Ward, I'm Worried About The Beaver

In this complicated world filled with dire threats ranging from rapidly-escalating climatic disasters to unprecedented rates of marital discord to street (and theatre) violence that leaves everyone feeling more vulnerable than ever, I'm sure many Americans pine for the halcyon days of tranquility and simplicity epitomized by that classic family show, Leave It To Beaver.

You know the world I mean, where everyone owned a house on a quiet street, Mom was at home to provide a wholesome snack for the kids as they returned each day from their segregated schools, a world where even the biggest problems ('Beave ditched school today') were no match for the patriarchal wisdom of that archetype of fatherhood, Ward Cleaver, always ready to dispense sometimes severe but always loving solutions to wayward behaviour.

The only problem, of course, is that this world never existed, except in the fictional world of the television universe.

It is a fact apparently lost on the extreme right that now dominates the U.S. Republican Party. In his column today, The Star's Tim Harper casts some light on the reactionary platform that was endorsed and adopted at the RNC this week:

The platform adopted here would outlaw abortion, including in cases of rape and incest.

It backs a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and affirms the rights of states and the federal government to refuse to recognize same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage, it says, is an “assault on the foundations of our society.”

The platform says the party would overturn any bid to limit the capacity of clips or magazines for weapons and oppose any move to restore the ban on assault weapons.

It would aggressively pursue anti-union right-to-work legislation at the state level.

It backs energy exploration and development of the Outer Continental Shelf and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

It would overturn any immigration amnesty, and advocates making English the official national language.

It would reject the use of taxation to redistribute income or fund “unnecessary or ineffective” programs.

It is, in short, a platform that would win enthusiastic approval from even the darkest of hearts found amongst the Taliban and the theocratic regime in Iran, who would no doubt recognize kindred spirits in the country they now call "The Great Satan.'

Dalton McGuinty and the Ornge Scandal

As I recently observed in a post, Ontario's Premier Dalton McGuinty has refused to testify before the legislative committee investigating the Ornge air ambulance scandal.

Rather than try to help ferret out the wrongdoing that has cost Ontario taxpayers untold millions, enriched the accounts of high-placed Ornge executives, and engendered widespread doubts about the competence of his government, this pusillanimous politician who seems to enjoy the prestige of leadership while disregarding its responsibilities apparently prefers political expediency over public integrity.

A letter appearing in today's print edition of The Star succinctly sums up the situation McGuinty's dereliction of duty:

Re: McGuinty won't testify at ORNGE hearings, Aug. 26

Premier Dalton McGuinty’s refusal to testify at the hearings into the ORNGE scandal, where millions of Ontarians’ tax dollars have been misappropriated, is in itself a scandal. Nobody in the McGuinty government has ever taken responsibility for this, or any of the other countless fiscal mismanagement scandals that have constantly plagued his government.

As premier, Mr. McGuinty needs to realize the buck stops with him and we taxpayers need answers why he and his ministers refuse to be held accountable.

Larry Comeau, Ottawa

How The Right Deforms Our Attitudes

I have long believed it is not so much the 'genius' of the extreme right as it is their financial backing that makes them powerful propagandists. Their domination of the media and their captivation of politicians' ears give them advantages very difficult to surmount.

Read letters to the editor throughout the country and it seems that no matter where we look, the politics of envy, stoked by that right-wing power, permeates the attitudes of disadvantaged workers who look at what other workers have (good wages, benefits, and pensions)and dismiss them as unfair and unaffordable. Instead of working towards achieving those same kinds of benefits through unionization, they want to tear away what their fellow-toilers enjoy.

And while people go about this self-destructive behaviour, they give little thought to the real source of their discontent, corporate greed that sees its workers only as fungible commodities to be pitted against one another.

In her column today, Linda McQuaig offers some interesting reflections on the current landscape.

Attitudes Toward The Poor

"The more wealth you have, the more focused on your own self and your own needs you become, and the less attuned to the needs of other people you also become."

So says social psychologist Paul Piff in response to a Chronicle of Philanthropy report on charitable giving, discussed in a piece written by distinguished journalist Bill Moyers.

As a companion to my previous post about Carol Goar's article on worker exploitation, it makes for some thought-provoking comparative reading.

