A Faint Ray Of Hope?

Those of us who write blogs on a regular basis, I suspect, have a high tolerance for the uglier aspects of humanity that we regularly confront in our exploration of the political arena. Greed, deception, avarice and rampant egoism seem pervasive, concern for the collective good little more than a platitude. Yet we continue on, in part buoyed by the hope of a better future landscape where demagoguery and ideology are supplanted by reason and empiricism. One lives in hope.

Over at Northern Reflections, Owen, as usual, has an excellent post, this one on how the American politicos in their war on the poor seem to embrace an Old Testament avenging God, viewing victims of poverty and unemployment as having a moral failing.

On the other side of the coin, however, is the apparently positive effect that Pope Francis is having on some political leaders and commentators. In today's Toronto Star, Carol Goar writes the following:

Right-wing pundit Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, 2012 Republican presidential contender, inventor of workfare and forerunner of the Tea Party movement, issued this plea in a recent episode of CNN’s Crossfire: “I think every Republican should embrace the Pope’s core critique that you do not want to live on a planet with billionaires and people who do not have enough food.”

This was the man who advocated that poor people fend for themselves and Washington slash taxes on capital gains, dividends and inheritances. This was the inspiration for Preston Manning, Mike Harris, Jason Kenney and a host of other neo-conservatives.

She writes that Barack Obama gave a major speech on inequality that echoed what Pope Francis has been saying:

“How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?” Obama asked, echoing the pontiff. Within days, Senate majority leader Harry Reid pressed his colleagues to put inequality on their 2014 agenda.

Goar goes on to relate how Angela Merkel, David Cameron and others have been impressed and influenced by the Pope's direction. Notably absent, however, is any sign of a spiritual regeneration taking place within the Harper cabal:

Stephen Harper’s government shows no interest in narrowing the gap between rich and poor or reining in the excesses of capitalism.

As Parliament adjourned for its Christmas recess, its finance committee — dominated by Conservative MPs — tabled a report saying there was no need to change course. All the government had to do to address inequality was keep taxes low, remove disincentives to work (such as employment insurance benefits), boost the skilled trades and maintain an attractive investment climate — exactly the policies that fuelled the income disparities in the first place.

But as Goar also points out, with an election looming, Harper and his ilk cannot afford to ignore shifting public opinion nor their political rivals, who have made the fate of the middle class a mainstay of their rhetoric. (I can't say policies since they have none that are apparent to me.)

While the cynic in me cautions against putting too much faith in Damascene conversions changing the political landscape and conversation, the dormant optimist counsels me not to abandon all hope, either.

A Motivational Video

If Stephen Harper's contempt for the things we hold dear as Canadians isn't reason enough to vote, what is?

An Unspeakably Sad Picture

But this photo of materials tossed in a dumpster upon the closure of the Fisheries and Oceans Canada library in Mont-Joli, Que. also speaks volumes about the Harper contempt for any knowledge or research that contradicts his regressive and destructive policies.

A war on science indeed.

Hudak's 'Truth' Exposed For The Lie It Is

In response to an opinion piece written by Stephen Skyvington espousing the Tim Hudak canard that mandatory union membership is one of the reasons Ontario is faring so badly economically, Hamilton Spectator readers weigh in with insights of their own:

Hudak is no friend of the workers

Spectator readers fooled by Stephen Skyvington's opinion piece should ask themselves: Who would benefit from the disappearance of the Rand formula?

Skyvington's argument for PC Leader Tim Hudak's anti-labour agenda leads to one conclusion: already-wealthy corporations and corporate bosses will reap the rewards if the last voice of working people is silenced. Workers? Not so much. Hudak has promised to gut the pensions of registered nurses and other workers and freeze their wages.

Skyvington's column is an example of the attempts to rid the country of unions and the work they do on behalf of every working person. The measures he and Hudak endorse are meant to eliminate the ability of unions to represent ordinary workers. Only corporate bosses benefit; they would be free to pay lower wages, fewer or no benefits and reap greater profits from the efforts of their workers.

