Sammy Yatim: One More Word

While I can't promise this will be my last post on Sammy Yatim, I do want to direct you to Rosie DiManno's column and a few comments from The Star's readers that remind us of the real nature of this tragedy.

Writes DiManno:

I am sickened by the content of civilian-shot videos which captured that episode in and around the 505 streetcar. Notice that officers on the scene never established a perimeter — cars continuing to drive by, curious pedestrians approaching closely.

I am sickened that a situation so obviously limited in threat, so prime for sensible management and a peaceful outcome, erupted in lethal gunfire by police.

I am sickened that, rather than de-escalate the situation, rather than wait for the SWAT team or a cop expert in negotiating stand-offs, those present — one present — went feverishly ballistic.

I am sickened that a teenager with a small knife, who’d done nothing more hostile than shout profanities, was felled by a hail of bullets.

You can read full piece here.

The letters:

I was a member of the OPP for 34 years and watched the tactics utilized by the Toronto police in “disarming” this individual. It was an execution!

There wasn’t any threat to anyone when he was alone in the bus. Surely, the officers could have backed off, waited for a police/counseling team to intervene and get him some help.

Instead, one more person dead, at the hands of a trigger happy cop, who now has to live with what he did.

Barry Ruhl, Southampton

I have always been a keen supporter of the Toronto police as I believe are most Torontonians. But these are not the same officers I grew up with in decades past. They are not nearly as approachable, friendly or helpful as their predecessors of past years. I hate to use the word “arrogant” but unfortunately this is what I feel.

Having travelled abroad and with particular to England, I can tell you there is a palpable difference in almost every aspect of how the police interact with the public. Perhaps the investigation of this shooting should be looking at police attitude and interaction with the public.

There is a disconnect and I am sure this is partially responsible for this event and similar events of recent years.

Ian Rattner, North York

There is additional converage to be found on The Star's website, and while there, be sure to check out Joe Fiorito's column that suggests a pattern of police shootings, many of which were indeed questionable.

When Is Claiming To Take Full Responsibility Just A Platitude?

When it is proclaimed by Chris Spence, the disgraced former Director of the Toronto District School Board who lost his job earlier this year for extensive plagiarism.



In what the Toronto Star describes as a 'far reaching interview,' Spence says “there are no excuses for what I did; I didn’t give credit where credit was due.” Yet in the next breath he blames the work of a number of assistants over many years for the unattributed material.

Spence talks about the 'soul-destroying depression' that has engulfed him since the scandal broke, but also blames his own “blind ambition” and relentless Type-A drive that left him little time to write his own work.

“I’m not looking to point fingers, but did I write everything? Absolutely not. I had support … as early as 1994,” said Spence, who by then was a full-time teacher, full-time grad student and writing movie scripts and books.

“When I look back at the blogs, the speeches, the presentations, I’m going to say that a large, large percentage, you had support to get some of that work done. But I recognize that I approved everything, I signed off on everything. I take full responsibility for that.

“I was out in the community a lot, presenting a lot, and I never really had the kind of time that you need to sit down and put pen to paper.”

I guess this is the 'blame the underlings' defence, made famous by politicians and senators.

Yet Spence claims to take 'full responsibility.' The man is clearly contrite.

Never admitting that he purposely stole other people's words and ideas, something that is obvious when the evidence is examined, Spence suggests that he read many things, and those ideas just kind of jibed with his own thinking and then - presto! Quite frankly, I used to hear more creative excuses from my students.

Oh, and he also adds that he was juggling too many professional tasks to be thorough in his footnotes. And what footnotes might they be, Dr. (at least until his plagiarized Ph.d is completely reviewed) Spence?

Clearly delusional, the plagiarist hopes some day to be “back working with kids. I’m an educator at heart, that’s who I am. I think I have some gifts and talents; I hope I get an opportunity to share and make a difference in the future.”

My disgust with Spence remains unmitigated. His betrayal of both educational principles in general and his position as Director in particular renders him unfit for any further public position.

But there may be some light ahead for the disgraced one. Perhaps a new career awaits him. Confessionals in this day and age are very popular on the road to rehabilitation. Can an appearance on an Oprah-type show be expected as the next step? He has certainly laid the groundwork for it here.

Our Hands Are Not Entirely Clean Either

Last evening I wrote a very brief post with a link to pictures depicting the violence that ensued in St. Petersburg, Russia recently at a small gay pride gathering. I opined that one might want to carefully consider whether to spend one's tourist dollars in a country where hatred and prejudice against gays is widespread. Getting ready for bed, I said to my wife that I suppose if one were to use national behaviour as a travel criterion, while Canada would likely fair reasonably well in attitudes toward the gay community, it would not come out very well in its treatment of many other groups, Aboriginals coming immediately to mind.

Reading this story in today's Star, however, made me realize that we still have some distance to go in welcoming the gay community into full society:


Karen Dubinsky was shocked when she opened the mail and found a letter laced with homophobic slurs that said her family was not welcome in the city and they should leave “before it is too late.”

