-principal and one of the rare 'good-guys' of administration that I encountered in my life as a teacher.

When we meet, we discuss a range of topics, many of them political, but also others that could be classified as philosophical, social, and metaphysical. On our most recent meeting, I told him how much I enjoy our exchanges, providing as they do not only an opportunity for the clarification of my own thoughts, but also an expansion of their scope and range.

In many ways, our discussions are what I used to enjoy most about university, back in the days of small classes, small tutorials, and small seminars. I attribute whatever critical thinking skills I possess largely to that education.

Unfortunately, over the years the notion of a post-secondary education as a means of cultivating one's ability to think has fallen into disfavour, devolving in Ontario to its nadir when that master of division and dissension, Mike Harris was our premier. He floated but never actually implemented the idea of funding universities based on the percentage of people who were able to get jobs six months after graduation, a notion perhaps not surprising coming from the man who showed such disdain for nuanced and complex thought.

While not quite so blatant, the neo-liberal reactionary agenda is again at work in Ontario under Dalton McGuinty's 'leadership.' Glen Murray, the minister of training, colleges and universities has proposed sweeping changes in how the province conducts the business of education, most, it seems to me, prompted by cost-cutting considerations.

Two of the most insidious proposals involve making the basic undergraduate degree a three-year-pursuit, and establishing an online-university that would require no real contact with one's professor and classmates, thereby eliminating the opportunity for the dynamic exchanges that are the key to achieving new ideas and perspectives. The fact that these proposals do not serve the cultivation of critical thinking skills, I can't help but consider in my more paranoid moments, are quite consistent with a corporate agenda that seems to value only compliant, unquestioning employees, not independent thinkers capable of seeing a broader picture.

In any event, Heather Mallick has written a thought-provoking piece in today's Star which suggests that nothing good can come out of these proposed changes.

Mainstream Media's Silencing of Important Voices

Probably two of the most important voices challenging the status quo today are rarely if ever granted access to mainstream media anymore. Both highly respected, Pulitzer Prize winner and former New York Times journalist Chris Hedges, and Noam Chomsky, a towering intellect who has for decades been warning us of the fabricated reality being imposed upon us by corporate power, are, however, no means silent.

Thanks to alternative news sites such as Alternet.org and Truthdig.com, as well as their many books, both continue to provide sustenance to those yearning for more than the self-absorbed and avaricious consumerism relentlessly promoted today at the expense of critical and independent thinking, qualities that in many ways are actively discouraged by our corporate 'overlords'.

Today, the cherished freedoms promised in Magna Carta, the foundations for the West's constitutions, guaranteeing for example, freedom from arbitrary arrest, as well as the concept of 'the commons' encapsulated in "The Charter of the Forest' are under ongoing attack and devolution. Professor Chomsky writes lucidly on these issues in an address given in Scotland recently, which you can read by clicking here.

What The Extreme Right Doesn't Want Us To Think About

Although it hardly qualifies as a startling or original insight, something occurred to me this morning as I was reading my Sunday Star. Two front page items, one about the bullied bus monitor, Karen Klein, the other about five-year-old Lovely Avelus a Haitian girl rescued from the ruble of the earthquake two years ago, reminded me of a truth that is regarded as inconvenient in some quarters: we are a communal species.

While the hard right tries to get us to think only of ourselves, the better to promote its agenda of selfish isolation and rampant consumerism, the two aforementioned stories strongly help us to realize that when a face is put on human suffering, we respond with the magnanimity of a species that cares about each other.

It is a realization that our current 'government' does not want us to dwell upon as it promotes programs that largely depersonalize and objectify our fellow human beings. And it is always easier to ignore those people if they are not fully human in our minds.

Take, for example, some recent changes, either pending or already enacted:

Bill C-31, championed by Immigration Minister Jason Kennedy and coming into effect June 30, will see massive reductions in health care to refugee claimants.

SUBTEXT: Many of 'those people' are bogus claimants who are just trying to scam the system.

One of the more pernicious elements of Bill C-38, Harper's budget omnibus bill, is the change in Employment Insurance eligibility. This link from Sun News exemplifies why the government feels it can get away with these changes.

