Thanks to fellow-blogger Orwell for providing this link to the Australian version of the video I wrote about yesterday:
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Saturday, July 9, 2011
What Have Unions Done For Us?
I just came across the following video on You Tube. Although directed toward an American audience, its message is completely applicable to Canada as well. Enjoy!
Critical Thinking: The Assault On Reason
The following is a review I wrote about four years ago of Al Gore's book, The Assault on Reason, a work that addresses many of the problems arising when the populace at large lacks the capacity for critical thought. Although geared to an American audience, Gore's points are universally applicable, and especially germane to my previous post on critical thinking, the only real defense we have against government manipulation of the electorate:
Having just completed Al Gore’s The Assault on Reason, I have to confess to being profoundly disturbed. If his thesis is to be accepted, the greatest threat to the foundations of American society comes not from some shadowy terrorist organization but something much closer to home: the American government itself. It is an assertion that deserves to be taken seriously.
Drawing upon the beginnings of the American Constitution, Gore tells us that the Founders placed a heavy reliance on two interrelated notions: reason and a well-informed citizenry. These, plus the checks and balances implicit in the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial), were believed to provide the greatest chances of survival for this new experiment in democracy. However, under the current Bush-Cheney Administration, Gore suggests that these safeguards are failing
In an obviously well-researched effort, the author takes us through a variety of means whereby that administration sidesteps, circumvents, ignores or otherwise contemns the constitutional strictures on the executive branch. Were this a work of fiction, the reader would find the narrative implausible. Sadly, what Al Gore conveys is all too real.
This tale of administrative malfeasance has many facets: there is an indifferent legislative body more intent on raising money to get reelected than debating in Congress; there are the machinations of George Bush and Dick Cheney to reward their friends while at the same time ensuring that the average citizen is ill-served; there is the manipulation of people’s fears as opposed to appealing to their reason; all are grim reminders of what happens when people take their government for granted. Whether Gore examines the sinister repealing of pollution laws or the insidious misinformation put out about climate change, the reader quickly realizes that unless citizens promptly re-engage in the democratic process, there is little hope for the future of America’s grand experiment.
He does, however, end the book on a note of real hope. Although the historical notion of the marketplace of ideas, where people shared information and communicated with government in a meaningful way no longer exists, Gore suggests that a new infrastructure has arisen and is evolving whereby that marketplace might once again thrive. It is called the Internet. He points out the current egalitarian nature of the Web, whereby anyone with an opinion can form a group and invite others of like mind to join, whether it is a blog, a community forum, or a national meeting place. Its advantage is the absence of geographical or travel obstacles to forming or joining such groups, meaning that they are open to everyone. The potential to be once again well-informed and active is there, although I think the author downplays the difficulties inherent in having such a cornucopia of choice. How, for example, doe one separate the proverbial wheat from the chaff? Nonetheless, his underlying point is sound, namely that citizens now have a means to begin reinserting themselves in the democratic process in a meaningful way.
This is a book that has implications for all democratic governments and therefore should be widely read. As a Canadian, I couldn’t help but think of my own government under Stephen Harper which has, for example, severely restricted the flow of information about our troops’ mission in Afghanistan; facts that were previously widely available are no longer so, the justification being ‘national security issues,’ but more likely is a response to widespread criticism of the mission amongst Canadians.
A good first step on the journey to becoming an informed citizen who can work toward a renewed democracy is the reading of The Assault on Reason; it is a book alternately disheartening, inspiring, informative and provocative. At no time is it boring.
Having just completed Al Gore’s The Assault on Reason, I have to confess to being profoundly disturbed. If his thesis is to be accepted, the greatest threat to the foundations of American society comes not from some shadowy terrorist organization but something much closer to home: the American government itself. It is an assertion that deserves to be taken seriously.