“I just had this chilling, weird sense of the contents,” said the Queen’s University professor who lives in the city with her partner Susan Belyea, 48, and their 13-year-old son.

The letter claimed to be authored by a “small but dedicated group of Kingston residents devoted to removing the scourge of homosexuality in our city.”

While I suspect the claim that the hate mail was authored by a dedicated group of Kingston residents is more the product of the author's diseased imagination, it is nonetheless shocking that such retrograde and twisted perspectives continue today.

The letter's ominous tone continues:

“We will watch and wait, and then strike, at home and office, as need arises,” the letter read.

While the matter is now in the hands of the Kingston police, friends, family and community are rallying:

Dubinsky said her family and friends have taken to sitting on the front porch to “be visible.”

She added that her family is grateful for the community response, which has included flowers delivered to her doorstep, phone calls and support rallies.
“That helps us meet this kind of hatefulness,” she said. “It makes it easy to find courage.”

I suspect that such collective action and support are indeed the most effective responses to such unhinged mentalities.

Separated At Birth?

Both Richard Nixon and Stephen Harper certainly seem to have been raised with the same bedtime story, and to have taken it at face value.

Star Readers Opine On Harper's Self-Reported Ignorance (I Didn't Do It) And Mike Duffy's Avarice

Some days, all I have to do is open my newspaper for my blog post. Today is one of those days. Enjoy.

Harper kept public in dark, July 6

When the stuff hits the fan, “plausible deniability” allows politicians to say, “I didn’t know; no-one told me.” This is what our Prime Minister would have us believe about Mike Duffy’s bailout with Nigel Wright’s cheque.

But now we hear from the RCMP that at least three others in his office, besides Wright, knew about it. This contradicts the Prime Minister’s claim that it was all Wright’s doing.

By all accounts, Stephen Harper is a control freak, so his denials stretch credibility to the breaking point. The real question is not what he did or didn’t know, but rather: how could he not have played a role in this comedy?

Perhaps this is a case of “implausible deniability.”

Salvatore (Sal) Amenta, Stouffville

In the best case scenario — gross negligence and incompetence — Mr. Harper expects us to believe that there is this big conspiracy going on right under his nose and he is wilfully blind to it.

In the worst, he is part of a criminal conspiracy and cover up.

Thomas Wall, Whitby

Senator Mike Duffy’s alleged use of taxpayers money to increase his wealth is only the symptom of a culture of entitlement by politicians of all parties. Politicians use our money as if no one owns it. The average Canadian citizen is becoming more mistrustful of politicians for that very reason. The government wants every penny that they can get from taxpayers of this country and this how they spend it.

It is unfortunate that Senator Duffy appears not to have learned a simple rule: “The pig that remains at the trough longest gets slaughtered first.”

Calvin Lawrence, Ottawa

“We Are Sleepwalking To Disaster . . " *

Many in the blogosphere are doing a stellar job covering the climate-change beat, including The Disaffected Lib, who has had several recent thought-provoking posts on the subject. So I really have nothing new or insightful to add, other than to draw your attention to a story covered in today's Star, written by its environment reporter, Raveena Aulakh.

Writing her story around a new report released by the United Nations’ World Meteorological Organization covering the world's climate from 2001-2010, Aulakh reports the following:

It was the warmest decade for both hemispheres.

There was a rapid decline in Arctic sea ice, and an accelerating loss of net mass from Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

Sea levels rose about 3 millimetres annually, twice the 20th-century rate.

Deaths from heatwaves increased dramatically to 136,000, compared with fewer than 6,000 deaths in the previous decade.

The average global temperature was 14.47 C, which is 0.21 degree warmer than 1991-2000.

Almost 94 per cent of countries logged their warmest 10 years on record.

Rising sea levels, acidification of oceans, and glacial melting at a rate far faster than had been anticipated in earlier models - it would seem that we have entered into a kind of recursive loop that will be very difficult, indeed, impossible to break, if all of our politicians continue to shy away from both the financial and political capital expenditures required, and we continue our personal complicity in that inaction.

My wife often opines that the human race is turning out to be a failed experiment. It is a perspective I have long resisted, but I am beginning to think she is correct. Our collective capacity to ignore the obvious and shy away from remediation, even while the world both burns and drowns, seems ample testament to our monumental failure as a species.



* John Smol, a researcher on environmental change at Queen’s University.

Linda McQuaig: Alberta And Climate Change

For me, one of the most disappointing aspects of the media coverage of the Alberta floods has been the relative dearth of commentary linking this monumental environmental disaster to climate change. To be sure, some prominent people have made that linkage, but by and large it has been omitted from mainstream coverage of what is probably Canada's worst flooding in our history. Television networks and major newspapers have seemed quite reticent about putting the two topics in the same story, for reasons I'll leave you to consider.

