Breaking Up Is Hard To Do

                                                                

I do not fit the usual profile of a stalking victim. I am not young, rich, a public figure, a celebrity nor female. Yet the past week has made me empathize with those who fall victim to the obsession that often prompts unwanted surveillance.

It all started when I had the audacity to change my Internet, telephone and television service provider, after being approached by a rival company that made me an offer I couldn't refuse. (I won't name either company involved, as I have no desire to be a shill for the corporate agenda.) Suffice it to say that the new suitor offered technologically superior service, a better channel selection, a free streaming service for six months, enhanced phone service, and a cost savings of at least $60 a month for the next two years. As well, the usual hefty installation fee was waived.

And best of all, they would cancel my existing contract with the rival company and give me a prepaid Visa card for any expenses incurred in breaking the contract. It all seemed so bloodless, since I wouldn't have to endure the usual "customer retention" ploys that occur when one is threatening to leave a company, a practice I am quite familiar with from previous renegotiations over the years with the departing service.

It was a neat, arm's length relationship-severing with the jilted party - or so I thought.

Almost immediately, the phone calls began, urging me to stay with my current 'partner'. (Since I have call display, I only listened to the messages they left me.) These calls became a daily feature of my life until the new service was up and running, telling me how they could make things right for me. However, because I had already undertaken to commit to the new service, I had no intention of breaking my word.

Then the emails began. The first one expressed regret at not being able to reach me by phone, with a large caption reading, Give us one more chance to make things right, and promising an exclusive offer in hopes of retaining me as a customer. Both the calls and the emails continued, prompting me to regard them as desperate and whiny, trying to keep our 'relationship' intact. It got to the point where I apologized to my wife for bringing this messy affair into our home. I had so hoped for an amicable breakup.

What is my point in all of this? Perhaps it is obvious, but I hope it serves as a reminder that corporations are not our friends, and they are essentially profit (greed)-driven, no matter how all of their advertising suggests otherwise. But, it is also a reminder that we perhaps all too often underestimate the bargaining power we have when viable alternatives exist. Those alternatives serve as leverage.

Leverage is necessary, since no price reductions for 'loyalty' are ever offered. For example, I am sure (and this was especially apparent from reports when online learning was the only option during the height of the pandemic) there are still customers who pay hefty fees on accounts that have limits on how much internet one may use before incurring extra charges. That was my case before embracing streaming, and it was only after threatening to leave that I was given unlimited access. Do not expect the corporate heart (if that is not an oxymoron) to be touched and a company to reach out to you proactively to see if it can do better for you. 

You, and you alone, must take the initiative. Any feelings of loyalty to your ISP, I can assure you, will not be spontaneously reciprocated.

Thought For The Day (The Week, The Month, The Year, Etc.)

This from Professor Michael E. Mann:

Sagan rightly feared the "celebration of ignorance". He didn't quite anticipate, however, the *weaponization* of ignorance that we are now seeing.

Carl Sagan predicted QAnon more than two decades ago:

If you have never read the book, The Demon-Haunted World is well-worth your time.

Hard To Swallow

                               
While there are many topics of pressing concern to write about these days, I can't resist a lesser story that in my view underscores corporate greed, writ large.

Some may have heard about the recent roll-up-the-rim fiasco at what Canadians like to believe is their national coffee emporium, Tim Horton's. Now owned by multinational Restaurant Brands International, which benefits quite handsomely from Canadians' loyalty, the institution is publicly reminding all of us that the only loyalty it has is to the bottom line. And that bottom line is hardly impacted by its recent 'technological 'glitch', which has left some pursuing legal action against the company.

A Southwestern Ontario man says he’s retained a lawyer after a Tim Hortons prize app told him he’d won $10,000, only for the coffee giant to call it a technical glitch and deny the win.

Jeremy McDougall, 37, of Tillsonburg is among an unknown number of customers who thought they’d won the five-figure prize in the annual Roll Up To Win campaign after being notified by the Tim Hortons digital app their cup was a winner.

“We were pretty over-the-moon thinking we won $10,000” McDougall said, noting his wife lost her job right before Christmas. The win, he said, made them think “the tide is turning for us. I thought it was some good fortune but, nope.”

Roll Up To Win is a popular annual contest run by Tim Hortons. Formerly it was manual – customers literally loosened the rim of their paper cup to see if they’d won a prize – but has now migrated to the company’s digital app.

 The restaurant chain is facing something of a public-relations nightmare after the contest’s first day, Monday. Officials with the company have said a “small subset” of players was incorrectly notified that they’d won the company’s jackpot draw, a $10,000 daily prize meant to be awarded to one person a day.

