Andrea's Dilemma: Whither Blowest The Wind?

Were I a gifted artist (or any kind of artist, for that matter) I would draw Andrea Horwath in a two-panel caricature. In the first panel, index finger raised, she would be turning to her left, and in the second, to her right, testing the prevailing winds. That would, I believe, adequately capture what I, perhaps a tad harshly, characterize as the political prostitution of the Ontario NDP leader.

Like her long ago party leader, Bob Rae, who even today refuses to admit he made some grievous errors during his time as Ontario's Premier by trying to placate and court business, Ms Horwath seems to be walking the same lover's lane that leads to electoral heartbreak. And while it is true that she has gained popularity through some of the initiatives she has foisted upon the Liberal government as the price of her party's support, she seems to be falling victim to the same hubristic notion Rae did, that somehow she can appeal to the political right via the business community.

This strategy is given short shrift by Michael Laxer in a recent article for Rabble. Beginning with the NDP's rather oleaginous stance on the push for a $14 minimum wage, Laxer goes on to make this observation:

... the leader driven party has not strayed from its message of boutique appeals to minor consumerist middle class issues and its pandering to the fiction of the small business "job creator." While it is true that small businesses create many jobs, it is also true, especially in the absence of an industrial or neo-industrial state job creation strategy, that the jobs they create are often not even worthy of the term "McJob." They are, overall, without any question the lowest paying jobs and rarely have any benefits of any meaning.

Laxer also questions whether the consumerist approach Horwath has taken (lower insurance rates, small cuts to hydro bills, etc.) is consistent with the party's principles :

Minimum wage and non-"middle class" workers do not primarily need small cuts to hydro bills, auto insurance rates (if they even own a car), or to have the worst employers in the economy "rewarded" for creating bad jobs, they need higher wages, expanded and free transit, universal daycare, pharmacare, and the types of universal social programs "progressives" and social democrats once actually fought for. They need a wage and job strategy that is not centered around the economy's worst and least reliable employers, "small business."

They need active parliamentary political representation that will fight for living wages and economic justice.

And therein lies the problem: the Ontario NDP has essentially abandoned those whose interests it has traditionally served and advocated for.

Matin Regg Cohn, in today's Star, opines that under Horwath's 'leadership,'

...the NDP has transmogrified itself from a progressive to a populist party. Now, the third party is riding high in the polls and dreams of a breakthrough. She wants to broaden her appeal in the vote-rich middle-class suburbs and among small business owners by downplaying the party’s radical roots. Poverty is not a rich source of votes.

Hence the abandonment of long-standing party principles, evidenced in the following statement from the party leader this week regarding Ontario's minimum wage which will rise to $11 per hour on June 1:

“Well, look, I respect the work of the grassroots movements that have been calling for the $14 minimum wage, but I think that what our role is right now is to consult with families that are affected, as well as small business particularly that’s also affected,” she told reporters Tuesday.

Some might argue that this is just smart politics, that aligning oneself too much with progressive policy will simply alienate voters. But I am left with one fundamental question: If the NDP refuses to be the party of advocacy, who will be?

To that, I think the answer is obvious.

Rick Mercer Takes Aim At Julian Fantino

Rick Mercer surely is one of our national treasures:

The Mind Of The Plutocrat

The other day I wrote a brief post on the Koch brothers, accompanied by a video highlighting some of their very nefarious involvement in the climate-denial business. Fellow blogger The Mound of Sound, who spends a great deal of time on the climate-change file, offered the following observation about the evil pair:

They are deliberately and quite knowingly condemning today's kids and their children to come to enormous hardship and suffering, perhaps even worse.

Reflecting upon his observation, at supper I said to my wife that those who pour millions into fueling the industry of climate-denial (and without question almost all of them do it, not out of conviction but for the selfish advancement of their own pecuniary and ideological imperatives) are truly evil; they almost seem to emulate the stereotypical villains found throughout the years in James Bond films. Think, for example, of Ernest Stavro Blofeld or Auric Goldfinger, both bent on world domination, and I don't think you are far off understanding the sheer malignity of those who would condemn future generalizations to hell on earth.

The other day, I talked to my friend Dom, enjoying a sojourn in Florida, and the topic turned to the Koch brothers and the general attitude of indifference that the plutocrats show towards the collective. Dom said that they are so used to having their own way, and, moving as they do in such rarefied self-reinforcing circles, see themselves and their actions as beyond reproach.

Fortuitously, at about the same time I talked to Dom, I read a piece by The New York Time's Paul Krugman echoing Dom's observation. Entitled Paranoia of the Plutocrats, Krugman offers the following observations:

... the rich are different from you and me.

And yes, that’s partly because they have more money, and the power goes with it. They can and all too often do surround themselves with courtiers who tell them what they want to hear and never, ever, tell them they’re being foolish. They’re accustomed to being treated with deference, not just by the people they hire but by politicians who want their campaign contributions. And so they are shocked to discover that money can’t buy everything, can’t insulate them from all adversity.

Emblematic of their shock and their outrage, as cited by Krugman, is the recent letter the billionaire investor Tom Perkins, a founding member of the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, sent to the New York Times, in which he made this odious 'comparison':

I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its "one percent," namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the "rich."

...This is a very dangerous drift in our American thinking. Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendant "progressive" radicalism unthinkable now?

Yet this overblown, even hysterical rhetoric is not limited to Mr. Perkins. As Krugman pointed out in a piece last year, others in this 'persecuted' minority are speaking up as well.

Robert Benmosche, the chief executive of the American International Group (AIG), the giant insurance company that played a crucial role in creating the global economic crisis, felt ill-used over the public outrage that accompanied the continuation of large executive bonuses after its massive government bailout:

He compared the uproar over bonuses to lynchings in the Deep South — the real kind, involving murder — and declared that the bonus backlash was “just as bad and just as wrong.”

But wait; there's more! Back in 2010 Stephen Schwarzman, the chairman and chief executive of the Blackstone Group, declared that proposals to eliminate tax loopholes for hedge fund and private-equity managers were “like when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939.”

As Krugman points out, normal people in a democracy accept criticism, however grudgingly (clearly, he is not acquainted with Harper and his cabal - but he did say normal people, didn't he?):

Normal people take it in stride; even if they’re angry and bitter over political setbacks, they don’t cry persecution, compare their critics to Nazis and insist that the world revolves around their hurt feelings. But the rich are different from you and me.

In addition to his earlier observation of how the ultra-rich are so insulated from real life as an explanation for their pique, Krugman offers this:

I also suspect that today’s Masters of the Universe are insecure about the nature of their success. We’re not talking captains of industry here, men who make stuff. We are, instead, talking about wheeler-dealers, men who push money around and get rich by skimming some off the top as it sloshes by. They may boast that they are job creators, the people who make the economy work, but are they really adding value? Many of us doubt it — and so, I suspect, do some of the wealthy themselves, a form of self-doubt that causes them to lash out even more furiously at their critics.