SUBTEXT: Jim Flaherty has said there are no bad jobs. Clearly, those who disagree with this program change are layabouts swilling beer and watching tv when they should be out 'pounding the pavement' like hardworking Canadians.

The changes In OAS age eligibility, far enough in the future not to affect anyone over the current age of 54, divides and conquers dissent. A sizable proportion of people will be unaffected, playing to their more selfish sides.

SUBTEXT: The government has repeatedly justified this change by saying that younger people should not be burdened with higher taxation to pay for the benefits of 'those people,' the older demographic.

So, by cultivating a mentality that thinks only in stereotypes, the Harper government is slowly but inexorably trying to convince us to abandon our traditional concern for the collective, one of the foundational values of Canada that makes it different from so many other countries.

Whether or not this agenda succeeds is really up to all of us, isn't it?

The Economy And The People

Several years ago, while he was still writing for Canada's self-proclaimed 'newspaper of record,' Rick Salutin penned a column entitled something like, The economy is doing fine, the people not so much. In it, he made some trenchant observations about how, over time, the well-being of the economy and the well-being of the people, once essentially synonymous, have sharply diverged. His thesis was that while the economy once served the people, today the opposite is true.

Echoing that thesis, in today's column entitled GM Oshawa job cuts show real economy hurting under Stephen Harper Thomas Walkom offers a similar perspective.

His biting analysis begins:

When Stephen Harper’s Conservatives talk about protecting the economy, they are speaking of an abstraction.

They override the right to strike of rail and airline workers in order to further this abstraction. They run roughshod over the environment in its name.

But the real economy is not an abstraction. It is people’s jobs and wages. It is our livelihood. It is how we get by.

And this real economy is not doing well.

Walkom then goes on to eviscerate the propaganda so proudly and persistently proclaimed by Harper Inc. that they are economic masters of the universe, the only party protecting the values and addressing the concerns of 'ordinary Canadians.'

For an inkling of whose interests the Harper regime is really protecting, please take a look at the article. Must reading in the arsenal of the critical thinker.

What is Truth?

An age-old question without a firm answer, it is one I find myself regularly pondering as I continue striving toward an ideal I know I'll never attain, that of being a consummate critical thinker. Bombarded by information as we are, it is often difficult to separate the proverbial wheat from the chaff and arrive at satisfactory conclusions. And of course, there is always one's own biases to contend with as major filters of that information.

Take, for example, my deep antipathy toward the Harper Conservatives. So used to their tactics of denigration, disparagement, denial and deception am I that part of me strongly believes truth in any form is alien to them, that their actions are driven not by any concern for us as a nation, but only as the subjects of a grand neo-conservative experiment.

But to interpret everything they do according to that restrictive framework is also to deny true critical thinking and is simply to be as reactionary as the right-wing.

And so, in the spirit of honest inquiry, I seek to make an honest assessment of the changes to Employment Insurance announced yesterday by Human Resources Minister Diane Finley. Is it, as Star columnist Tim Harper suggests, a reform that curiously dovetails "with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation view that a bunch of lazy layabouts are milking the system and forcing more ambitious offshore workers to do the work they won’t do" ?

Or is it "all about matching Canadians hungry for work with employers hungry for employing Canadians instead of foreign workers," as the government insists?

Another question: what commitment does Ottawa have to improving and expanding access to retraining programs for those seeking to upgrade their skills? And how do the E.I. changes affect them?

Like all policy conducted in secrecy instead of collaboratively with the public, this legislation invites the worst of interpretations, whether or not those interpretations are wholly warranted. Such is the price to be a paid by a regime committed to restricting the flow of information and treating those it 'serves' with palpable contempt.

That kind of philosophy of government certainly doesn't make it easier to be a critical thinker these days.

What Do Bumper Stickers Reveal About Us? Part 2

I recently wrote a post entitled, What Do Bumper Stickers Reveal About Us? Part 1, in which I contemplated the implications of the one that reads: If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free To Stand In Front of Them. I ended that post by offering the opinion that the second part of the slogan suggests that raising any kinds of questions about the military is tantamount to treason and therefore warrants execution. Now to the implications of that mentality.