Drawing upon the beginnings of the American Constitution, Gore tells us that the Founders placed a heavy reliance on two interrelated notions: reason and a well-informed citizenry. These, plus the checks and balances implicit in the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial), were believed to provide the greatest chances of survival for this new experiment in democracy. However, under the current Bush-Cheney Administration, Gore suggests that these safeguards are failing
In an obviously well-researched effort, the author takes us through a variety of means whereby that administration sidesteps, circumvents, ignores or otherwise contemns the constitutional strictures on the executive branch. Were this a work of fiction, the reader would find the narrative implausible. Sadly, what Al Gore conveys is all too real.
This tale of administrative malfeasance has many facets: there is an indifferent legislative body more intent on raising money to get reelected than debating in Congress; there are the machinations of George Bush and Dick Cheney to reward their friends while at the same time ensuring that the average citizen is ill-served; there is the manipulation of people’s fears as opposed to appealing to their reason; all are grim reminders of what happens when people take their government for granted. Whether Gore examines the sinister repealing of pollution laws or the insidious misinformation put out about climate change, the reader quickly realizes that unless citizens promptly re-engage in the democratic process, there is little hope for the future of America’s grand experiment.
He does, however, end the book on a note of real hope. Although the historical notion of the marketplace of ideas, where people shared information and communicated with government in a meaningful way no longer exists, Gore suggests that a new infrastructure has arisen and is evolving whereby that marketplace might once again thrive. It is called the Internet. He points out the current egalitarian nature of the Web, whereby anyone with an opinion can form a group and invite others of like mind to join, whether it is a blog, a community forum, or a national meeting place. Its advantage is the absence of geographical or travel obstacles to forming or joining such groups, meaning that they are open to everyone. The potential to be once again well-informed and active is there, although I think the author downplays the difficulties inherent in having such a cornucopia of choice. How, for example, doe one separate the proverbial wheat from the chaff? Nonetheless, his underlying point is sound, namely that citizens now have a means to begin reinserting themselves in the democratic process in a meaningful way.
This is a book that has implications for all democratic governments and therefore should be widely read. As a Canadian, I couldn’t help but think of my own government under Stephen Harper which has, for example, severely restricted the flow of information about our troops’ mission in Afghanistan; facts that were previously widely available are no longer so, the justification being ‘national security issues,’ but more likely is a response to widespread criticism of the mission amongst Canadians.
A good first step on the journey to becoming an informed citizen who can work toward a renewed democracy is the reading of The Assault on Reason; it is a book alternately disheartening, inspiring, informative and provocative. At no time is it boring.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Is This A Quest For Justice, Or A Thirst For Revenge?
While I doubt that I will ever be accused of being 'soft on crime,' agreeing with the view held by many that the Canadian judicial system tends to be too lenient in too many cases, my belief in the deterrent effect of stern sentencing and less liberal parole provisions is trumped, when the two areas come into conflict, by my deep desire to see justice done and fairness practised. In the case of the 15-year-old who stands accused of killing Officer Garrett Styles, it seems the Crown is motivated, not by a quest for justice, but a thirst for revenge.
As reported in The Star, the Crown is seeking not only to charge the teen as an adult, which may or may not be defensible, but also with first-degree murder, which, upon conviction, would require a minimum 25-year-sentence before parole. From my perspective, this charge is unwarranted and indefensible.
Although Canadian law allows for the laying of a first-degree murder charge when a police officer is killed, one of the hallmarks of a fair and compassionate system of justice is the consideration of the circumstances surrounding the death. Clearly, from what I do know of the situation, the teen panicked when stopped by Officer Styles and foolishly tried to flee, dragging the officer along with him, his actions culminating in the van overturning, leading to Styles' death. Without minimizing the loss to the family and the larger community incurred by his death, it was clearly unintended, caused by a stupid thing a kid did.
And I think that is the lens through which this tragedy should be viewed. A foolish kid, engaged in foolish behaviour without consideration of consequences, the sort of thing teens have been doing for millennia. Should a stiff sentence be sought? Perhaps, but justice will not be served by ensuring that a 15-year-old who made some stupid choices does not get out of prison until he is 40.
