Lying Politicians

Given the level of odium in which the public holds politicians, the title of this post probably seems redundant. However, it is also appropriate given an article written by Lawrence Martin yesterday and a not-so-surprising revelation made in today's Toronto Star.

First, Martin's article, published yesterday in iPolitics, posits that our elected officials, and those vying for office, regularly lie because it works, one reason being that journalists let them get away with it:

In the news business anything that is expected, that happens often, is of declining news value. And so the media over time has lost its sense of outrage when politicians willfully distort or lie. The media don’t hold politicians to as a high as a standard as they used to.

And until they do, expect the bald-faced lies that pass for informed discourse to continue unabated.

Which segues nicely into one of the front-page stories in this morning's Star. Entitled Cost to move gas plant may reach $700M in the print edition, it reveals the lie that Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has been propagating that $40 million would be the cost to taxpayers/electricity users for his cancellation of a gas-fired generator in Oakville to purchase a Liberal seat in the last election.

The plant, already well-under construction during the waning days of the provincial contest, is to be moved to the site of the Lennox generating station near Bath, 210 kilometres east of Toronto.

Energy consultant Bruce Sharp, who pegs the cost of the move at $700 million, says earlier estimates haven’t taken into account several huge items.

...the biggest hidden cost in the deal is the province’s agreement to accept the cost of what’s known as “gas delivery and management services” costs, which he figures could add $346 million to the bill.

And a further $200 million or more comes from the decision to move the plant hundreds of kilometres to the east.

Then factor in about $250 for the extra cost of transmission upgrades.

This will not be the first time that Premier McGuinty has played fast and loose with the electorate's money in his bald pursuit and exercise of power.

With more diligent journalism, however, perhaps it will be his last.

Pick On Someone Your Own Size, Premier McGuinty

Much rhetoric has been uttered of late about the need for everyone to 'share the pain' as Ontario's McGuinty government attacks the provincial deficit in a manner that many think is counterproductive, stripping away teachers collective bargaining rights being but one example.

However one may feel about such moves, those in the public service are at least positioned fairly well to weather this strategy. The same cannot be said for many others. Not all targets are created equal.

One such target of McGuinty's fervour are the poor. As Carol Goar reports in today's Star, a program called the community start-up and maintenance benefit (CSUMB) will be cut off at the end of 2012.

Goar writes:

For 20 years, this program has served as a lifeline for people at risk of homelessness. It’s an emergency allowance, available every two years, worth a maximum of $799. It enables the homeless to move into an apartment. It helps low-income tenants who can’t pay their utility bill keep the lights on; job applicants buy suitable clothes; families fumigate bedbug-infested apartments; and people facing eviction pay their rent arrears.

According to Naomi Berlyne of Houselink, it keeps a roof over hundreds of heads every year. “Without it, we’re going to have a disaster on our hands.”

I don't care how venal or self-centred people might be, I expect that most will be as outraged as I am over this development; I know I will be writing my MPP a letter protesting it.

Shame on the Premier for targeting the most vulnerable amongst us.

It is something that I will neither forgive nor forget at the next election.

'Where Is The Outrage?' Asks Alex Himelfarb

I have written two previous posts about Alex Himelfarb, Director of the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs at York University, former Clerk of the Privy Council, and fellow blogger. He is a man whose passion for democracy and societal fairness I deeply admire.

I was therefore pleased to see him sharing his thoughts on the state of our democracy in today's Star as part of a series that began yesterday with a piece by Allan Gregg entitled In Defence of Reason.

Today, Himelfarb begins with an observation with which I think most of us would agree:

We ought to be outraged. Almost daily our media provide new accounts of the decline of our democracy: the inadequacies of our electoral system and allegations of electoral fraud; the high-handed treatment of our Parliament through inappropriate prorogations and overuse of omnibus legislation; a government ever more authoritarian and opaque, resistant to evidence and reason, and prepared to stifle dissent.

But he also cites a sad truth when he asks why so many Canadians do not seem to care; it is one that I know many of us have pondered in frustration as the abuses of democracy under the Harper regime continue to occur on an almost daily basis.

Himelfarb goes on to discuss how the market mentality, the notion that material gains made under a philosophy of minimal government 'interference' has, in many ways, supplanted traditional notions of democracy, resulting in large benefits for the few and growing inequality for the many.