Perhaps John Steinbeck, in his great novel The Grapes of Wrath, said it best when referring to the wealthy landowners who exploited so many of their fellow human beings:

If he needs a million acres to make him feel rich, seems to me he needs it 'cause he feels awful poor inside hisself, and if he's poor in hisself, there ain't no million acres gonna make him feel rich.

Rick Mercer Has Certainly Got The Harper Cabal's Number

Rick recognizes that they only merit mockery:



After chuckling, you might want to make your feelings known to 'the powers that be'.

Too Good To Resist

And, of course, Fantino and the entire cabal showed what they are really made of yesterday in The House of Commons.

For an incisive evisceration of Fantino et al., check out The Galloping Beaver's post.

You Can't Fire Me, I Quit!

Sorry Conrad. Try as you might, even you can't alter reality.

UPDATE: A Shameful Minister With No Shame

I can think of not one positive thing to say about Julian Fantino. Apparently, Toronto Star readers can't either:

Fantino ‘absolutely regrets’ clash with veterans, Jan. 30

There is no possible excuse for the shameful treatment of our veterans by the federal Conservative government. Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino’s arrogant and disdainful behaviour with a delegation of veterans who met with him to lobby for keeping eight regional Veterans’ Affairs offices open is another low point of his career. He should resign or be fired.

These veterans put their lives on the line for our country without questioning whatever political motives sent them into hellish battlegrounds. At the very least, we owe them our gratitude, certainly our respect, and whatever medical, personal and mental-health care that they require.
Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has already taken a terrible toll with eight veterans’ suicides within two months. The government now callously wants to claw back $581 in disability benefits from the husband of a service woman suffering from PTSD who committed suicide. And now they are closing eight regional offices that veterans depend on for health, mental health and service-based issues.

Is this any way to treat those who fought and were prepared to die for our country? This shameful betrayal of our veterans may well tip the balance of Harper’s government losing the next election.

Simon R. Guillet, Guilletville

The cutbacks to Veterans’ Services, as outlined by Julian Fantino, are not only unacceptable, but are shameful. The individuals affected by this ill advised decision are not just your normal “run of the mill” citizens, but are men and women who this country holds in its highest esteem. Making their life more difficult, after their sacrifices to make make ours better is, disrespectful and irresponsible. Mr. Fantino’s attitude in this matter is also disrespectful. I agree with former soldier Bruce Moncur, that this decision will reflect in the ballot boxes in 2015.

Dave Summerton, Allenford

The Harper government’s treatment of veterans is unconscionable. It does not support young vets returning from war with PTSD, leading to far too many suicides. Now it is closing service centres for our older veterans. And on top of that they send a letter to a grieving husband demanding a clawback of benefits for his newly deceased wife. Where is their compassion? Where is the promise to take care of all our veterans? This behaviour is inhumane and their words are empty.

I felt awful watching our older veterans on television tear up and choke on their frustrations. Fantino has no heart just like the government he serves. We need a government that puts people before the economy. These guys don’t care how many people are hurt by their budget cutting.

June Mewhort, Woodville

UPDATE: Meanwhile, if Retired Sgt. Major Barry Westholm is any indication, the backlash has begun.

Herr Harper: Master Of The Twitterverse

Given the Prime Minister's penchant for control, I suppose this story should come as no surprise, but does rather conspicuously give lie to his claim of running an open and transparent government, doesn't it?

OTTAWA - Pity the poor government tweet, nearly strangled in its cradle before limping into the Twitterverse.

Newly disclosed documents from Industry Canada show how teams of bureaucrats often work for weeks to sanitize each lowly tweet, in a medium that's supposed to thrive on spontaneity and informality.

Most 140-character tweets issued by the department are planned weeks in advance; edited by dozens of public servants; reviewed and revised by the minister's staff; and sanitized through a 12-step protocol, the documents indicate.

Insiders and experts say the result is about as far from the spirit of Twitter as you can get — and from a department that's supposed to be on the leading edge of new communications technologies.

The documents, obtained through the Access to Information Act, show such a high level of control that arrangements are made days in advance to have other government agencies re-tweet forthcoming Industry Canada tweets, because re-tweets are considered a key measure of success.

In turn, Industry Canada agrees to do the same for tweets from the Business Development Bank of Canada and others.

Formal policy for the department was set into a protocol last October, with a 12-step process that requires numerous approvals for each tweet from Industry Minister James Moore's office or from the office of Greg Rickford, the junior minister.

Public servants vet draft tweets for hashtags, syntax, policy compliance, retweeting, French translation and other factors. Policy generally precludes tweeting on weekends, and the minister's personal Twitter handle must be kept out of departmental tweets, though his name and title are often included.

Climate Change Denial And The Koch Brothers

Since April 2013 the number of Americans who do not believe global warming is happening has increased from 16 to 23 percent. Find out why here and in the following video:

Sound Familiar?

H/t Occupy Canada

"You can't control people by force anymore, but you can get them to focus on nothing but maxing out five credit cards, okay you got them."

H/t Noam Chomsky

A Guest Post From The Mound of Sound

In response to my last post, which dealt with climate change and the persistent drought in California, The Mound of Sound, a.k.a. The Disaffected Lib, offered some incisive commentary that I am featuring as a guest post.

Mound has been doing exemplary work on the climate file, and people looking to educate themselves on a world increasingly imperiled by climate change need look no further than his blog.

We've been warned from the outset, Lorne, of 'tipping points.' We haven't grasped the hard reality of actual points of no return beyond which we have triggered natural feedback mechanisms beyond our control, beyond reversal, that create runaway global warming.

Far more dangerous than outright deniers are those who get the reality of climate change but take a 'just not yet' approach to any effective action. It's this group, ostensibly with us, that can postpone action until the options are foreclosed and we find that we have already crossed tipping points.

Jared Diamond discusses this in "Collapse" as the process of 'rational' short-term decisions that, cumulatively, are lethal, essentially suicidal. As long as we take these decisions and actions individually in a short-term perspective they're perfectly sensible, rational. Today that is the way we prefer our problems served up to us.

And, even as we muscle our way through this climate change argument, it always comes back to the crashing reality that climate change is but one of several, potentially existential challenges that confront mankind.

Virtually every problem we face is, to some considerable extent, a function of our intellect which supports the theory that intelligent life may be self-extinguishing.

When you take the extreme weather events the world has endured over the past five years and extrapolate a somewhat worsening continuation of them over the next two to three decades where do we as a global civilization wind up?