Military policy is determined by government. Government decides whether to wage war, and with whom. Government determines whether or not military service is voluntary or mandatory. And it is government, unfortunately, that is frequently motivated by imperatives that are more political than they are noble in deciding to put our young soldiers into harm's way, paving the road to grievous injury, a lifetime of disability, and even death.

Take, for example, the war in Afghanistan. Even jingoists like Stephen Harper now recognize its futility, refusing to extend beyond 2014 any Canadian presence there. Unfortunately, however, with the loss of 158 lives, far too high a price has already been paid for a commitment originally made by the Liberal government under Chretien, and escalated under Paul Martin, for economic, rather than security reasons.

As observed by Thomas Walkom,

It was Chrétien’s successor, Paul Martin, who committed full battle troops, apparently under the impression that this would allow Canada to be viewed as a serious country by its allies.

More specifically, Ottawa hoped that its participation in the Afghan war would convince Washington to keep the U.S.-Canada border open to truck traffic.

So, to return to the frightening implications of the mentality being expressed in the bumper sticker, it seems to be advocating an unquestioning acceptance of authority, a naive trust in the purity of both governmental and military intentions, and a suspension of critical thinking on the part of the electorate.

Perhaps it is this philosophy that helped propel the Harper regime into majority government.

Perhaps it is this philosophy that has made it easier for Harper Inc. to lie both to Parliament and the people of Canada on so many occasions.

Perhaps it is this mentality that is helping to make it easier for the Prime Minister to reshape Canada through his massive and secretive omnibus bill, Bill C-38.

Indeed, I can't help but wonder how devotees of the bumper sticker If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free To Stand In Front of Them define the democracy that they are so quick to say the troops are defending, while ours so precipitously and perilously declines.

The Purpose of Education

As a retired teacher who spent 30 years in the classroom, I long ago recognized how crucial the development of critical-thinking skills is to a good education. During my career, the cultivation of these skills was really an intrinsic part of literary exploration as we questioned, speculated upon and analysed the motivations of characters from some of the world's great works, whether it was Shakespeare's Hamlet or Macbeth, or Coleridge's protagonist in The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, to name but three.

However, for a number of years now, such pursuits have often become regarded as rather 'soft', not what is needed in a society where 'hard-skills' are increasingly in demand. Of course, I and countless others would argue that critical thinking is one of the most important hard skills that are crucial to any thriving society, imparting as they do the ability to think widely, deeply and nimbly, facilitating adaptation not only in the workplace but also in the demands of daily life.

I have many concerns for the future, not the least of which is that as a society we no longer recognize the central importance of these thinking skills, making us increasingly prone to easy manipulation by those who do not have our best interests at heart. It is for this reason that I found an article on Alternet.org of particular interest; although written for an American audience, it explores education from two perspectives, the conservative and the liberal, and while its bias is clearly in favour of the latter, it offers some real food for thought as we confront, in our own country, almost daily assaults on logic and reason as the Harper regime perfects its campaign of demagoguery and denigration against all who disagree with it.

Entitled How the Conservative Worldview Quashes Critical Thinking -- and What That Means For Our Kids' Future, you can read the article here.

Where In The World Is This?

What follows is a series of pictures, the link to which my son Matthew sent me. They are all pictures of the same country, the last one offering you the only real clue as to its identity. I urge you to look at each one slowly, and when you come to the end and discover its identity, ask yourself what your previous notion of its essential geography was, and consider why you have that notion.

I will have a few comments following the photos.

The last photo, of course, is the only real indication that these are pictures of Iran. What was your preconceived notion of the geography? If you are anything like me or my son, you probably thought of the country as a largely arid wasteland, a rather forbidding, uninviting and sterile country.

Continuing with my didactic tone, I have to pose one more question: Why do so many of us have that notion of Iran? A big part of the answer, it seems to me, is that, aided and abetted yet again by the bulk of the media, that is the image western governments want us to have. To view it thus is to predispose us to seeing Iran as the monster in the current drama being played out regarding its alleged nuclear weapons' program, upon which I have written two previous posts.