Always outside and beyond the mainstream, my newspaper of record, The Toronto Star, has Linda McQuaig's latest column in this morning's edition. In it, she draws a sharp contrast between the concerted action that was taken by the world in the 1970's to address the problem of ozone layer depletion with the inaction today on climate change. The reason for the difference?

The climate battle, launched in 1988 right after the signing of the Montreal Protocol, has been played out in a very different age — one dominated by the mantra “government bad, private sector good” when corporate power has been at its zenith, enjoying a virtual stranglehold on key public policy decisions.

McQuaig says that the footprint of corporate power and obstructionism is most profoundly evident in the United Nations which, she asserts, has been infiltrated and subverted:

With the new anti-government, pro-business paradigm, the UN was transformed from a body aimed at regulating and monitoring international corporate behaviour to one that “partners” with the corporate sector, note Sabrina Fernandes and Richard Girard in Corporations, Climate and the United Nations, a report published by the Ottawa-based Polaris Institute.

Taking full advantage of this change, the fossil fuel industry became deeply embedded in every aspect of the UN climate change process, using its inside role to effectively scuttle progress, like a fox setting up headquarters right inside the henhouse.

As always, Linda McQuaig has something very important to say. I hope you will take a few moments to check out her entire piece, which includes a couple of very interesting links that bolster her contentions.

On Corporate Welfare

David Lewis, the one-time head of the federal NDP and father of Stephen Lewis, used the phrase corporate welfare bums in his 1972 federal election campaign to describe the various subsidies handed out to the corporate world. It was a withering jab at the world of business, so proud to trumpet the merits of unfettered capitalism while not too proud to take every bit of free money that government has to offer it.

Today, that concept has never been more relevant. Probably the most egregious example of corporate welfare will become apparent in the coming months as the rest of Canada ponies up to pay for the environmental devastation wrought in Alberta that is, in my mind, the direct result of climate change, change which the corporate world continues to deny, evident in its ongoing concerted effort to oppose any measures that might ameliorate its most devastating effects. Corporate Canada will be asked for nothing by the Harper regime, which will continue to lower its tax rates as soon as the deficit is eliminated.

The futility of corporate welfare is, I think, very nicely addressed in the lead letter appearing in this morning's Star as Morgan Duchesney of Ottawa points out the folly of lowering corporate tax rates and getting nothing in return:

Re: The Great Recession still lingers, June 22

Stephen Poloz, the newly minted governor of the Bank of Canada, is working hard to distance himself from former governor Mark Carney’s “dead money” warnings to corporate Canada. Does that mean that Poloz also approves lowering tax rates for non-investing Canadian corporations that happily ship jobs to low-wage destinations like China?

As former CEO of Export Development Canada, Poloz is an expert proponent of corporate welfare. As corporate Canada continues to avoid research and development investment while stridently demanding lower taxes, the regime of public subsidy for private profit continues unabated under the Harper government’s well-advertised Economic Action Plan. Such behaviour exemplifies the eternal mythology of the so-called free market.

Private sector investment could reasonably be left to corporate Canada if our industrial titans were not so addicted to public subsidy. Ongoing multi-billion-dollar tax breaks and outright grants to the energy sector are good examples of this public-risk- for-private-profit model. In spite of the cost to working people, stiff corporate resistance to investment remains strong, although this hesitation is categorized as “thrift” by the generous Poloz. There is every indication that the Harper government plans to reward Canadian corporations with further tax cuts in spite of their continued reluctance to invest their profits in necessary research and development.

Of course, our political leadership has little desire to take a hard line on the business elite, who are, after all, their funding source and future employers. The tired excuse about not wanting to punish “job creators and innovators” is a bit threadbare in light of abysmal levels of corporate investment in Canada.
If Canadian corporations are operating overseas while shifting profits to low-tax jurisdictions, exactly who is benefiting and just how “Canadian” are these companies if they employ foreigners and only benefit arms-length stockholders?

Are Canadians Experiencing Buyers' Remorse?

Many of us who blog, tweet, or post political views on Facebook cannot, I suspect, avoid the periodic and unsettling notion that we are simply 'preaching to the converted' instead of reaching a larger audience with our perspectives and commentaries. Yet we persevere, both as a catharsis for our own outrage over social and political injustices, especially (at least for me) those induced by the Harper cabal, and in the hope that our words may influence those who don't necessarily feel as we do. But it is always just a hope.

That is why I take such delight when I read things in the mainstream media that suggest our discontent is shared by a constituency much wider than our blogosphere, thereby offering reasons for renewed optimism that changes in Ottawa are indeed quite possible. Such is the case today in reading The Star's Chantal Hebert. Entitled Stephen Harper’s legacy in government may be nastiness, her column suggests that those who made possible the Harper majority are now feeling buyers' remorse:

The latest voting intentions sounding — done by Harris/Decima for The Canadian Press earlier this week — shows the Conservatives in second place, seven points behind the Liberals and more than 10 points down from their 2011 level.