We've experienced major crop failures in the world's breadbasket countries - Australia, Russia, America - but it's sort of like a boxer absorbing a punch. You can generally take one blow and remain on your feet. We haven't experienced a situation where these failures happen concurrently, the equivalent of a flurry of really hard punches. What then? We're not even willing to prepare for a best-possible scenario.

Welcome to Easter Island.

UPDATED: No Longer The Shape Of Things To Come

It's here, and it is very, very bad.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Tip of the hat to my friend LeDaro, whose regular use of video clips on his blog has done a great job in graphically depicting the ever-growing crisis we call climate change.

UPDATE: Here is some grim reading to accompany the above grim video.

UPDATED: More On The Minimum Wage

There has been very much a predictable reaction from business to the Wynne government's decision to raise the Ontario minimum wage to $11 per hour as of June 1. Even though this modest increase will do little to lift the working poor out of poverty, the commercial sector is running about shouting that the sky will fall, prognosticating a loss of jobs as they take up a defensive position against something that will, they claim, eat away at their profits.

The following video from City TV offers a smattering of a debate over the issue; unfortunately, I no longer seem able to play video from the CBC, where much more detailed discussion has taken place, so this will have to do. Following the video, I turn to Joe Fiorito's latest observations about working poverty as his column today returns to the story of Doreen, whom I discussed yesterday.

As noted previously, Joe Fiorito has pointed out what a hardscrabble existence Doreen, a personal care worker, leads. Today, he adds to that portrait:

She said, “I broke my glasses last July. I can see, but fine stuff I can’t read.” You guessed right. She has not replaced her glasses. This is the kind of poverty that hurts deep in the bone, dulls the senses, and strangles hope. She has not stopped trying.

Compounding Doreen's problems are the expenses involved in keeping her qualifications current; she recently received a letter from one of the agencies for whom she is on an on-call list:

The letter advised Doreen that, if she wanted to stay active on the agency’s list and be eligible for work in the future, then she had to renew her first aid and CPR certificates.

Trouble is, the course preferred by that agency costs $115 and is only offered on weekends. Doreen works on the weekend for an elderly couple. What this means is that, in order to take the course and renew her certificate, she would have to cough up a day’s pay out of pocket to attend, and she would have to miss two days’ work on top of that.

There are more details about Doreen's travails in Firotio's piece, but I think you get the picture.

As I suggested yesterday, unless and until we are willing to put a human face on the working poor, their plight will never be addressed with any real justice.

UPDATE: Andrew Coyne and business representatives have recently suggested that minimum wage increases are a blunt instrument with which to attack poverty, and that a guaranteed income might be preferable. The cynic in me suggests this could be yet another way that business wants government to subsidize their operations; should they ever express a willingness to give up some of the generous corporate tax cuts that have come their way over the past several years as a show of good faith, perhaps then I will take them seriously.

A Little Something For The Cinephile

Enjoy!

A Way To Address The Problem of Restaurant Poverty Wages

Although this is an American solution, I don't see why it wouldn't work in Canada as well.



Click here if you would like more information about The National Diners Guide.

Putting A Face On Minimum-Wage Poverty

Last evening I watched a fascinating documentary on PBS' Nature* about the black crested macaque, a monkey that is endemic to rainforests in Indonesia, which includes the island of Sulawesi. The monkeys are a badly endangered species whose numbers have dropped 90% over the last 25 years thanks to hunters who sell them as bush meat in local markets, this despite the fact that such hunting and sales are illegal. The film showed the almost human side of the monkeys, with their elaborate social interactions and hierarchies.

Wildlife cameraman and biologist Colin Stafford-Johnson, who first recorded them 25 years ago, had a purpose beyond merely acquainting viewers with these riveting creatures. Working with area groups and biologists, the plan was to show local populations the film in the hope that they would see the monkeys as fully-alive beings not so different from themselves, thereby engendering an empathy that might deter them from eating them. Early results suggest some success with this strategy.

Being able to relate to issues, problems and plights on a human and humane level, being able to see beyond arid statistics, is, in my view, essential if, as a society and species, we are ever to confront and solve some of our most pressing issues. It was in this spirit that I appreciated a recent piece by The Star's Joe Fiorito entitled Life on minimum wage is not a decent living.

Certainly we know the statistics: one in eight foodbank users in Canada are the working poor; 500,000 Ontarians, one out of nine, work at minimum wage jobs. But what is the human face of such poverty?

Looking through the eyes and experience of Doreen, a personal care worker, Fiorito offers that human face:

She is single. She is in her fifties. She has a bum knee and a bad back. She also has some trouble with her vision; a brain tumour, benign, she isn’t worried.

She lives in a rent-geared-to-income apartment in midtown Toronto. While we talked, she was waiting for her church to deliver a grocery voucher so she could afford to buy some groceries. Why?

Because Doreen can’t always afford to feed herself on the money she makes for the hours she gets.

But wait, there's more!

Dorren is an on-call worker, and if she is lucky, she will work nine-hour days, four days per week, thereby clearing a mere $1,240 per month.

Her rent is subsidized; she pays $592 a month, which leaves her with $648. A Metropass costs her $133. Her phone costs close to $20. She buys phone cards to talk to her mother, who lives in another country. Her cable and Internet cost $68 a month.

She also owes $900 on her credit card; yes, she sometimes uses her credit card for food.

She also takes certain medications which are not covered by the provincial health plan. “I had a knee replacement. My back is out. I still have to work. Sometimes I go without pain medication because I can’t afford it.” I repeat: She sometimes goes without her pain medication because she can’t always afford it.

Not a very pretty picture, is it? And not one that will in any measurable way be improved by Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne's decision to raise the minimum wage by 75 cents on June 1. The grinding face of working poverty continues to confront us and, thanks to a lack of political will, confound us.



* If you want to view the PBS show on the macaques, you will need a VPN such as Hola, free software that will mask your I.P. address so that it looks like you are an American viewer. (The PBS show is not licensed for viewing in Canada.)

UPDATED: Never Bait A Veteran

For those of us sickened over the years by the Harper cabal's hypocrisy of wrapping itself in the flag of patriotic support for 'our troops' while essentially abandoning them when they return home either physically or psychically maimed, it was a sweet moment, to be savored and shared widely.

Yesterday, veterans who travelled to Ottawa to lobby against the planned closing of eight more of the regional centres serving their needs were most unhappy with the meeting they had with Veteran Affairs Minister Julian Fantino; Ron Clarke, a 36-year veteran of the Forces, said the meeting was "unbelievable, unacceptable and shameful.

Fantino, a man who bears the look of one on a perpetual visit to his proctologist, was not only very late for the encounter, but also, in his usual arrogance, was unwise enough to start lecturing the vets about their deportment. As you will see in the accompanying video, the former soldiers would have none of that, putting Julian in his place and later, in a news conference, describing the encounter as 'bullshit.'