Shame on the Crown for pandering to the public and the police for the choice it has made.
As reported in The Star, the Crown is seeking not only to charge the teen as an adult, which may or may not be defensible, but also with first-degree murder, which, upon conviction, would require a minimum 25-year-sentence before parole. From my perspective, this charge is unwarranted and indefensible.
Although Canadian law allows for the laying of a first-degree murder charge when a police officer is killed, one of the hallmarks of a fair and compassionate system of justice is the consideration of the circumstances surrounding the death. Clearly, from what I do know of the situation, the teen panicked when stopped by Officer Styles and foolishly tried to flee, dragging the officer along with him, his actions culminating in the van overturning, leading to Styles' death. Without minimizing the loss to the family and the larger community incurred by his death, it was clearly unintended, caused by a stupid thing a kid did.
And I think that is the lens through which this tragedy should be viewed. A foolish kid, engaged in foolish behaviour without consideration of consequences, the sort of thing teens have been doing for millennia. Should a stiff sentence be sought? Perhaps, but justice will not be served by ensuring that a 15-year-old who made some stupid choices does not get out of prison until he is 40.
Shame on the Crown for pandering to the public and the police for the choice it has made.
The Real News Commentary on G20 Summit Police Crimes
As always, The Real News offers a refreshing perspective rarely found in the mainstream media. Anything that continues to keep the G20 police abuses of Charter Rights in the public forum can be nothing but good for our democracy.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
A New Anti-Hudak Ad
Putting aside for the moment my concern about critical thinking skills, I must confess to deriving considerable pleasure out of the latest ad calling into question Tim Hudak's plans should he win the October Ontario election. Enjoy!
Developing Critical Thinking Skills – Travelling A Road That Never Ends
Even though I consider myself reasonably-well-educated and reasonably well-read, one truth I have come to realize is that the journey toward critical thinking never ends – it is always a work in progress, if I may mix my metaphors. I very much doubt that any of us can say that we have become the consummate analyzer of facts and information, dispassionately assessing information for its objective truth. No, because we are human, our values, our passions, and our prejudices will always be factors in how we process the information that bombards us daily. However, I think we are making real progress when we can recognize the role those factors play in our lives, and even just occasionally are able to stand outside of them and give another viewpoint some respect and consideration.
I mentioned in my previous post the ingredients I believe are necessary in this journey toward better thinking. Today I'd like to address one of those requirements, the need to read widely, something that I realize is a problem for many people. During my working life, I would always try to read a couple of papers, one local and one national, but otherwise the bulk of my reading, both fiction and non-fiction, was confined to bedtime and weekends. I know that for many, because of such time constraints, reading is not a priority. Yet there can be no substitute. It is surely an irony of the times that we have access to more information than any previous epoch, yet have so little time to consider it.
With that in mind, I would like to recommend a book that I recently read: The Trouble with Billionaires, by Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks.
Now, the reactionary (one with whom I associate a reluctance to think widely and honestly) would immediately and simply reject considering such a work because Linda McQuaig is a 'leftie.' A more open-minded person would see the opportunity to learn new things or see issues from a new perspective. And that is precisely what this book enabled me to do on a number of issues including progressive taxation, corporate donations, the disproportionate influence the wealthy have exerted on government policy both historically and contemporaneously, and the problem of rising inequality in North America.
One small illustration from the book will serve to exemplify its value in widening one's perspective. Increasingly, corporate donations are being pursued and relied upon by universities. However, beyond the obvious danger that over-reliance on such funding sources can pose for program development and content, the authors reveal something that I have never considered:
The public also has an inflated sense of how much financing wealthy donors actually provide through philanthropy. For instance, there was much celebration in April 2010 when it was announced that a new $35 million donation from Peter Munk would enable the University of Toronto to establish a school of global studies. The new Munk School of Global Affairs (incorporating the existing Munk Centre for International Studies) is to be housed in a century-old stone building on fashionable Bloor Street West, and feature an elevated pixel board flashing the latest world news headlines.