While acknowledging that the results stem in part from Justin Trudeau's recent assumption of the Liberal Party leadership, Hebert suggests they are also a natural consequence of the politics of negativity that Harper and his functionaries have continued to embrace so rabidly, despite their majority:

With a consistency that would have been exemplary if only it had been exerted on the policy front, the majority Conservatives have treated Parliament and the country to [ongoing contempt].

At times it has seemed as if, having fought so hard to conquer a majority, they felt compelled to act like an occupying army rather than a government accountable to all.

Hebert makes the point that Canadians are used to their politics being rough, reminding us of some of the antics and abuses of power that characterized the Chretien reign. She does observe, however, that his government's saving grace was

a series of signature policies for which support extended outside the core Liberal base. A return to balanced budgets, the Clarity Act and a refusal to follow the Americans’ lead on Iraq are three examples.

By contrast, all Harper has left is his die-hard 'true believers', the rest totally alienated from his antics:

He promised to fix the democratic deficit that plagued Parliament. Instead Harper’s contribution to that deficit already surpasses that of his predecessors.

The Conservatives were going to end the culture of entitlement that pervaded previous governments. Instead, some of Harper’s senators and ministers have embraced that culture in relative impunity.

The prime minister also vouched to restore accountability to government. Instead, he has presided over increasingly opaque budgets and a Kafkaesque regime of communication designed to obscure rather than inform. The auditor general himself has trouble following the money through the federal system these days.

Despite my retirement, the English teacher within lives on. Upon reading Hebert's observations, my mind went to a scene in Shakespeare's Macbeth, when, near the end of his unjust and cruel rule, Macbeth is facing invasion from the English, who are helping Scottish patriots overthrow the tyrant. Someone asks about Macbeth's status:

13 Some say he's mad; others that lesser hate him

14 Do call it valiant fury; but, for certain,

15 He cannot buckle his distemper'd cause

16 Within the belt of rule.

ANGUS

Now does he feel

17 His secret murders sticking on his hands;

18 Now minutely revolts upbraid his faith-breach;

19 Those he commands move only in command,

20 Nothing in love. Now does he feel his title

21 Hang loose about him, like a giant's robe

22 Upon a dwarfish thief.

(Act 5, Scene 2)

I, and many others live in the hope that the dwarfish thief currently reigning in Ottawa is soon to experience a 'wardrobe malfunction' and lose his Prime Minister's robes. Hebert's article gives me renewed hope for that outcome.

On Insincere Apologies

I'll probably have more to write later, but for now, here are some always reliable insights by Star readers on the 'apology' from RBC CEO Gord Nixon:

Royal Bank chief executive makes public apology, April 11

An open letter to RBC President and CEO Gord Nixon:

Don't outsource jobs at your Canadian operations at the expense of your Canadian employees. That's the message we RBC customers want you to get and act upon. Your Canadian customers and shareholders are the ones who made your bank rich enough to expand around the world. Show us and your loyal hard-working employees some respect by not jumping at every strategy to enhance your profits even further. It's not like the bank is strapped for cash. How much is enough for you?

John Bruce, Niagara Falls, Ont.

Businesses have a right to find ways to reduce operating costs, and if it means lowering labour costs, so be it. However, displacing local workers and shifting them onto the ranks of the unemployed will increase the number of recipients and the cost related to the EI benefits program. It is well known that governments in Canada have being gifting banks and many other corporations with all kinds of largesse at our expense. So perhaps now is the time for them to shoulder some of the responsibilities to support the resulting social and economic upheaval that their choices have caused. All levels of government should levy a hefty tax per job lost on those businesses that choose to farm out jobs.

Frank Arturi, Etobicoke

Why would anyone consider a formal apology from RBC acceptable when the jobs in question are still being outsourced? There is something morally wrong with a business model that financially rewards executives for taking good jobs away from Canadians under the guise of exceeding shareholder expectations. Outsourcing decisions to drive corporate profit and executive compensation come with a significant ongoing cost to our society.

Jean Binns, Burlington

More On RBC's Outsourcing From Star Readers

I have a busy morning ahead, so for now I take the liberty of reproducing two letters from this morning's Star that make some excellent points as to how to apportion blame for the outrageous corporate practice of outsourcing Canadian jobs, most apparent in the current RBC imbroglio. As well, if you have the time, check out this column by Heather Mallick, who writes on the same topic.

Royal Bank faces heat over foreign worker plan, April 8

The outsourcing by the Royal Bank of Canada of work done by Canadians to foreigners is the logical outcome of the Conservative government's policy of allowing temporary workers into Canada and generally supporting the large-corporation agenda put forth by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and their ilk. The bankruptcy of these policies is brought into sharp relief when one of the most profitable corporations in Canada enhances its already huge profitability a little bit more at the expense of Canadian employment.

The government's Economic Action Plan should be retitled “Corporate Welfare Plan.” The government has no coherent approach to dealing with the twin job-reduction forces of globalization and technology, other than tax cutting, cost cutting and making Canada safe for corporations.