Federal and provincial corporate tax cuts over the past 15 years have handed tens of billions of dollars to corporations." The billions in tax savings came with no strings — the corporations didn't feel morally obligated to expand their businesses, create more jobs or share the wealth through investments in Canada.

Skyvington misleads readers when he talks of "mandatory" union membership. Union membership is not mandatory; those who go to work in a union environment have the option of signing a membership card.

Skyvington's portrayal of Tim Hudak as "going to bat" for workers would be funny if it wasn't so dangerous. Neither are friends of working Ontarians. We shouldn't believe them when they say they are.

Deanna King, Ancaster


Mandatory taxes, mandatory union dues

The union movement benefits society at large, not just those who pay union dues to a particular local. Attacking them is not new and will never go away.

What's the difference between obligating a union member to pay dues and obligating a citizen to pay taxes? Does writer Stephen Skyvington also suggest I should have the right to renounce my taxes and the benefits they pay for? Why not? I have minimal interest in subsidizing corporate welfare if those businesses have minimal interest in my welfare.

How about a compromise? The taxpayer will continue to subsidize corporate welfare in exchange for living wage legislature? Please Big Business, may we have enough wealth to purchase your products and keep the entire economy running?

Here is a headline from the Globe and Mail in 1901: "Unions have out lived their usefulness." There is nothing new in what Skyvington espouses. It's just another round of attacks. Let's stand up together against the biggest bosses, the corporate ones. Don't forget to vote!

Ben Lyons, Hamilton

Hudak works for the Robber Barons

Stephen Skyvington would have us believe that the solution to the structural economic problems arising from neo-liberal policies of globalization, free trade, deregulation, migrant workforces, and reduced incomes is more of the same.

The solution for Skyvington and Ontario Conservative leader Tim Hudak could be labelled the Caterpillar Doctrine, whereby workers are offered half their wages without any benefits or their employer gives everyone the finger and leaves town.

In the wake of Caterpillar's closing in London, Ont., throwing 460 manufacturing workers onto the street, Hudak didn't "go to bat for workers." He backed the foreign-owned company that recorded $65.8 billion in sales and revenues and registered record profits.

Caterpillar didn't throw Ontario workers out of jobs because it was hurting but because it wasn't earning enough for the CEO, who raked in $10.4 million in salary for a single year. That is for whom Hudak and Skyvington are going to bat: Robber Barons. Hudak is a premier for 1914 not 2014.

Voters who work for a living ought to recognize Hudak as a class warrior for the one per cent and reject his divisive, ruinous agenda.

Sean Hurley, Hamilton

It is always encouraging to see Canadians exercising their critical faculties instead of passively accepting propaganda that advances the cause of a small, select, and grossly dishonest segment of the population known as the political class.

How Does The Progressive World Respond To This?

I sometimes wonder about whether the term progressive calls up some kind of a stereotype. When people think of progressives, do they have a picture which I would consider reasonably accurate - people who believe in the ardent pursuit of justice, fairness and equity in society, and the breaking down of barriers to those goals? Or do they think of progressives as those who have an automatic, almost Pavlovian reaction against anything that hints even remotely at judgement or the imposition of limitations?

While I regard myself as a progressive in the first sense, the second one leaves me absolutely cold, hinting, as it does, at a kind of uncritical group-think whose tyranny means disagreements from within render one ineligible for membership.

Years ago during my teaching career, I had in one of my classes a lad from the Middle East. While he was generally a congenial enough boy, his cultural conditioning made him think of girls as inferior. This was made clear to me one day when I had a group of students, mainly girls, milling around my desk waiting to ask me questions; the lad interposed himself in front of them, fully expecting that his need for an answer would take precedence over the young ladies. I had to explain to him that in Canada, we wait in line if others are before us, a lesson that I think he found difficult to assimilate when those ahead of him were of the feminine gender.

Which brings me to my case in point. By now you likely will have heard about the situation at York University in Toronto, where an online student asked to be excused from group work with women for religious reasons:

Sociology professor Paul Grayson wanted to deny the student’s request for the online course, but first asked the faculty dean and university’s human rights centre, who said he should grant the request.