In any event, I regard these pictures as timely reminders for all of us to cultivate and practise the skill of critical thinking.

Should you wish to see more pictures of Iran, please click here.

A Timely Warning From Gwynne Dyer

Author, historian and journalist Gwynne Dyer is offering a timely warning as the world seems to be going down the same uncritical path to bombing Iran as it did with Iraq and its non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

Says Dyer, in an article entitled Iran: Here We Go Again?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The same intelligence agencies are producing the same sort of reports about Iran that we heard eight years ago about Iraq’s nuclear ambitions, and interpreting the information in the same highly prejudiced way.

Critical thinking is possible only with extensive access to information and the willingness to digest that information, something the popular media either refuse to do or are incapable of. I recommend a perusal of Dyer's article to those who want more than propaganda to guide their thinking.

Time For A War On Error

Although I rarely reprint items from the newspaper in their entirety on this blog, occasionally someone says something so succinct and insightful that I can't resist. Roman Haluszka from Newmarket has the lead letter in today's Star that underscores the crucial role of critical thinking skills in today's world. Here it is:

Time for a War on Error

What we desperately need is a War on Error. We face these errors today economically, scientifically, historically, and socially.

Our economic errors are centered around budgetary issues as we spend far too much in providing subsidies to industries that don’t need them, from computer game makers to the oil and gas industry to agro-conglomerates and, of course, our wealthy elites (who pay far too little in taxes).

To pay for these errors we have been over-taxing the middle class, and are now engaged in dismanteling the “social safety net” that mainly benefits the middle class and the poor.

In the scientific realms we have allowed fundamentalist religious cranks the freedom to claim that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is false, and substitute the utter nonsense of Creationism in its place.

We also allow (mainly conservative cranks tied to the oil and gas corporatocracy) to challenge climate change and the impact of human-caused pollution on it.

History is constantly being revised in Orwellian ways to justify invasions of other countries, territorial grabs from subjugated peoples; and the careful omission of facts is used to misplace focus on one group of people for all acts of terrorism, despite that group having ties to only 3 per cent of all terrorist acts around the globe.

Socially, we have allowed error to lead too many people to misjudgment of others, from Mike Harris claiming unemployed single mothers would spend welfare cheques on beer, and that teachers only work 4.25 hours per day, to Stephen Harper’s claim that Canada’s biggest terrorist threat is Islamicism.

Society is becoming more racist in its views, thanks to these politicians and the likes of Fox News and Sun TV.

An attack on error is not only overdue, it is essential to our well-being as a society.

Please sign this petition urging Prime Minister Harper to stop threatening Michaela Keyserlingk and to stop exporting asbestos.

Critical Thinking: Do We Get The Kind Of Political Leadership We Deserve?

In many ways, I suspect that we get exactly the kind of political representation that we deserve. A population that is either largely disengaged from the political process or lacking in fundamental critical thinking skills invites our elected representatives to treat us with disdain, safe in the knowledge that few will rouse themselves to object. The effects of this kind of passivity and lazy thinking are most evident when politicos are campaigning for our vote, making outrageous promises and guarantees that show how little they really think of us.

Take, for example, Rob Ford's successful bid to become the mayor of Toronto, based almost exclusively on the promise to “end the gravy train” that was, according to the mythology advanced by the true believers, sapping the Big Smoke of its monetary resources and bleeding the taxpayers dry. So, in a mass Pavlovian response, the people elected the big fellow, only to now learn that the putative rich diet of the metaphorical locomotive never existed.

In an excellent piece by Roy James in today's Star entitled Rob Ford's gravy train running on fumes, we learn that, after spending $350,000 on a consultant telling them things they already knew, the City spends most of its money on core services, nary a gravy boat in site (forgive me for mixing my metaphors):

As on many other files, the civic leader was missing in action. So, too, was the anticipated list of huge savings to be found in bloated departments. And the hit list of waste and gravy.