In their fury, they are calling not only for the termination of Fantino, but also the defeat of the Harper government in the next election should it carry out the planned closure.

All in all, the entire episode was reminiscent of Brian Mulroney's "Goodbye Charlie Brown" encounter in 1986 with Solange Denis.

UPDATE: If the video fails to load, here is the URL for it: http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/Power%20&%20Politics/ID/2433417987/ UPDATE #2: NDP leader Thomas Mulcair has weighed in, calling for Harper both to apologize to veterans and to fire Fantino.

Raising The Minimum Wage: Countering The Right-Wing Propagandists

Given the disappointing news about the minimum wage coming out of Ontario, and the relentless propaganda from the right about wage increases being job killers while conveniently ignoring the experience of other jurisdictions, perhaps the following video can provide some balance:

Crumbs From The Table

Poverty in perpetuity. That is what Ontario's 'socially-progressive' Premier, Kathleen Wynne, has condemned the working poor to.

After waiting more than six months for what turned out to be a very timid report from a provincial minimum wage advisory panel that ended up recommending increases tied to inflation, the premier has announced the new wage will be $11 per hour, with future increases tied to the inflation rate.

With one out of nine currently earning the minimum, this is hardly cause for celebration. Yielding, as usual, to the 'concerns' of business, Wynne had this to say:

“I know that there’s a call for $14 (but) we have to move very carefully, because this is about making sure that we retain and create jobs.”

“At the same time, we need to have a system in place that has a fairness to it, that I think has not been the case for many years.”

While few would argue that an immediate jump to the much-requested figure of $14 per hour would be too much for many small businesses to bear, the truly discouraging fact is that the premier makes no mention of further increases other than those tied to inflation. If $14 per hour would have put those working 35-40 hours per week just 10% above the poverty rate, one needn't use a calculator to know that the working poor will continue to be mired in poverty.

Today's Star editorial makes the following observation and suggestion:

Premier Kathleen Wynne’s government can do better. It should, at the very least, follow the Ontario Liberals’ earlier trend of raising the minimum wage 2.5 times faster than the rate of inflation. As part of its “war on poverty” the previous Liberal government of Dalton McGuinty raised the provincial minimum wage by 50 per cent between 2004 when it was $6.85 an hour and 2010 when it topped out at $10.25 – a period when prices rose just 17.5 per cent.

If the same formula was followed now, it would mean an immediate jump in the minimum wage to about $11.65 an hour.

Hardly the stuff of revolutionary thinking, perhaps, but at the very least, a start on the road to economic justice.

I Shop, Therefore I Am

First and foremost, how do you see yourself? Are you a citizen more than a consumer, or vice-versa? Are high-minded principles and vision your defining characteristic, or is how to get the best value for your money what drives you?

The questions that I just posed are, of course, on one level ludicrous, inasmuch as they suggest an either/or answer. Realistically, or at least ideally, we can be both. Yet to examine the rhetoric of our political 'leaders', our lives are defined by angst over cable selection, gasoline prices, and cellphone bills, and little else.

One of the books I am currently reading is Susan Delacourt's Shopping For Votes: How Politicians Choose Us And We Choose Them, which examines the kind of 'retail politics' that has been shaping the political landscape for decades. Beginning in the 1950s with early polling and focus groups, the process has become so refined that groups are now targeted in political campaigns with their 'issues' at the forefront.

Here is an excerpt from the inside cover of Delacourt's book:

Inside the political backrooms of Ottawa, the Mad Men of Canadian politics are planning their next consumer-friendly pitch. Where once politics was seen as a public service, increasingly it is seen a a business, with citizens as the customers. But its unadvertised products are voter apathy and gutless public policy.

One needn't look far to see egregious evidence of political debasement. As recently noted by The Mound of Sound, neither Justin Trudeau nor Thomas Mulcair offer any distinct difference to Harper, other than perhaps in style. Neither has the political integrity to question the tarsands, nor, to my knowledge, are they heard to ever offer an opinion on or strategy for dealing with climate change. In answer to Mound's question of why either of them wants to be Prime Minister, I opined that they perhaps just think they should be. No passion, no vision, just the politics of expedience seems to be their political raison d'être.

In his piece today in The Toronto Star about the upcoming federal budget, Les Whittington says it will be consumer-oriented:

The government says it wants to take aim at cable-TV packages that don’t allow consumers to pick and choose, payday loan companies, lack of competition among wireless providers and price differentials on the same goods between this country and the U.S.

And while Justin Trudeau sings an amorphous tune about the middle class struggling, Thomas Mulcair has this to offer:

He says the Harper government raises consumer issues but hasn’t followed through with action.

“So we’re going to talk to Canadians about how we can end the rip-offs at ATM machines, at the gas pump, and how we can ensure more Canadians have access to a low-interest credit card”.

Not a word about climate change. Not a word about carbon. Not a word about poverty. Not a word that reflects the semblance of a vision.

I'll close on a note that I hope demonstrates I am not some sort of ethereal idealogue. Yes, I think we get ripped off on cable, and I don't like it. Yes, more should be done to ensure fair business practices. But those concerns do not exclude larger ones, like growing inequality, the plight of the working poor, and a world in real climatic peril. No amount of political legerdemain can alter some larger, very inconvenient truths.

Sunday Afternoon Tea With Bertolt Brecht

A little something to share with those nearest and dearest who are disengaged, so to speak:

A Day Of Rest

Once again in my neck of the woods, we are experiencing punishing cold, cold that is predicted to remain throughout the week, so it seems like a propitious time to take a day off, get caught up on my newspaper reading, and complete a really interesting book by Oliver Sacks called Hallucinations.

In the absence of a real post, I thought you might find interesting the fact that Kellogg's is not restricting its contempt for its workers to Canada. Apparently, things are not going too well for its workers in the U.S., something detailed in this Truthout article.

To contradict Tony the Tiger, things are not Grrrrrreat!

I somehow doubt that this commercial from the 80s would be embraced by Kellogg's today:

A Guest Post From John B.

Click here to read an unflattering magazine profile of this 'titan'.

Yesterday afternoon, I wrote a brief post on Kevin O'Leary, the fatuous, obnoxious self-promoter the CBC, likely in its futile efforts to appease the Harper government, keeps in its stable of right-wing cranks.

In response to the post, I received a thoughtful commentary on O'Leary from John B, which I am featuring here to ensure a larger readership than the comments' section normally affords:

Is it part of Mr. O’Leary’s deal with the CBC that his daily commentary as chief business analyst be introduced with a mention that he is also the “Chair of O’Leary Funds”? I’ve wondered about that for some time.