As for RBC, shame on you. Their stated defence for their action is the usual meaningless corporate blather about “reducing cost to reinvest in initiatives that enhance the customer experience.” Really? When did any of the large Canadian banks put customers ahead of profits?

John Simke, Toronto

RBC's decision to replace Canadian workers with foreign workers under the faulty new federal legislation is an affront to Canada and Canadian workers. Profits at all costs shows a disrespect to Canadian workers.

Since RBC is doing quite well financially, this move is troubling. With five unemployed workers in Toronto for every job, many of them low paid, this is a further slap in the face.

It is clear that RBC shows no moral responsibility to the country and its people, who made them rich. While the executives of this company make millions, they have lost touch with the rest of the population.

Joan Dolson, Toronto

More On Wealthy Tax Cheats

As noted in a previous post, many of our more prosperous citizens feel no obligation to the country that made their great wealth possible. Rather, they are quite happy to hide it in offshore financial institutions, which, while being ethically questionable, is not illegal. However, many of them are also committing crimes by not declaring profits that accrue to them in those faraway places, and tax evasion is most definitely illegal.

Today's Star readers weigh in on the issue in their usual insightful manner. I am taking the liberty of reproducing their letters below:

Rich can no longer hide millions; Crack down on tax havens, Editorial, April 5

Regarding the recent articles about tax havens and governments world-wide saying they will now put more effort into getting those public monies back from the super-affluent. Well, the world’s supposed democratic governments have been aware of these billions of dollars illegally absconded by the rich and powerful for a long time. It has only been through the efforts of private citizens (journalists, authors, the Tax Justice Network) that this information has become common knowledge. Why is it that, as the editorial states, “. . . until recently there has been little political will to crack down on the super-affluent”?

The U.S. Republican party, our own Conservative government and democratic governments world-wide have been crying their “austerity” mantra ad nauseam, claiming massive shortfalls in revenues as their reason for cannibalizing tax-funded social programs. Yet they cogently and deceitfully failed to mention or address the flagrant abuse (tax evasion) by the world’s 1 per cent in causing these monetary shortfalls. Collusion between our elected officials and the super-rich is common knowledge. So now the question is why do the super-affluent and their political lackeys seem so determined to undermine the finances, wealth, health and security of The People (99 per cent) in our democratic systems of society?

Al Dunn, Kingston

Any Canadian with money in tax havens should be treated like the holders of accounts in Cyprus banks — charge them 60 per cent when they are found out. Tax havens should be made impossible through international laws. They work to the detriment of society.

Tony ten Kortenaar, Toronto

Just Another Pretty Face

Those of a certain age will remember the much beloved 1970's sitcom, The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Set in a television newsroom in Minneapolis, the series chronicled life both inside and outside the studio of its many and varied employees, who ranged from the gruff but ultimately lovable Lou Grant, played by Ed Asner, to the vapid but ultimately harmless news anchor, Ted Baxter, played by the late Ted Knight. The handsome broadcaster was essentially a sendup of all those 'pretty faces' one sees on TV who in reality are as sharp as the proverbial bag of hammers.

Reading Thomas Walkom's piece in today's Star about Justin Trudeau and his now unimpeded march to the Liberal leadership, I couldn't help but think of good old Ted. Walkom makes the following tart observations about Justin:

That Trudeau has such charisma is a given. In public, he is confident and engaging — earnest but with a sense of humor.

He presents himself as genuinely likeable, a trait that should serve him well against Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

But the fault for which Garneau once chided him is real. Trudeau’s public utterances don’t have much content. To listen to him at, say, a university campus event is to emerge disappointed.

He sounds and looks fine but doesn’t say much.

And it is, of course, this latter observation that should be of concern to those who see Trudeau fils as the one who will lead them out of the political wilderness. A man long on platitudes (he, along with the other contenders, as Walkom notes, is in favour of youth employment, transparency, openness and democracy,) but shockingly short on specifics, Trudeau and his supporters may come to realize that the so-called 'wow-factor' associated with his 'leadership' will wear thin very quickly, given that today's citizens, when they bother to vote at all, are a far more cynical lot than those who existed in the sixties and pledged their fealty to his father.

Yes, on the Mary Tyler Moore Show, everyone loved Ted Baxter but few, I suspect, would have wanted him to sit in news director Lou Grant's chair.

Some Thoughts on 'Tea Party Tim'

I wish I could take credit for the title sobriquet describing Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak, but that distinction lies with Val Patrick of Hamilton whose letter, along with several others that appear in today's Star, I am taking the liberty of reproducing below. Enjoy!

Tea Party Tim Hudak has launched into another round of union-bashing. This time he is focused on the thousands who have no right to strike and are required by law to have wage and benefit disputes settled by arbitration. His target this day was the firefighters of Stratford.

Attacking the decision in their case, he asserts a need for new legislation requiring arbitrators to “factor in the ability to pay.” Either Mr. Hudak is actively misleading the people of Ontario, or is too lazy to read the current legislation.