The company added it has offered a $50 gift card as compensation to players who received the erroneous award notice and is in the process of contacting the false winners “to express our regret for the disappointment caused by this error.”

McDougal is not the only one unwilling to accept the insulting offer of a $50 gift card.

There are other unhappy people who are indicating they also received the $10,000-winning message. Wrote one man on Facebook: “I’ve never won something big in my life. And now, to only be let down by the news, is devastating.”

Added another man: “I want the $10,000 that your app told me I won.”

Given that I brew my coffee at home and rarely resort to buying a cup, this story is important to me only because it reminds all of us that the chummy, patriotic feeling the company has been trying to cultivate and exploit over the years is simply PR. Scratch beneath the surface, and it is a cold, calculating and ugly picture that emerges, showing the true contempt in which Tim Horton's holds its customers. Otherwise, it would swallow its 'mistake' in order to make disappointed customers whole.

Meanwhile, Canadians still swallow their swill. Perhaps it is too much to expect, but one hopes some will remember this outrage when contemplating their next 'Timmy's run'.

 

 

 

Signs Of The Times

I've been really busy this week and haven't had time to post. The following reflects just a few of the things I haven't written about, as seen through the eyes of Moudakis:

Catholic Love

 

I offer the following without comment, except to say that it is incredible that in the 21st Century, we still have so many benighted people amongst us. 

Read only until you feel your gag reflex starting to kick in:

Police were called in to deal with angry parents after they disrupted a Catholic school board meeting north of Toronto earlier this week over the issue of safe spaces for LGBTQ students.

The parents attended the York Catholic District School Board (YCDSB) meeting Tuesday evening in Aurora to oppose what are known as "safe space" stickers, which are used by some teachers to signal acceptance to LGBTQ children and teens. 

Carlo Ravenna, one of the parents, spoke directly to the board about the stickers in a pre-approved deputation. 

"They shouldn't say 'safe space.' They should say 'danger zone,'" he said at the meeting. "Preaching confusion in the guise of inclusivity and acceptance is truly disgusting."

The parents say the stickers, and any LGBTQ-inclusive messaging, are at odds with their Catholic faith.

 Sheree di Vittorio, another parent who made a virtual deputation, told the board, "Catholic schools should not allow transgender or LGBT students to attend."

"It is most certainly not appropriate to engage kids to be open to these ideologies. There are biblical reasons why homosexuality is considered a sin … regardless of what Pope Francis may think," she said.

After the two deputations, a crowd of parents in the gallery became increasingly disruptive, the board said in a statement sent to CBC Toronto.

Shouting and cries of,"You're all pathetic!" and, "Stay away from our kids" can be heard on video of the meeting. 

Fortunately, despite that pitchfork-bearing rabble, there are some sane voices within the board:

Paulo de Buono, whose child was at a YCDSB school until last year, is also a teacher with the Toronto Catholic District School Board. Safe space signage is an important tool for teachers to help students feel safe, he said.

"For a  group of students who have been marginalized too long, and so, so much in the Ontario Catholic system, they need to know that we're making an effort to have safe spaces for them," de Buono said.

He said the school board needs to start open and honest discussions with parents about issues of gender and sexuality to better educate them about equity and inclusion.

"They need to understand that this is Ontario, this is Canada, that there are certain basic human rights that students have," de Buono said.

"This is a public school board. It may have the word 'Catholic' in it, and that includes certain privileges, but it does not include the right to treat students so wrongly."

Brenda Agnew, a trustee with the Halton Catholic District School Board, agrees that educating parents is crucial.

"I truly believe that if people had a deeper understanding of what those conversations look like, and how that is being woven into our school days, that there would be a higher level of acceptance," she said. 

I wrote in my previous post that we can choose not to do evil. Sadly, we know the above mob has not entertained the possibility of such a choice.

The Value Of Self-Censorship

 

I am one who firmly believes that far too many people are far too easily offended today, whether it is reflected in demands to tear down statues because of historical transgressions, as in the case of Sir John A., or tossing out all of Winston Churchill's accomplishments because of his and the Empire's historical racism ( as opposed to making the statues part of history's lessons). That being said, there really is no excuse today for people to be blowing dogwhistles that appeal to a very base base.

Such is the case with the much-publicized cancellation of Dilbert, thanks to its creator, Scott Adams, opining that Black people are  “a hate group” that white people need to “get the hell away from.”