I think that the important story here is that "the Chair of O'Leary Funds" is getting media exposure that may help him market his shtick internationally. Look at the sly little grins and the glint in the eye obvious in the video as he spews his nonsense. I think he knows that it's nonsense. It’s been designed to beg for attention.

This guy doesn't believe in anything besides running his business. And for several years one of his main businesses seems to have been marketing himself as a caricature of the iconic greedy capitalist. Now they're writing about him in the Independent. That's the scoring play - his money shot. That's why he likes to mention his U.S. show when being interviewed - international exposure. In the U.S. ‘they call him Mr. Wonderful’. Yes - that's probably because someone told them he was known by that handle in other circles without mentioning that it’s likely he made it up. It's how you create and sell a product. And the product is the act.

The act may have taken over the person and the act may have started long before the advent of O'Leary TV; but it's still just about making the sale, whether it's dog food, a worthless corporate asset or a cartoon character.

The Lang & O'Leary Exchange isn't a business news programme; it’s third-rate entertainment with a little synergistic libertarian propaganda along for the ride. And the worst part of it is that you can’t escape exposure to its juvenile propaganda efforts by not tuning in. At every station break the network is sure to broadcast one of their promotional spots for the show featuring inserts of still close-ups of Mr. Wonderful’s wonderfully-manicured digits posed in that silly configuration that he seems to have come to prefer. In each of these spots his sidekick, Amanda, stumbles into a staged ambush that Mr. O’Leary can accomplish by rhyming off some line that could have come from the Market Libertarian’s Handbook for Disturbed Teenagers: “If you want a share, become a shareholder” or “The market will decide.” God has spoken.

O'Leary is serious about what he's doing - getting a paycheque and getting exposure for his fund and his comedy act. But his sparring partner provides the best comedy on the show. She presents herself in a manner that suggests she considers herself to be a journalist, while she actually just plays one on a boring TV show. Maybe it’s just part of her “straight-man” act. Whatever the case, she does it very well.

I’m still puzzled about one thing: did he come up with the thing with the hands or did he have to pay a personal stylist to do it?

UPDATED:The Most Obnoxious Blowhard?

Many of you have probably already heard of this, but I can't help but wonder if Kevin O'Leary is in some kind of competition with Donald Trump for the title of world's most obnoxious blowhard.



UPDATE: Thanks to ThinkingManNeil, who offers this comment and the video that follows:

Mr. O'Leary needs to learn how to work a real job earning and honest living like 3.5 billion others try to. May I suggest he go try mining sulfur by hand in the crater of Kawah-Ijen? Maybe then he'll get some perspective...

Self-Interest Versus The Public Good

We Canadians talk a good game. We want our unemployed to be able to find jobs, we want those with the need to be able to readily access the social safety net, and we think the plight of the working poor is pitiable. But a question that we must confront is this: Are we willing to put our money where our mouth is?

My question is prompted by two topics: the decline of the Canadian dollar and the push to increase the minimum wage to $14 (in Ontario).

First, the decline of the loonie. Even though its decreasing value is likely being encouraged by the Harper government to boost employment numbers going into the 2015 election, the fact is that a lower dollar is good for job creation, increasing as it does exports of our products and tourism from abroad.

Yet what seems uppermost on the minds of many? - the fact that imported goods will cost more, trips to sun destinations so popular with chilled Canadians are getting more expensive, and cross-border shopping trips will no longer be such a source of delight for so many.

This is just a thought experiment, but I can't help but wonder what choice people would make if they had the power to affect the trajectory of the Canadian dollar. Would they see the larger good that will be served by its current decline, or would they say that's none of their concern, and that their priority is to get the most value for their hard-earned dollars?

On a similar note, we profess our enthusiasm for a significant increase in the minimum wage, a subject upon which I have written many times. Indeed, there is some good news on that front from the United States, where, for example, Seattle's new mayor, Ed Murray, has boosted the wages of municipal workers to $15 per hour, and Seattle's suburb of Sea Tac has done the same for the 1,500 hotel and rental car agency workers.

Putting aside the usual objections raised by the usual suspects that wage increases are job-killers, there are compelling reasons for increasing the minimum wage, not the least of which is the boost to the economy that ensues when more money is put in the hands of more people. As an entrepreneur in the documentary Inequality for All says, "Just because I make $10 million a year doesn't mean I spend $10 million a year on goods and services. It's better that money should be put in the hands of many people so they spend." He went on to explain that his money is invested to earn more money, not necessarily to create jobs.

Add to that the fact that, for example, raising the minimum wage in Ontario to $14 per hour would put raise the working poor 10% above the poverty line, assuming, of course, that they are working 35-40 hours per week. Economic stimulus effects aside, that is a pretty compelling reason to support an increase.

But returning to our thought experiment, what choice would people make if they knew that any such increase means we would all pay a little more for our groceries, our fast foods, our services, etc.? Would we turn our collective backs on the greater good, or would we embrace the fact that everyone has to make some sacrifices, both business in the form of slightly lower profits and consumers in the form of slightly reduced purchasing power, if we want a more equitable society and a slightly lower disparity in incomes?

We all like to get the best value possible for our money, and I am no exception. Yet, even though I am hardly a paragon of virtue, the logic of increasing the minimum wage is compelling, one to which I readily accede.

The Measure Of The Man

Sounds like Rick Mercer has the Harper cabal's number:

Want To Experience Faux Poverty On Your Next Holiday?

This seems so wrong on so many levels.

Engaging Community: Some Thoughts From The Salamander

The other day I wrote a post about the Harper cabal's systematic efforts to re-engineer Canadians' critical thinking capacity through the gutting of science libraries and their resources. No books=no concern over climate change=cheerleading for tarsands development. It is up to each of us to combat this drift into darkness.

I received a number of comments on the post, including those of The Salamander, a passionate and articulate Canadian who shares the grave concern many of us have over Canada's direction under a regime that has consistently shown little but contempt for the nation's traditional values. I am reproducing below the exchange that he and I had in the hope that people will read his ideas and suggestions and offer additional commentary and ideas:

The Salamander:

.. the question of our times, in Canada today.. is certainly one of our national identity.. and a related question must be.. do 'we' care.. PM Harper is trying to permanently embed the bizarre notion that he reflects (or is) our national identity and we should ensure our values, emulate his.. or lack of..

Here's a short list for the pollsters .. and ideally the questions to the Canadian public * of all ages * would be framed in positive ways, accommodating blunt intuitive responses..

Here's a sample or two..

- Q - Do you care if Canada lets other countries control the development, mining/harvest & sale and delivery of our natural resources, energy, fish, lumber, grain etc .. or if the cost for that decision is the extinction of species like salmon, polar bears, caribou, eagles or killer whales because we eliminated the habitat, waters, forest etc they lived in.. or if certain regions have no safe drinkable water or useful soil, breathable air as a result?

