What is Truth?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a Coincidence?

Surely there can be no other explanation for the fact that at the same time that Human Resources Minister Diane Finley has announced new rules for those claiming E.I. benefits, her department has cut off the flow of some key employment data that the public has a right to.

Now being withheld from public scrutiny is information showing the total dollar amount of benefits paid to each province and the average weekly payments by province. As reported by the CBC, the official explanation involves some inconsistencies in the Human Resources raw data that were discovered over a year ago, but, strangely enough, inconsistencies that did not prevent Statistics Canada from doing its usual job of aggregating data over the past year. However, as of May, that data has been cut off by the Harper government.

One can only hope that these 'inconsistencies in data' are resolved soon, lest uncharitable thoughts should emerge to undermine this government's 'credibility'.

Words, Words, Words

As a retired English teacher and a lifelong lover of books, I have always been fascinated by words, both what they actually mean and how they are used to influence and manipulate. As the years have gone by, I have become especially interested in the political uses and abuses of language along the lines described in George Orwell's seminal essay, Politics and the English Language, the latter of which I would explore every year with my senior classes.

As I noted in an earlier post, the power of language to curb liberty and undermine free and critical thought is something we are witness to on a regular basis, and it is only by being familiar with these techniques that we can, to some extent, guard against them and recognize perversions of truth when they occur.

Orwell was well-aware of these dangers when he wrote his essay 56 years ago, and the problem has become so extensive that many of us almost automatically tune out when politicians or other 'leaders' open their mouths.

In Ontario, we are currently witness to a barrage of demagoguery and euphemisms from the McGuinty government in its battles against teachers and doctors. Take, for example, Education Minister Laurel Broten, whose government insists on a two-year pay freeze for teachers and the elimination of the retirement gratuity that exists in lieu of any post-retirement benefits. When she says she is choosing full day kindergarten and smaller elementary class sizes over teachers' paycheques, she is awakening latent public antipathy against 'greedy teachers', a pretty obvious subtext of her public pronouncements.

When she says, “I am asking the unions and the teachers to come to the table and work with us,” insisting she is “not negotiating in the media,” that is precisely what she is doing, of course.

And then there is her strange use of the word 'negotiation', which denotes a give and take to arrive at a reasonable solution. However, in this context, since she and McGuinty have made clear there is to be no give, only take, (OSSTF, for example, did offer to accept a two-year-wage freeze but not the end of the gratuity) 'negotiate' becomes a euphemism for saving the government the political embarrassment of having to strip away collective bargaining rights at some political cost to the party.

The same, of course, applies to the 'negotiations' the province is conducting with doctors. When Health Minister Deb Matthews says she’s disappointed that the OMA rejected her offer, what she is really saying, since the word 'offer' is a euphemism for 'ultimatum', is that she is sorry that the medical profession has not capitulated to her government's demands. That negotiation is not possible is attested to by the fact that she and McGuinty rejected the OMA's offer of a pay freeze.

No matter where we might stand on the direction being taken by the McGuinty government, it is imperative that all of us recognize and decry tactics that take us further and further from a healthy state of democracy.

Chief Bill Blair Dodges Another Bullet

The Toronto Star reports the following:

The province’s police complaints watchdog has recommended 31 officers be charged with misconduct during the G20 summit, two of them in senior positions, Toronto police said Wednesday.

The good chief must be wearing his kevlar vest 24/7, judging by his apparent immunity to any consequences for his disastrous G20 police 'leadership' in 2010.

What Do Bumper Stickers Reveal About Us? Part 2

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

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

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

As observed by Thomas Walkom,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While Canadians Pay Designer Prices, Cambodian Workers on Strike For $5 Salary Increase

As we go about, getting and spending, here is a sobering reminder of other people's reality.

Harper Omnibus Bill To Cede Some Of Our Sovereignty

Everywhere we look, more and more evidence of Stephen Harper's intention to betray Canadians through Bill C-38, his omnibus bill which covers a multitude of sins.