We Have A Responsibility

As we go about our daily lives, the majority of us, I suspect, share a hierarchy of concerns ranging in priority from the health and well-being of our loved ones, to ourselves, and to our fellow humans. It is probably the latter than many of us pay only lip service to, not necessarily just because we may not feel a real emotional connection to strangers, but also because we are often perplexed as to how we can have a meaningful impact on the lives of those who may be less fortunate. True, as a nation we tend to give generously to causes with our wallets, perhaps more aware than other countries, thanks to our values of collectivism over individualism, of our interconnectedness.

But sometimes real help can only be possible after a lengthy time spent becoming aware of and researching issues and policy choices that we entrust to our government representatives who, at least in theory, represent us.

I was prompted to think about these things today as I read a thought-provoking piece by The Star's Carol Goar entitled Ontario neglecting its most vulnerable workers.

Her first two paragraphs were provocative:

Roughly 1.7 million workers in the province — 1 out of 5 — have little or no protection from bosses who pay them less than the minimum wage, compel them to work on statutory holidays without overtime and don’t allow them time off for illness, a family emergency or the death of a loved one.

Some of these inhumane practices happen within the bounds of Ontario’s gap-ridden Employment Standards Act. Some happen illegally because the rules are so poorly enforced.

She goes on to discuss some of the improvements made in 2009 under Dalton McGuinty's poverty reduction strategy, improvements that were undermined a year later by the same government's passage of the “Open for Business Act” that heightened the risk of reprisals if exploited workers sought redress.

There is a glimmer of hope, reports Goar:

Fortunately there is a new thrust for reform. The Law Commission of Ontario has just released the first draft of a report entitled Vulnerable Workers and Precarious Work. It is a response to the plight of the lowest paid, least protected members of the labour force — typically immigrants, ethno-racial minorities and single parents — and to employment lawyers who lack the tools to help them.

Unfortunately, as she also reports, Dalton McGuinty's government will be under no obligation to accept the suggested reforms that the report addresses.

Which is why an informed citizenry, aware of the injustices and involved enough to try to exert some influence on the government, is paramount. To be sure, such a hope may be very idealistic, but I cannot help but ask what other avenues are there in a democracy such as ours?

Harper's Lack of Vision and Corporate Timidity

Canada is cursed with a Prime Minister who pretends to be an economist, one apparently intent on returning us to an era when the country was primarily a hewer of wood and drawer of water thanks to his enthusiastic endorsement of a shortsighted prosperity achieved through oil and gas exports.

Is it really surprising then that Corporate Canada is sitting on $526 billion that it refuses to invest in worthwhile and necessary pursuits like research and development, plant expansion, new equipment, etc. etc.?

That Man Behind the Curtain

While I strongly believe in being critical of unions when their behaviour warrants it, I am steadfast in my belief that they serve a vital role for the working person, which, essentially, is all of us, at least until retirement. I therefore must disagree with those who claim that the harsh measures about to be imposed by the McGuinty government of Ontario are somehow at least partly attributable to union intransigence.

In his Star column this morning, Martin Regg Cohn offers a good analysis of the politics motivating Mr. McGuinty as the legislature prepares to resume tomorrow to deal with something called the Putting Students First Act, a patently manipulative title confirming all that Mr. Orwell warned us about when he wrote his seminal essay Politics and the English Language.

While arguing that the legislation is little more than political theater designed to bolster the image of the Liberals, Cohn lays some of the blame at the feet of the federations that refused to negotiate. The problem with such a position, as I have previously argued, is the fact that the government never offered even the semblance of bargaining in good faith, essentially saying that the teacher groups had a choice: either accept the terms or have them legislated, the only flexibility being in how the stipulated savings would be effected, as seen in the OECTA deal that will now apparently form the basis of the legislation.

So what is my point here? Despite those who claim unions' intransigence has led to this pending legislation, from my perspective a capitulation to the gun put to their heads would have more seriously impaired faith in the efficacy of unions. To sell out its membership, as OECTA did by legitimizing a process that needlessly violates all good-faith concepts with which I am familiar, would have done far more damage than a steadfast refusal to return to the negotiating table.

And, of course, one thing the public needs to remember in this highly-charged political circus is the fact that a wage-freeze is something that teacher unions were amenable to almost from the beginning.

Just another one of those inconvenient truths, I guess, as Mr. McGuinty urges everyone to pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.