The Fire Protection and Prevention Act already requires arbitrators to consider: 1. The employer’s ability to pay in light of its fiscal situation; 2. The extent to which services may have to be reduced, in light of the decision, if current funding and taxation levels are not increased; 3. The economic situation in Ontario and in the municipality; 4. A comparison, as between the firefighters and other comparable employees in the public and private sectors, of the terms and conditions of employment and the nature of the work performed; and 5. The employer’s ability to attract and retain qualified firefighters. Similar requirements exist in the legislation covering others who are denied the right to strike.

Mr. Hudak is simply on a Republican-style campaign seeking to mislead and divide enough people to let him squeak to power. The only pay that needs legislating is that of the corporate CEOs who bankroll Mr. Hudak’s attack on workers and their unions.

Val Patrick, Hamilton

Tim Hudak has become a crashing bore. It’s always the same tired old right-wing bromides from this guy: unions bad, business good, cut, slash, burn.

We’ve been there, done that in the 1990s and what did we get? Longer wait times at hospitals, an education system more focused on test scores than critical thinking, a shredded social safety net that tosses the poor and disabled on the scrap heap of society and imprisoned them there financially.

Blind faith in business landed us in the worst recession since the Great Depression. The only good thing about an election now would be the end of Hudak’s tenure as party leader. So he should be careful what he wishes for, he just might get it.

John Bruce, Niagara Falls

Tim Hudak’s claim that unions are stalling Ontario’s economic recovery is factually incorrect. Corporations and their CEOs are making historical profits and salaries on the backs of Ontario’s workers.

Making such inflammatory statements only fosters resentment and anger; clearly, a more substantive and logically articulated policy is warranted. Inflating unemployment ranks, selling off profitable crown corporations and killing unions is mediocre thinking. Ontarians experienced that same kind of neocon economic policy during the Mike Harris era, we don’t need another dose of revisionist history.

As a retired pensioner, please don’t give me any guff about corporations being abused by union bosses, I pay a higher rate of tax than your corporate friends and I don’t have the luxury of tax loopholes.

RBC chief Gordon Nixon took a million dollar salary cut in 2011, but he rebounded to make $12.6 million the following year. Somehow I don’t feel sorry for him. What could he possibly have in his head that’s worth more than $12 million a year?

Hudak’s former boss, Mr. Harris, attended 18 corporate meetings last year and earned $780,000; that’s obscene. With that as a backdrop, Hudak wants to deny Ontarians a decent standard of living?

Nicholas Kostiak, Tottenham

So Mr. Hudak is once again attacking members of unions and environmentalists, blaming them for Ontario’s economic woes. If he is truly concerned about controlling spending and reducing debt he should look at himself, his party and the very wealthy, many of whom suppot his party.

Instead of attacking unions, that made many workers middle class, and those who believe that companies need to be part of the solution to our environmental problems, Hudak should do the following: cut his own salary, benefits and perks; increase his short working year; make the wealthiest pay their fair share of taxes; and close loopholes that allow the wealthy to financially benefit in ways that the average Ontarian cannot.

These suggestions, though supported by many, would never be supported by Hudak and the Conservatives because they would adversely affect many of those who support his party. Mr. Hudak should stop putting profit ahead of people and recognize the real pro-family beliefs of earning a livable wage and saving our planet.

Ken Walters, Toronto

Ongoing Outrage

The host of letters appearing in today's Star attests to the ongoing public outrage over the Senate porkbarrellers. Although in many ways a mere sideshow to the endemic and systemic problems that face our governance, it nonetheless illustrates that Canadian anger, when it can be aroused, can be formidable.

I am taking the liberty of reproducing a few of the shorter missives below, and I also highly recommend Thomas Walkom's column, in which he lambastes the almost jesuitical reasoning being propounded by defenders of this Senate malfeascence:

They preach austerity but secretly practice gluttony, stealing from the poorest of the poor to pad their many mattresses. For those Senators their day is nigh.

Richard Kadziewicz, Scarborough

Always the outspoken critic of everyone else, I think it’s time that Mike Duffy and his Cheshire Cat smile disappear and head back to Blunderland.

Dave Lower, Brampton

If you have lost your job and are collecting EI, the government might send someone to your home to check if you are cheating the taxpayers.

If you are a senator, the prime minister and government House leader will defend your expenses in the House of Commons.

Why the difference? Because they know where you live, but they do not know where the senators live.

Keith Parkinson, Cambridge

Surely smart people like Ms Wallin and Mr Duffy had some question in their minds as to the validity of their expenses and residency status as they completed their expense forms and filed their residence confirmation documents. These actions from our appointed leaders are disgusting and Canadians do not deserve this treatemnt.. Let’s boot them out of the Senate now.

Doug Gameroff, Toronto

If Mike Duffy was unable to read the rules and understand them when most of the senators did, then it follows he is too dumb to be in the Senate. Shame! Resign!