- Q - Do you see any value in letting partisan political parties gain further control or direct how Canada moves into the future.. in particular by their secretive use of databanks, election funds, robo & live calls, or questionable election campaigns or electoral fraud to manipulate, gain on maintain power?

- Q - Do you care if to a great extent, Parliament and our political process is simply posturing and its the religious beliefs, greed or immorality of the Prime Minister or his complicit MP's, corporate sponsors & controllers that define policy, legislation and secret economic agreements?

- Q - Do you care if Members of Parliament, unelected anonymous public servants ie in the PMO or many or any of the consultants hired or contracted by the Federal Government end up in jail for fraud, illegal lobbying, graft, lawsuits or have relationships with their babysitters or nannies or parliamentary pages and secretaries?

- Q - Do you know what 'The Rapture' is? Do you know what religions believe the ultimate fall of Israel is the biblical key for good christians to rise triumphantly by the hand of god up into the rosy clouds

- Q - Do you have better questions for your fellow Canadians, that might help improve the situation? Or do you trust folks like Tony Clement, Dean Del Mastro, Senator Gerstein, Ray Novak, Ezra Levant, or Arthur Hamilton or Julian Fantino to look after the important stuff for you ?



Me: These are very provocative questions, Salamander, that, if ever asked, would likely provoke some serious thought and discussion among Canadians. While it is safe to assume such a poll would never be commissioned by any of our 'leaders,' it could prove a potent weapon in the hands of a group dedicated to improving public policy, if it had sufficiently deep pockets to underwrite it.

The Salamandar: .. I'm not certain there is much hard cost to such a poll, Lorne

To a certain extent, such a poll. with exceptionally well developed questions & criteria would generate its own inertia.. driving on as a Q & A reflection of true concerned Canadian spirit, identity and response..

In their own way, the indy blog items from yourself, Mound, Beav, Lautens, Whirlpool, Owen at N Reflections, Kinsella, Simon etc.. all have driven thought, process, review and spread knowledge.. and in fairness so have some mainstream media.. as well as the unique ones like Kady and Rick Mercer etc.. or a truly heavy battlewagon like Neil Young

In a unique progressive and unique way.. you.. and me.. are a poll.. a reflection of ideas and thoughts of real people

I guess what I am driving at is to identify or refine what really matters to Canadians, First Nations, immigrants, the aged, the young, the workers, teachers, artists, mothers, grandparents, miners, farmers, fishermen, clerics, students & newborns..

I truly don't give a f off to what greasy spokes-dwarts like Joe Oliver or Jenni Byrne 'think' or are told to say.. or what a fatuous self absorbed dick like Harper trots out to dweeb political weasels in Israel.. I care what the pulse and reality of this gigantic country called Canada is..

A 'running poll' .. non partisan .. tabulating, reflecting .. observant, reactionary, abrasive, honest, simple, blunt & clear, Canadian .. could be just the nurse or doctor that Canada needs.. taking our temperature, listening to our concerns or fears, investigating & identifying pathogens and infections, treating us for.. or suggesting simple remedy for the ills of a modern society, threatened by toxic, rabid, dishonest political animals

So there you have it. I hope this exchange provokes some further discussion as we continue to direct our efforts and our passions toward a better Canada for everyone.

UPDATED: Like A Scab: Tim Hudak

Like a scab (not the metaphorical kind so beloved of the extreme right) that I can't resist picking away at, once more Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak looms large. Although I wrote about him again very recently, the magnitude of either his ineptitude or his arrogance, depending on one's perspective, is worthy of further examination.

As noted in my previous post, young Tim recently announced his Million Jobs Act, one that promises untold riches in the form of 'good-paying jobs with benefits' for Ontarians if only we reduce corporate taxes and enact free trade with the other provinces. Not a word during this announcement about his previous panacea, 'right-to-work' legislation that would make union membership optional, leading, of course, to their ultimate demise.

Young Tim has refused to state whether a war on unions is still part of his overall strategy and cure for what ails us. Nonetheless, I think it is safe to assume it is still very much on the table.

Despite maintaining a 'strategic' silence on the issue, the Wile E. Coyote of Ontario politics yesterday fired one of his candidates in the upcoming byelections. Essex candidate Dave Brister was terminated because of his public opposition to Hudak's anti-unionism. He had posted recent “unacceptable” tweets slamming the party’s anti-union push, raising questions as to whether the policy is being downplayed to increase Tory chances in another Feb. 13 byelection in blue-collar Niagara Falls.

Apparently, young Tim had thrown him a lifeline:

Brister, who was running in a riding now held by the New Democrats, said he refused to change his stance.

“I was asked to recant my opposition to RTW legislation in exchange for retaining my position & I refused to do so,” he tweeted under his handle @davebristerpc.

A Tory candidate who stands on principle? What is the party becoming?

Meanwhile, in today's Toronto Star, Carol Goar has a column in which she asserts that once Tim's rhetoric about that million-jobs plan is stripped away, there is little of substance to be found. You might want to read the piece, especially if you live in Ontario or have an interest in politicians who show such egregious contempt for the electorate.

I'll leave you with a brief clip of Wile E. Coyote in freefall:



UPDATE: Martin Regg Cohn says, It would be a complete misreading of the emerging Progressive Conservative election platform to conclude that Hudak is backing away from “right-to-work.” You can read his thoughts on the subject here.

Ford Nation Probably Thinks This Is Their Idol's Best Video Performance Yet

You decide. The video was taken early this morning.

Refusing To Become What The Harper Government Wants Us To Be

While Stephen Harper's trip to Israel is receiving wide domestic media coverage, coverage that I have been studiously avoiding out of deference to my at-times delicate sensibilities and constitution, the following Harper encomium strikes me as both chillingly ironic and hypocritical:

Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has rooted itself in the ideals of “freedom, democracy and the rule of law.”

Over time, ... this is the only ground “in which human rights, political stability and economic prosperity may flourish.”

Strange, this pronouncement of praise for a political principle that the Prime Minister and his cabal are working so hard to undermine here at home.

“Freedom, democracy and the rule of law” can only flourish in an open society, one in which citizens are treated with respect and given ready access to as much information as they want. Sadly, by this measure, Canada is quickly becoming a failed state under the ministrations of a government dedicated to suppression and vilification.

This process of re-engineering us into compliant, passive and unquestioning 'citizens' is ongoing, and has already been well-chronicled both in the media and the blogosphere. Nonetheless, it seems like a propitious time to offer a few salient reminders of what this administration has recently been doing to constrict the lifeblood of democracy, information, with such messianic zeal:

- Despite committing $22 million to an advertising blitz to promote the tarsands, 'Uncle Joe' Oliver, our Natural Resources Minister, has told Canadians they will not be permitted to know the details and ultimate cost until 2015 or 2016, after the campaign is over.