It turns out that if Ford is going to find “savings” from the city’s water, garbage and transportation departments he will have to convince city council to keep the blue box out of apartments and condos, reduce snow clearing, cut the grass and sweep the streets less often, and end fluoridation of Toronto’s drinking water — all politically explosive issues.

For that — and a list of nickel-and-dime, nip-and-tuck manoeuvres — Toronto could potentially, possibly, save up to $10 million to $15 million in departments that spend $1 billion, one-third of which comes from taxes.

City councillors didn’t need to pay a consultant $350,000 to tell them where to find those “savings.” Council considers them every year — and often recoils from implementing them.

The mayor has fed the general expectation that the consultants from KPMG would use their fresh eyes to uncover bushels of low-hanging fruit that nobody had identified before — the “gravy.”

They haven’t.

Can this reality actually come as a surprise to the voting public? I would like to say no, but sadly, for the aforementioned reasons, the answer has to be yes.

I hope you will take a few moments to read the entire article.

Critical Thinking: The Assault On Reason

The following is a review I wrote about four years ago of Al Gore's book, The Assault on Reason, a work that addresses many of the problems arising when the populace at large lacks the capacity for critical thought. Although geared to an American audience, Gore's points are universally applicable, and especially germane to my previous post on critical thinking, the only real defense we have against government manipulation of the electorate:

Having just completed Al Gore’s The Assault on Reason, I have to confess to being profoundly disturbed. If his thesis is to be accepted, the greatest threat to the foundations of American society comes not from some shadowy terrorist organization but something much closer to home: the American government itself. It is an assertion that deserves to be taken seriously.

Drawing upon the beginnings of the American Constitution, Gore tells us that the Founders placed a heavy reliance on two interrelated notions: reason and a well-informed citizenry. These, plus the checks and balances implicit in the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial), were believed to provide the greatest chances of survival for this new experiment in democracy. However, under the current Bush-Cheney Administration, Gore suggests that these safeguards are failing

In an obviously well-researched effort, the author takes us through a variety of means whereby that administration sidesteps, circumvents, ignores or otherwise contemns the constitutional strictures on the executive branch. Were this a work of fiction, the reader would find the narrative implausible. Sadly, what Al Gore conveys is all too real.

This tale of administrative malfeasance has many facets: there is an indifferent legislative body more intent on raising money to get reelected than debating in Congress; there are the machinations of George Bush and Dick Cheney to reward their friends while at the same time ensuring that the average citizen is ill-served; there is the manipulation of people’s fears as opposed to appealing to their reason; all are grim reminders of what happens when people take their government for granted. Whether Gore examines the sinister repealing of pollution laws or the insidious misinformation put out about climate change, the reader quickly realizes that unless citizens promptly re-engage in the democratic process, there is little hope for the future of America’s grand experiment.

He does, however, end the book on a note of real hope. Although the historical notion of the marketplace of ideas, where people shared information and communicated with government in a meaningful way no longer exists, Gore suggests that a new infrastructure has arisen and is evolving whereby that marketplace might once again thrive. It is called the Internet. He points out the current egalitarian nature of the Web, whereby anyone with an opinion can form a group and invite others of like mind to join, whether it is a blog, a community forum, or a national meeting place. Its advantage is the absence of geographical or travel obstacles to forming or joining such groups, meaning that they are open to everyone. The potential to be once again well-informed and active is there, although I think the author downplays the difficulties inherent in having such a cornucopia of choice. How, for example, doe one separate the proverbial wheat from the chaff? Nonetheless, his underlying point is sound, namely that citizens now have a means to begin reinserting themselves in the democratic process in a meaningful way.

This is a book that has implications for all democratic governments and therefore should be widely read. As a Canadian, I couldn’t help but think of my own government under Stephen Harper which has, for example, severely restricted the flow of information about our troops’ mission in Afghanistan; facts that were previously widely available are no longer so, the justification being ‘national security issues,’ but more likely is a response to widespread criticism of the mission amongst Canadians.

A good first step on the journey to becoming an informed citizen who can work toward a renewed democracy is the reading of The Assault on Reason; it is a book alternately disheartening, inspiring, informative and provocative. At no time is it boring.