Another Thing Americans Have To Worry About

Think how much worse things could be if guns killed people. But as we all know, thanks to the reassurance offered by the NRA, guns don't kill people; people kill people.

Propaganda From Vic Toews

There are two letters of particular note in this morning's edition of The Toronto Star, one a propaganda piece from our much beleaguered Minister of Public Safety, Vic Toews, the other from Ron Charach, who seems to possess a certain perspicacity in his assessment of the Conservative government.

I am reproducing both below, with a few editorial additions on my part to 'clarify' Mr. Toews' words:

Re: Priority is on marketing in Tory anti-crime agenda, Opinion Aug. 27

Our government’s crime legislation does not create new criminals. Rather, it keeps the most dangerous, violent and repeat offenders behind bars for longer periods of time.

FACT: The Omnibus Crime bill imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of nine months for anyone found growing six or more marijuana plants in a rented premises, and could impose the same sentence for someone caught simply sharing a joint, which might be considered trafficking, even if no money was paid.

Our Conservative government was given a strong mandate by Canadians to make our streets and communities safer. We make no apologies for putting the rights of law-abiding Canadians ahead of the rights of criminals.

FACT: Only 39.6 of those who cast votes did so for the Conservative Party

We will continue to implement laws, policies, and procedures that protect Canadian families while standing up for our most vulnerable citizens. That isn’t marketing. It’s the first duty of every government.

FACT: The Conservative government is not standing up for our most vulnerable citizens, who are threatened with increasing poverty, a major contributor to crime, through the loss of even more jobs thanks to the Canada-Columbia free trade pact. And, of course, informed opinion says that CETA and the Asia-Pacific free trade pact, currently being conducted in secret, will likely result in more of the same.

Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety,(Hypocrisy) Ottawa

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When it comes to what governments choose to call laws, there is no Truth in Advertising commission. If there were, C-69 would be the Soft on Ruger Miniis bill, C-38 would be the Gut the Environmental Laws bill and C-10 would be the Up the Incarceration Rate/ Private Prisons bill.

The abortive C-80, which should have cost Vic Toews his job, should have been the Stoop to Snoop bill.

These Father-knows-best Conservatives will protect us from Internet predators, but for the real thing, the Anders Breiviks and Marc Lepines of the world, we are essentially on our own.

I for one am not surprised that the Republicans are looking up at Canada these days and like the Republican-style, majority government we have going here, with plenty of omnibus bills to allow the Conservatives godspeed in reshaping Canada in their own image.

Ron Charach, Toronto

A Reminder From Homeland Security

The following video could be a source of real amusement were it not an ample testament to the paranoia of our friends to the south. Also a useful tool for inhibiting any sense of community, I would think.

And I'm sure that the fact that almost all of the 'terrorists' in the video have swarthy complexions is but a coincidence.

H/t Disinformation

A Labour Day Reminder

On this Labour Day, as we reflect on the current dire situation facing many in the workforce, it might be useful to spend a little time with this video in which Allan Greg Gregg talks to journalist Chris Hedges about his book, The Death of the Liberal Class, which exams how the corporate class has gained its dominance thanks to the desire of the 'liberal class' to share in its power. It is a book well-worth reading.

Why Fair Taxation Is Crucial

Now here is something everyone who wants to be well-informed should watch. Part of TVO's Big Ideas series, it is a talk entitled How Did Taxes Become a Bad Word? by Alex Himelfarb, Director of the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs at York University, former Clerk of the Privy Council, and fellow blogger.

Unlike the strident and largely irrational hysterics of the right who preach salvation through tax cuts, Himelfarb offers us a carefully reasoned argument about how to achieve greater equality and the kind of society that all of us, in our better moments, hope for.

I found him inspiring to watch.

The Folly of Corporate Tax Cuts

Part of the orthodoxy of right-wing ideology is that corporate tax-cuts are an unalloyed benefit to the economy. The argument goes that the lower the tax regime, the more jobs that are created.