- Health Canada's main library has been closed, with some scientists being forced to squirrel away materials in their basements and borrow students' library cards to access university library materials.

- The Harper regime has been systematically shutting down Canada's national archives. Especially hard hit are those sources of environmental studies that provide a basis for analyzing the Harper assault on the environment. Amongst the casualties are:

the environmental research resources of the St. Andrews Biological Station in St. Andrews, New Brunswick (whose scientists Rachel Carson corresponded with when she was writing Silent Spring);

the Freshwater Institute library in Winnipeg;

the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Centre in St. John's, Newfoundland;

seven of eleven libraries operated by the Department of Oceans and Fisheries, as previously noted, have been closed.

And, as noted by Andrew Nikiforuk, the government has killed research groups that depended on those libraries such as the Experimental Lakes Area, the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission and the DFO's entire contaminants research program. The Freshwater Institute as well as the Centre for Offshore Oil, Gas and Energy Research (COOGER) has lost much of their funding and staff, too.

To continue this litany of darkness would be pointless and too depressing. Nonetheless, I continue to nurture the hope that increasing numbers of Canadians will become aware of the Harper-led assaults on fundamental democracy that are taking place, not only in the very public arena and institution of Parliament (don't get me started), but also on the publicly-funded repositories of information and analysis that are part of our rich heritage.

Fear And Loathing In Peace River

While the Harper cabal proceeds full-tilt with its tarsands advertising campaign, the details of which Canadians are being denied, a game of inconvenient truth versus consequences is being played out in Peace River, Alberta.

According to a report in The Edmonton Journal, Peace River may be making people sick. The suspected culprits? - its gas well emissions and its storage tanks in which bitumen is heated as part of the process of separating sand from the oil. Residents' health complaints range from dizziness to insomnia to cognitive impairment. Unfortunately, a conspiracy of silence in the medical community is exacerbating their problems:

Some Peace River area doctors are afraid to speak out about health impacts of oil and gas activity and in some cases have declined to treat area residents who wondered if their health problems were related to emissions, says one of two independent health experts hired by the Alberta Energy Regulator.

Dr. Margaret Sears is an Ontario expert in toxicology and health who will appear this week at a special hearing into complaints about emissions from the Baytex oilsands operation 32 kilometres south of Peace River. Her interviews with residents found physician care was refused when a resident suggested a connection between their symptoms and oil and gas emissions.

"Communications with public health officials and medical professionals revealed a universal recognition that petrochemical emissions affect health; however, this was countered by a marked reluctance to speak out,” wrote Sears.

As the article makes clear, physicians face tremendous pressure to conceal this possible relationship, pressure that seems to be leading some to violate their Hippocratic oath:

“Physicians are quite frankly afraid to diagnose health conditions linked to the oil and gas industry,” wrote Sears, adding she heard several times about the case of Dr. John O’Connor who was threatened with losing his licence after raising an alarm about cancer rates in Fort Chipewyan.

Although I am not a conspiracy buff, the pervasive kind of corruption this suggests is astounding, something we would ordinarily have a hard time accepting in Canada.

Perhaps equally astounding, but in a good way, is that this perversion is being seriously investigated by both the Alberta government and the Alberta Energy Regulator, which hired eight independent investigators to comprehensively explore the health problems and their possible relationship to the oil processes and emissions in Peace River. As well, the AER is going to hold a special ten-day public hearing into the entire affair.

Wonder if the Harper cabal will now take to labelling both the Alberta government and the AER as additional enemies of the people.

More Thoughts On The Minimum Wage

Although I have written several previous posts on the need to substantially increase the minimum wage so that it becomes a living wage, I have been planning an update. However, I doubt that today will be the day for that update since, once again over my morning coffee, I have come across two thoughtful letters in The Star that I feel compelled to share with you.

Although the first letter looks at the poverty pervasive in Toronto thanks in no small measure to the current Ontario hourly minimum of $10.25, the second looks at the broader provincial consequences of such paltry remuneration. I am sure that similar conditions prevail in the rest of Canada.

And, as letter-writer McAdam asks, Where is the report by Ontario’s Minimum Wage Advisory Panel? My suspicion is that Premier Wynne, with a spring election likely, will be sitting on it for a long, long time unless she is that rare, almost extinct breed of politician capable of real leadership.

Re: Time to give poorest a raise, Editorial Jan. 16

There are lots of social and public policy ideas that we can afford to take our time and have a full and long debate about before moving ahead towards a solution, but raising the minimum wage should be a no-brainer. Those who oppose raising the minimum wage to a living wage, like Tim Hudak or the Fraser Institute, obviously have neither the head nor the heart to reach this sane conclusion.

You simply cannot afford to live and eat in Toronto on a minimum wage salary, and those who are trying to do so are getting sick because of it. That’s the information provided by the brave doctors and other medical professionals who are finally speaking the truth about the impact of a society that pays its CEO millions of dollars a year while thousands of our citizens are working hard every day just trying to survive. This is income inequality in its rawest and most brutal form and anyone who condones this situation is complicit in allowing it to continue.

This is one issue that we can begin to fix today by raising the minimum wage. It will not take people completely out of danger, but it will be a sign that we still recognize and reward hard work in our society. And it will be a step in the right direction.

We will need to do much more, like taxation reform to make our system fairer, increased support for seniors, and much more investment in training and development of our young people. We can take some time and talk about those long-term solutions. But raising the minimum wage is urgent.

Katie Arnup, Toronto

The Star points out a few of the huge costs from Ontario’s poverty-level minimum wage, including damage to one’s health, as doctors and other health care providers have noted, besides the hardship and frustration of poverty. But there are many other harmful impacts.

Some 375,000 Ontarians must rely on foodbank handouts to ward off hunger. Recent studies show that about 11 per cent of food bank users in Ontario are employed, but must turn to foodbanks because of their low earnings. Imagine the thousands of volunteer hours devoted to survival programs such as these.
And what about the frustrations for families in which parents must work two minimum-wage jobs in order to make ends meet, and who thus have little time to spend with their children?

My wife teaches many low-income students in Toronto’s Flemingdon Park neighbourhood where this situation is all too common. She sees the emotional price that her students pay when their parents are missing in action, because of overwork and fatigue.
The Star rightly asks: where is the report by Ontario’s Minimum Wage Advisory Panel? When I presented to the panel last fall, a staffperson told me that its report was expected by December. Where is it?

What kind of society tolerates a situation in which hard-working people must still endure poverty? The plight of low-wage workers is a vital issue that should figure prominently in Ontario’s public life, especially as a provincial election approaches.

Anglican Church members across the GTA and surrounding region are currently debating a proposal to raise the minimum wage in two stages to $14.50 per hour by 2015, above the poverty line. If we all raise our voices, we can improve the lives of our society’s poorest paid workers.