However, he does see some hope for change and renewal in the Quebec student protests:

Student leaders from Quebec have launched a cross-Canada tour to promote activism and the creation of social movements that provide a richer democratic experience than offered by contemporary politics, but also to explain to those who feel disenfranchised why voting and political participation still matter. They understand the dangers of leaving any government to its own devices, unconstrained by a vigilant citizenry.

Himelfarb's article, as was Allan Gregg's piece yesterday, deserves to be read and disseminated widely.

More From Allan Gregg: In Defence of Reason

Pollster Allan Gregg, now spending much of his time offering critiques of the Harper regime and its dangerous demagogic inclinations, has written a followup to his talk “1984 in 2012: The Assault on Reason.”

Writing in today's Star, he discusses public reaction to his speech, which essentially went viral, and offers some thoughts on where we can go from here in channeling our dissatisfaction with the dangerous anti-intellectual approach to government embraced by Harper and his acolytes.

I encourage anyone who wants better for this country to spend a few minutes with his ideas.

Oh, Oh, More Inconvenient Truths

A few things the extreme right-wing does not want you to think about:

H/t Sol Chrom

You might also be interested in reading this article dealing with the issue of growing income inequality.

Education and the Digital World

The other day I wrote a post commenting on an article by Doug Mann, a University of Western Ontario professor who calls into question the wholehearted embrace of all things digital in the classroom, arguing that efforts should be made to curb its distracting potential.

A good letter by David Collins appears in today's Star advancing that discussion. Since it makes eminent sense, expect it to be ignored by educational authorities.

I reproduce it below for your consideration:

Re: Unplug the digital classroom, Opinion, Oct. 7

When many whose level of education should make them know better are towing the party line equating use of the latest technological devices in the classroom with “progress,” professor Doug Mann's straightforward account of the actual effects of this thinking in education is most welcome.

Having been both a TA and a college instructor over the past 10 years, I can confirm there has been a dramatic drop in literacy, numeracy, critical thinking and basic verbal comprehension among college and university students in that time, coinciding with the rise to ubiquity of mobile/digital devices.

While no cause can be definitively proven, the amount and type of use of such devices by students in the last few years is the only real demographic difference between them and students eight to 10 years ago.

More important than proving a cause is the recognition that mediating education through computerized devices is actually less engaging, more passive (students become mere users of programs, while the programs do the work!) and, by reducing education to content delivery, promotes the uncritical acceptance and regurgitation of information far more than traditional approaches.

To say today’s learners learn differently is a cop-out; if students show difficulty understanding via listening, reading and in-person discussion, the answer is surely to give them practice in these skills. Handing them computerized crutches to make up for lack of ability while ignoring the fact they're using them to surf the Internet and “chat” in class is not helping — it's manufacturing artificial disability.

David Collins, Toronto

Ministerial Responsibility

Does anyone remember that quaint notion?

During the lead-up to the Falkands War, the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Carrignton, and two junior ministers resigned. They took the blame for Britain’s poor preparations [for the war]and plans to decommission HMS Endurance, the navy’s only Antarctic patrol vessel.

Since those days, the concept of ministers taking responsibility for what is going on in their departments has been largely ignored, never more so than since the Harper regime assumed power, operating, I assume, pretty much on the principle, "Apologize for nothing, admit nothing, and wait for the public to go back to sleep."

So far, it is a strategy that seems to have worked very well for our federal overlords.

In his column today, Government’s reaction to tainted beef scandal the real crime, Tim Harper resurrects the notion of ministerial responsibility in looking at the pathetic example of Agricultural Minister Gerry Ritz, missing in action since the XL Foods tainted beef scandal broke:

When it became clear there was a problem, he disappeared.

He was not in the House of Commons to rebuild confidence in consumers, or take questions, he blithely defended meat quality at a Saskatchewan luncheon as the crisis grew, he cut short a briefing in which he referred to anything that knocked him off his talking points as a “technical question.’’

Despite the calls for his resignation, Tim Harper concludes that Ritz is safe for the time being, yet another example, in my view, of the contempt in which Harper Inc. holds the Canadian people and their health.