Stella Watson, Toronto

Free Trade - Part 2

Continuing with the theme of yesterday's post, I am taking the liberty of reproducing some letters that appear in today's Star on free trade. They nicely puncture the myth, propagated and perpetuated by the right, of its unalloyed benefits to Canada:

Brian Mulroney and the harsh reality of Canada-U.S. free trade: Hepburn, Feb. 21

For many years before and after Brian Mulroney's free trade agreement I worked as a mechanical engineer with consulting firms. During those years I was involved in the design of a number of food processing plants. At least four of the plants were “grassroots” operations and were setting up in Canada because of the sales advantages offered.

All of those plants were closed down shortly after the FTA came into being and all were employers of large numbers of people who lost their jobs. Many of the other plants that I was involved with, mostly expansions of existing operations, also shut down their Canadian operations after the FTA.

When the FTA came into being, not only did plants shut down but the market for design of plants tapered off considerably and many engineering consulting firms laid off a number of engineers and architects. Some even closed completely and I am sure the domino effect came into play in many industries that relied on Canadian building for business.

I should probably add that because of the interest for companies to build in Canada, a great deal of new technology and advances in older technology was developed here and thus with the FTA a great deal was lost to other countries, mostly to the U.S.

Dean Ross, Port Hope

I agree and empathize fully with Bob Hepburn 's comments on the real effect of free trade on ordinary people: people who have lost their jobs and the fact that almost all of these factory jobs are gone forever. It is a sad fact that real truths like this are covered up and never acknowledged by those responsible. This article is front page material in my opinion.

Another effect that I personally observe is the loss of basic manufacturing skills in our country. All but gone are the machine shops, factories and the businesses that served them. A simple example of my own was my recent inability to purchase a round threading die. It seems that these replacement dies are no longer sold by the likes of Home Depot, Lowes, Canadian Tire, Busy Bee, Princess Auto, etc. The only possible reason is no demand. As little as three years ago, they were available. (I note that some of the above do offer sets with many dies of different sizes, but they are all aimed at the hobbyist and not suited for manufacture.)

We have indeed sold our souls to the Asian manufacturers. It is beyond sad and we will experience the effects for years to come.

Don Dorward, Pickering

How refreshing , if unusual, to read a mainstream piece that actually talks turkey about the disastrous free trade deal. In Canada, we've been living in a kind of opium dream since the late ’80s, with the usual suspects — quick-buck artists and ideological hobbyists — insisting ever since that we've never had it so good.

Just as there was a conspiracy by business elites in '88 to foist free trade on the country, there's been a de facto conspiracy ever since to push the line that it's been some kind of boon for us all, even despite the overwhelming contrary evidence. Remember, more than 60 per cent of us sensibly rejected the deal when it was an election issue, even if our disgraceful electoral system gave Brian Mulroney a “mandate” to saddle us with it.

Brian Mulroney and his patrons obviously think we're stupid, and they might well have a case, based on almost 30 years of our allowing their nonsensical economic analyses to float.

But watch and enjoy nevertheless the inevitable unravelling in our lifetime of the doublespeak concept of “free” trade, as unaffordable energy costs and other factors begin to make the shipping of goods thousands of miles to market look merely old-fashioned and quaint.

George Higton, Toronto

The Synchronous Decline of Peter Mansbridge and The CBC

I admit that I stopped being a regular viewer of the CBC years ago; I think the catalyst for my disaffection was its transparent policy of appeasement (under the pretext of balanced reporting) of the Harper regime which, of course, holds its funding strings. Especially evident in its flagship news program, The National, hosted by that one-time icon of journalistic integrity, Peter Mansbridge, the Corporation has become a parody of itself. And as I have written in past posts, Mansbridge himself has to take the bulk of the blame for its sad decline.

On February 8, The Star's Rick Salutin wrote a piece entitled CBC’s Peter Mansbridge coulda bin a contender. Somewhat dirgelike in tone, Salutin asserts that Mansbridge just seems to have given up on doing any substantive journalism, contrasting him with the redoubtable Walter Cronkite, who he describes as ... ready to stand up against the state and the flow and was solid as the bronze statue of the American revolutionary minuteman who stood “by the rude bridge that spanned the flood/ His flag to April’s breeze unfurled.”

Mansbridge, on the other hand, has happily gone with the flow — and the pressure. CBC has become numero uno for crime stories, weather coverage (today’s snow), product launches, celebrities and awards gossip. None of this is new, or news, and CBC itself doesn’t contest the point.

In this morning's Star, the majority of readers appear to agree with Salutin's assessment. I am taking the liberty of reproducing some of them below:

Leave Mansbridge alone. After his last interview with Stephen Harper, it seems obvious he’s angling for a Senate appointment a la Mike Duffy. Calling attention to his soft-shoe journalism will only make his task that much harder.

Mike Sampat, Toronto

I watch CBC’s The National mostly for entertainment. For real news I watch Aljazeera English and BBC World.

Entertainment, news.