Murray MacAdam, Social Justice & Advocacy Consultant, Anglican Diocese of Toronto

Walmart: Skirting Around Labour Laws

Excerpted from a slide on how management should speak to employees to discourage union talk.

As reported by ThinkProgress, the above is but one of the 'clever' strategies for ensuring that the world's largest retailer keeps unions out.

As well, here is a sample of advice to management during a slideshow presentation. Entitled “Early Warning Signs” (of the union 'threat'), the bosses should watch for employees “speaking negatively about wages and benefits” and “ceasing conversations when leadership approaches.”

Kind of reminds me of what happened during my teaching days whenever administration walked into the staffroom.

The Harper Legacy: Empty Mantras And Empty Ideology

I hope readers don't think I have grown lazy or burnt-out when I reprint letters from The Toronto Star. It is just that their observations and ideas are frequently so nicely expressed that I think they merit some exposure in the blogosphere.

Today's offers a sharp rebuke to the tired Tory ideology of low corporate taxes as the path to prosperity, a mantra that has been repeatedly shown to be as devoid of value as the head of their leader and our Prime Minister is devoid of ideas and vision.

Re: Canada hit by unexpected rise in jobless rate, Jan. 10

When asked about the December job losses, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty lamely trots out his usual PMO-approved talking point that we must “keep taxes low to create the environment where job creation can flourish.” Translation: Slash government.

Not just hogwash, sir — stale hogwash!

Taxes are already low enough. It is the continual bleeding by mass employers that drive these kinds of losses, like plant closures announced by Kellogg in London, Heinz at Leamington, CCL Industries in Penetanguishine and others that have already occurred over the past several years, including the steel industry. True, many closures are in Ontario, but that’s because that province traditionally formed our industrial heartland.

Indeed, some jobs are lost because of technology but the majority are because U.S. head offices are taking jobs back to the U.S. or other firms are moving to low-wage countries that Canadians can never compete with, with labour rates as low as $1 a day, such as the garment industry.

If the Conservative government in Ottawa is serious about job creation, it will formulate and actively promote an industrial strategy for Canada, one that goes beyond the Alberta tar sands and the oil industry. Elsewhere, tinkering with a few high-tech projects may create a relative handful of well-paying work but not the thousands of jobs and steady wages that industry can provide.

The Tories demonstrated that they knew this sort of thing could work when they pumped life-saving public funding into GM of Canada and Chrysler Canada when those two industrial titans were threatened with bankruptcy. It’s that or reverse course on slashing government, the only other mass employment sector we have left.

In the end, it seems the Harper government is rendered impotent on jobs creation by its own narrow-minded ideology based on fantasy and blind to the reality of our preventable national decline.

Brad Savage, Scarborough

Good Tim, Bad Tim

Tim's Contemplative Face

Anyone who reads this blog regularly is probably aware that I am no fan of Ontario's Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak. A callow lad at best, a duplicitous mini-demagogue at worst, the lad who would be premier has always struck me as one with limited imagination and no real vision, content as he is to spout the usual right-wing bromides (unions bad, workplace democracy good).

With a spring election looking increasingly likely in Ontario, young Tim has lately shown his egregious contempt for the electorate's intelligence by attempting to reinvent himself with a private member's bill he is planning to introduce that promises the creation of a million jobs over eight years, a plan that has come under considerable criticism. For me, what is most striking is that there is no reference in this bill to Hudak's previously-touted mantra of union-busting as the path to prosperity.

Are we to take it that Tim simply misspoke on all those previous occasions about the need for euphemistic right-to-work legislation? It is indeed difficult to reconcile his anti-union screeds with this rhetoric:

“Your odds of getting a minimum-wage job – they’ve doubled under the current government’s approach, supported by the NDP. If you want a good, steady job, with benefits and better take-home pay, look at my plan. It will create a million of these good, well-paying jobs in our province of Ontario again. But we’ve got to make these choices to get on this path.”

Rather beguiling, his promises, aren't they?

As usual, Toronto Star readers are exercising their critical-thinking skills and have much to say about Tim's plan. There are a number of very good ones, and I offer the following only as representative examples:

So Tim Hudak is going to save Ontario. He is going to freeze the public service. Perhaps he didn’t notice that freezing the public service wages over the past five years to give tax breaks to corporations did not create jobs. Instead we lost 45,000 jobs last month. What did Kellogg’s and Heinz do with their tax windfall? Those two stalwarts of Ontario called the moving trucks.

He is going to create one million jobs. That would be 400,000 more than we need, or will the unemployed need two jobs to make a living at those created? His plan to reduce public sector jobs and replace them with low-paid private sector jobs will not help the economy and training for skilled trades won’t produce workers for these former government jobs.

Maybe by driving down the standard of living Mr. Hudak believes that he can lure back some of the manufacturing jobs other Tory governments helped leave Ontario. Surely cutting the green energy subsidies won’t create but will eliminate skilled jobs. Training skilled workers is a great idea if there are jobs for them to go to after the training.

Hudak has no plan for reducing energy costs even though he cites this as a reason for job losses. Too many friends at OPG?
He is from an era where cutting taxes was the mantra to create jobs. Employers who get tax cuts keep the money. They rarely invest in job creation without government welfare assistance. Families that get tax relief need the money to meet rising energy and fuel costs. Tax cuts will not now, nor have they ever, created jobs. Ideas from the 20th century that didn’t work then definitely won’t work now. Ontario has a business friendly tax structure and we are still bleeding jobs.

Do we need recycled Mike Harris ideas? I think not. Hudak’s plan is to continue the Conservative ideology of lowering the standard of living for working Ontarians and giving more to the 1 per cent will not save Ontario. We need to concentrate on the economy with 21st century solutions that will create sustainable jobs that pay above the poverty line.

Bob File, Hamilton

I am wondering what exactly Ontario Tory leader Tim Hudak is referring to when he states, as part of his five-point plan for improving Ontario’s economy, that he will “end the bureaucratic runaround that inhibits job creation.”

Is he talking about lifting environmental restrictions on businesses and resource development? Is he talking about changing laws around workplace safety? Is he talking about changing laws relating to the use of part-time and temporary workers — so called “precarious employees” — who already have to scrabble to make ends meet without the benefit of job security, benefits and an employer provided pension?

Laws that favour business owners and resource developers over Ontario workers and citizens line the pockets of the rich while eroding quality of life for average Ontarians.

Brian O’Sullivan, Stouffville

Tim's Mad Face

Little Did They Know

My son alerted me to this video from 1981. After watching it, be sure to read Rosie DiManno's observations about workplace leave-taking, the second part of which deals specifically with the newspaper industry.