In the end — after fellow professors in the department agreed such a move would marginalize females — Grayson denied the request. The student relented and completed the required work with the women in his group.

Even though the situation resolved itself, despite the fecklessness of the institution's 'leaders', the fact that it caused such contention and controversy forces me to ask the question of what constitutes reasonable accommodation in our multi-cultural society. Indeed, should a situation as described above even be an issue in a secular institution such as a university, where openness and inquiry and exposure to new ideas and ways of thinking are its raison d'être?

To explore this further, I would encourage you to read Rosie DiManno's piece in today's Star. Entitled York University cowardly, compliant and blind to common sense, here is but a brief excerpt:

The Star headline got it wrong: “York University student’s request not to work with women poses dilemma.”

There is no dilemma here and only one proper response: No.
No to segregating males and females.

No to religious accommodation of any type at Canadian campuses.

No to the absurdity of human rights departments that turn themselves into black holes of ethical relativism.

No to academic officials who twist themselves into pretzels of gutlessness, rather than take an honorable scholastic and moral stance.

Let me know what you think.

Shameful, Absolutely Shameful

It's terrible, isn't it, when people resort to stereotypes to express their political displeasure? An absolute disgrace. Unconscionable. Heh heh.



H/t Occupy Canada

The War Continues

The Harper cabal's contempt for the environment, science, transparency, and knowledge in general has become the stuff of dark legend, provoking outrage both at home and beyond our borders. That a putative democracy can be behaving in such a totalitarian manner strains credulity. And the latest salvo against science, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' closing of seven of eleven regional libraries housing a priceless accumulation of aquatic research, is being regarded as a tremendous loss by both scientists and the general public:

Peter Wells, an adjunct professor and senior research fellow at the International Ocean Institute at Dalhousie University in Halifax, has this to say:

“I see this situation as a national tragedy, done under the pretext of cost savings, which, when examined closely, will prove to be a false motive”... “A modern democratic society should value its information resources, not reduce, or worse, trash them.”

Even members of the defunct Progressive Conservative Party are speaking out. Tom Siddon, the former federal fisheries minister in Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government, had this to say:

"I call it [closing libraries] Orwellian, because some might suspect that it's driven by a notion to exterminate all unpopular scientific findings that interfere with the government's economic objectives".

Others are reportedly too afraid to speak out.

Another person piercing this veil of darkness and intimidation is The Star's Rick Salutin, whose column today addresses some of the wider implications of Harper's war against enlightenment and progress.

First he presents a poignant picture of scientists' reactions to seeing invaluable knowledge being either carted off to dumpsters or scavenged:

Scientists were practically or actually crying as they watched their beloved atlases etc. hauled away or dispatched to the shredder. The feds say it’s all been digitized but that’s evidently untrue. Postmedia unearthed a document marked secret that had no mention of digitization.

But scientists are not the only ones affected by these depredations:

For Canadians, it’s like the loss of irreplaceable family photos. This country was built on its coasts and waterways via the fishing grounds and fur trade. We are as we are — nature heavy and underpopulated — due to those patterns.

Yet, as Salutin points out, the loss is much larger:

It goes deeper though. It has to do with being human. What humans do is solve problems with intelligence, when they can, and when they fail, try to learn from that and pass it on for the next round. This gives humans their edge. ...There’s something willfully perverse in turning your back on accumulated knowledge in the name of “value for taxpayers.”

And perhaps the greatest casualty is democracy itself, something the Harper reprobates have shown such ongoing contempt for:

Democracy isn’t about everybody casting one vote. That way all you get is a sloppy aggregation of individual opinions. The whole is the sum of its parts, period. Democracy means people consult together, listen, discuss — so that some voices will weigh more than others, and everyone gets a chance to decide which those are. But that can’t happen if the most informed voices from the past and present are stifled or dropped into dumpsters.

So whether we realize it or not, the Harper war against knowledge is part of a larger battle against all of us. If that's not worth fighting, I don't know what is.

Although I featured this picture in a post yesterday, it seems appropriate to run it again:



For further reading on the Harper war against science, check out John Dupuis' piece here.