Raja Khouri, Toronto

.... How can one explain that in every half-hour broadcast the “weather person” comes on three times. I suppose it is easier to kill time having the weather person on than to go out an find some news. If we want to dwell on weather there is always the Weather Channel. We can surely do better.

Bob Joakim, Oakville

.... Yes, he is rather apolitical and borderline fawning at times, such as his interview with Stephen Harper before the last federal election, but I can forgive him for that. At least he hasn’t pulled a Mike Duffy and obtained a sinecure in the seniors club we call the Senate. He could have gone to New York a few years ago, but decided to stay, to his and our benefit.

Sigmund Roseth, Mississauga

Expect nothing to change in the near future.

"His Most Preposterous Policy Statement Yet"

As noted here the other day, young Tim Hudak, in another move that shows the caliber of his leadership of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, announced that student loans should be tied to student marks. This morning's Star describes his proposal as silly and his most preposterous policy statement yet (although I do suspect there will be some more headshakers coming from his office down the road.)

You can read the full editorial below, although I suspect its position will fork little lightning with Hudak, who tends to think only in very broad strokes:

American president Harry S. Truman once observed that “the C students run the world.” If Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak gets his way, they won’t even obtain a post-secondary education — at least one funded by government loans.

In his most preposterous policy position yet, Hudak says university and college students should receive loans only if they reach a certain — undefined — level of academic success.

It’s an absurd idea, tucked into an otherwise innocuous 27-page plan detailing Hudak’s vision for higher learning. As Truman (a Democrat) noted, it’s not just academic marks that propel people to success: character, drive and ingenuity are even better predictors of future triumph. But Hudak wants bureaucrats to create an academic cut-off point, blocking students with middling grades from getting student loans. “We feel it prudent to inject the student financial aide system with more market discipline,” his report says.

It’s worth noting that a political leader who preaches the merits of smaller government now wants bureaucrats to decide the academic future of our youth. Did he give any thought to this?

Many middle- or lower middle-class students rely on loans — which they pay back, with interest — to get an education. Curiously, wealthy students who don’t need to borrow will be free to explore academic mediocrity with no government slap-down.

It is true that many graduates struggle to find jobs in these challenging economic times. But the new reality is that most need more than one degree to find a viable career. Blocking education will not create economic growth.

While it’s not a new idea, Hudak’s plan rightly focuses attention on Ontario’s desperate need to train youth in the skilled trades. But not all young people should, or even could, become electricians or plumbers.

It’s already hard enough for young people to get ahead, and the government should not add more restrictions. Before an Ontario election is called, Hudak should drop this silly plan.

Perhaps Hudak needs inspiration from the words of Republican President George W. Bush in a speech to the 2001 graduating class at his alma mater, Yale: “To those of you who received honors, awards and distinctions, I say, well done. And to the C students, I say, you, too, can be President of the United States.” In other words — with a little financial help — you never know what a student might become.

The Scourge of the Undead

While there was much talk in the House of Commons yesterday about how to prevent a 'zombie apocalypse,' in Canada, Bob Hepburn has his own solution on how to deal with the scourge of the undead: hold a referendum on abolishing the Senate.

Noting that it costs well over $100 million a year to operate the Senate, including the $132,000 annual salary for the 105 senators, their staffs and expenses and the fact that senators need to show up for work barely 70 days a year, Hepburn suggests that Ontario Premiere Kathleen Wynne include a sentence in her throne speech calling for the referendum.

Given the unholy and voracious appetites of Senators Duffy, Brazeau, Harb and Wallin, dealing with the living dead in a decisive manner would unquestionably make Canada a safer place for that much-threatened ideal known as democracy and finally bury the careers of the party hacks who currently inhabit the upper chamber.

A Timely Reminder From Linda McQuaig

Fanned by a corporate-dominated media, it is hardly a surprise that anti-union sentiment seems to be rampant today. Everywhere we look, there are articles decrying the 'unchecked power' of union 'bosses' and strident rallying for more 'workplace democracy' and 'right-to-work legislation,' thinly veiled euphemisms for the ultimate dismantling of unions, and standard fare from politicians like Ontario's Tim Hudak.

In today's Star, Linda McQuaig offers timely reminders of both the nature of the attacks and why unions are still vital components of our society today:

In the 19th century, workers typically toiled 10 to 16 hours a day, six or seven days a week. Unions fought to change that. In the decades that followed the Great Depression, unions won higher wages and better working conditions for their members, setting a standard with ripple effects that led to a better deal for all workers.

But in recent decades, many of the precious, hard-fought union gains — job security, workplace pensions, as well as broader social goals like public pensions and unemployment insurance — have been under fierce attack by the corporate world (where workers really are under the thumb of unelected “bosses”).

She goes on to discuss the right-wing strategy that promotes the politics of resentment, pitting workers against each other as people without the benefits of a unionized environment try to tear down those who enjoy them. The results of course, are destructive to the things that make for a passably contented life: a decent wage, leisure time, and social progress.

As is almost always the case, McQuiag offers some much-needed perspective in these difficult times.