While that ideology has been proven patently false in Canada, for those seeking some well-reasoned arguments the next time a 'true-believer' captures your ear, look no further than a fine series of letters published in today's Star, only one of which I am reproducing below:

Corporations optimize their operations to maximize after-tax profit. When corporate profits are heavily taxed, reinvesting in the business provides a tax write-off that has a powerful risk damping effect; simultaneously, cash hoarding is penalized. Companies have no choice but to reinvest their profits.

When corporate tax rates are unsustainably low, reinvestment risks are not counteracted by tax breaks and there is no penalty for hoarding. It becomes hard to justify new staff and equipment when the lower-risk, higher-profit approach is to simply hoard cash.

This is not ideology; it is the mathematically inevitable result of optimizing for maximum after-tax profit. That Flaherty has not made the connection between the last two decades of tax policy and the current hoarding problem is rather surprising.

Matthew B. Marsh, Kingston

What Do Politics And Education Have In Common?

With apologies for writing yet another post about education, I cannot escape the conviction that in considering the seamier side of education, with its sometimes immoral and concealed actions, its use of 'spin' and its willingness to overlook or minimize wrongdoing when it suits its purposes, there are many parallels to the kind of unethical, expedient and corrupt behaviour we often find among those we elect to public office.

The other reason for my preoccupation is that I have always detested the existence of double standards in the meting out of justice.

Two events involving two school boards, one current and one going back several years, suggest that justice is not only not done, but not seen to be done.

In today's Toronto Star, a story about a former Kingsville, Ont., principal, Wendy Lynn Liebing,

admitted misusing school board funds over three years and resigned from the association on June 14, the college said on its website. Her certificate of qualification and registration to teach were then cancelled. The case was detailed in the latest issue of the college’s magazine, Professionally Speaking.

“At the time of the resignation, a professional misconduct investigation was in progress wherein the member was alleged to have mismanaged and misappropriated school and board funds,” the website said.

Despite the College of Teacher's euphemistic reference to Liebling's having 'mismanaged and misappropriated' school money, the fact is that she embezzled over $50,000 from her employer, a crime that in most cases would result in criminal charges. I will offer my opionion on why that did not happen in a few moments.

The next case, which goes back several years, involves a former school principal named Glenn Crawford, who was employed by the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board.

Like Liebling, Crawford 'misused' school funds and assets for personal reasons, as he admitted to during the investigation. Amongst the fraudulent acts he admitted to were the following:

a) receiving unauthorized personal advances;

b) receiving reimbursement for meal and hotel expenses that were personal;

c) falsifying receipts from Ontario Principals’ Council in order to be reimbursed by the
school;

d) billing both the Ontario Principals’ Council and the school for expense claims;

e) using school funds and assets for personal reasons;

f) authorizing payment of expenses by the school for expenses not related to school activities, such as expenses related to events involving his son including the International Children’s Games and the B’nai Brith Sports Dinner;

g) using the school van for personal reasons and submitting the expenses to the school;

h) receiving reimbursement for the purchase of tires claimed but not installed on the school
van;

i)obtaining the personal services of landscaping company, where his son is a landscape contractor, and billing the school; and

j)authorizing landscape expenses for the 2001/2002 fiscal year higher than those for similar size schools.


The penalty for this malfeasance?

Essentially, Crawford was permitted to resign and had his teaching certificate suspended for one year.

You can read the full decision here.

So why were neither Liebling nor Crawford charged with a crime, something that usually happens to those who embezzle from their employers? The most benign explanation is that the board, being heavily influenced by institutional behaviour, wanted to minimize the publicity surrounding these odious deeds, publicity that would both diminish the institution's reputation and seriously damage the career advancement to the many who put their own fortunes above the good of education.

The second possibility, and admittedly a much more sinister one, is that people who commit crimes but are dealt with softly often have knowledge of things within the organization that no one wants exposed to public scrutiny.

While the latter explanation may seem rather paranoid and conspiratorial, my own years in education were witness to some very questionable things which, while I am not prepared to discuss them here, would never have passed 'the smell test'.