But, although it wasn’t mentioned in the announcement, Munk will receive a $16 million tax reduction for his $35 million contribution, reducing his actual personal contribution to $19 million. So he will really be paying just a little more than half the cost of his contribution, while the government (Canadian taxpayers) will be paying just a little under half. For that matter, if Munk made his donation in the form of shares in publicly traded companies — as most donors do — then his tax savings will be considerably larger (possibly by millions of dollars) and his personal contribution far smaller than $19 million.
The Ontario and federal governments also announced that they would each contribute $25 million to the new Munk school, bringing the total contribution of Canadian taxpayers to at least $66 million. But when it came to naming the building, the taxpayers’ $66 million simply disappeared; only Munk’s $19 million (or less) counted.
The authors then go on to talk about the influence Mr. Munk will have on the sorts of programs offered there. For example, is an examination of the role of multi-nationals and their sometimes nefarious behaviour in African gold extraction likely to be welcomed by Mr. Munk, head of Barrick gold?
I know that I have come no closer to answering the questions originally posed by fellow-blogger Orwell, but I will return with more thoughts on the development of critical thinking skills soon.
I mentioned in my previous post the ingredients I believe are necessary in this journey toward better thinking. Today I'd like to address one of those requirements, the need to read widely, something that I realize is a problem for many people. During my working life, I would always try to read a couple of papers, one local and one national, but otherwise the bulk of my reading, both fiction and non-fiction, was confined to bedtime and weekends. I know that for many, because of such time constraints, reading is not a priority. Yet there can be no substitute. It is surely an irony of the times that we have access to more information than any previous epoch, yet have so little time to consider it.
With that in mind, I would like to recommend a book that I recently read: The Trouble with Billionaires, by Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks.
Now, the reactionary (one with whom I associate a reluctance to think widely and honestly) would immediately and simply reject considering such a work because Linda McQuaig is a 'leftie.' A more open-minded person would see the opportunity to learn new things or see issues from a new perspective. And that is precisely what this book enabled me to do on a number of issues including progressive taxation, corporate donations, the disproportionate influence the wealthy have exerted on government policy both historically and contemporaneously, and the problem of rising inequality in North America.
One small illustration from the book will serve to exemplify its value in widening one's perspective. Increasingly, corporate donations are being pursued and relied upon by universities. However, beyond the obvious danger that over-reliance on such funding sources can pose for program development and content, the authors reveal something that I have never considered:
The public also has an inflated sense of how much financing wealthy donors actually provide through philanthropy. For instance, there was much celebration in April 2010 when it was announced that a new $35 million donation from Peter Munk would enable the University of Toronto to establish a school of global studies. The new Munk School of Global Affairs (incorporating the existing Munk Centre for International Studies) is to be housed in a century-old stone building on fashionable Bloor Street West, and feature an elevated pixel board flashing the latest world news headlines.
But, although it wasn’t mentioned in the announcement, Munk will receive a $16 million tax reduction for his $35 million contribution, reducing his actual personal contribution to $19 million. So he will really be paying just a little more than half the cost of his contribution, while the government (Canadian taxpayers) will be paying just a little under half. For that matter, if Munk made his donation in the form of shares in publicly traded companies — as most donors do — then his tax savings will be considerably larger (possibly by millions of dollars) and his personal contribution far smaller than $19 million.
The Ontario and federal governments also announced that they would each contribute $25 million to the new Munk school, bringing the total contribution of Canadian taxpayers to at least $66 million. But when it came to naming the building, the taxpayers’ $66 million simply disappeared; only Munk’s $19 million (or less) counted.
The authors then go on to talk about the influence Mr. Munk will have on the sorts of programs offered there. For example, is an examination of the role of multi-nationals and their sometimes nefarious behaviour in African gold extraction likely to be welcomed by Mr. Munk, head of Barrick gold?
I know that I have come no closer to answering the questions originally posed by fellow-blogger Orwell, but I will return with more thoughts on the development of critical thinking skills soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)