Adams deserves every cancellation he gets, but he’s not alone in deserving our opprobrium.  He might not have made the specific racist remarks he made but for Rasmussen Reports, which, smack-dab in the middle of Black History Month, decided to ask a pair of questions more befitting of Confederate Heritage Month.

Rasmussen Reports pollsters asked 1,000 people to agree or disagree with two statements: “It’s OK to be white” and “Black people can be racist, too.” Nothing good was ever going to come from those questions, and it was irresponsible and incendiary for Rasmussen to use those questions, and only those questions, in a survey.

White supremacists know such statements well.

“It’s OK to be white” is a sentence that has been embraced by white supremacists who oppose good-faith efforts to make our country more diverse, equitable and inclusive. “Black people can be racist, too,” is another sentiment one hears primarily from white people who don’t want to be reminded of the oppression white Americans have carried out. They are the same people who, contrary to all the evidence, argue that racism in America works both ways.

Of course, as is often the case in such matters, Adams sees himself as a victim, but I have both an observation and a little advice on this matter for him and his fellow travellers.

First, I think we have to admit that very few of us are completely without biases. Some of them might be minor, or they might be very significant. None of us is without blame in our lives. As long as we recognize and acknowledge to ourselves those prejudices or inclinations, we can choose not to act upon them.

Now I know many will say that if you have those biases, they will inexorably reveal themselves through what they like to call microaggressions. They may be right, but human nature offers the opportunity for growth, and I am of the firm opinion that we can choose to resist evil, because its embrace is a conscious act, doubtlessly influenced by conditioning and even unconscious underpinnings. 

My advice to people like Scott Adams and his ilk is simple: keep your views to yourself. To pronounce upon such matters from a position of some influence does no one any good. Indeed, I would extend that advice to everyone. We have to realize (and it can be humbling) that the larger world is not thirsting for our views, and that any impulse to believe otherwise is sheer egoism. 

And haven't we had more than enough of that nonsense in recent years?

 

 

Responding To The Corporate Siren Call

The other day, I posted about our successive governments' inability to resist the siren call of the corporate imperative, wedded as they are both socially and ideologically to their summons. In my previous post, I explored how postal banking fell victim to that imperative. Today I explore another example of our representatives' unseemly subjugation of the electorate's well-being to the demands of their real overlords. 

Pharmaceuticals constitute yet another powerful tail that wags the government dog. The genesis of the problem lies both in the disastrous privatization of Connaught Labs and the extension of drug patent protections, both occurring under the aegis of former prime minister Brian Mulroney, a man who never met a corporation he didn't like. Since the former is widely known, it is the latter that I shall deal with here, en route to a larger point.

The problem goes back to 1987, when

pharmaceutical corporations promised to spend 10 per cent of their revenue on research and development in Canada in exchange for longer monopoly patents (and therefore bigger profits) on the drugs they produce. 

That was known as Bill C-22, (which also created the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which I shall return to momentarily).

The pharma promise turned out to be a false one. A 2014 study conducted by the Council of Canadians found that 

companies actually spent less than half that – in fact just 4.5 per cent – of their sales in 2013 on research. The National Post reports, “It is more evidence that the industry’s long-standing attempt to link patent protection with research investment holds little water, say experts in the area.”

Despite this, the Trudeau government is still clearly in the thrall of Big Pharma, as reflected in recent actions by Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos.

The NDP has called for a parliamentary investigation into allegations the Liberal government caved to corporate lobbyists who oppose changes to drug pricing reforms, as Ottawa faces pressure over the long-delayed process to rein in pharmaceutical costs.

The demand comes as three members of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB), the country’s drug pricing regulator, resigned — including two this week — after the government asked the board to pause consultations on a reform that Parliament’s budget watchdog estimates could save Canadians billions of dollars in drug costs. 

Earlier this week, online media outlet The Breach reported that Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos penned a letter to the board’s acting chair requesting the pause due to stakeholder and industry concerns. One of the resigning review board members also slammed Duclos and the government, alleging they chose to echo corporate opposition to the changes and undermined the board’s work to keep drug prices in check.

“It is difficult enough for a sector-specific regulator to do its job in the face of a hostile industry. But when the government adds its voice to that of industry, all that lies before the regulator is an endless tunnel with no light,” wrote former board member Matthew Herder in his resignation letter this week.

The board's work is extremely important, and what is at stake is quite significant:

The regulations have been in the works since 2016, and they would allow the board to consider the market size, as well as the costs and benefits of certain drugs before it determines prices for Canadians. The proposed rules would also permit the board to change the list of countries it uses for price comparisons, among other things.

When Big Pharma went to court over the proposals, the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled some parts were unconstitutional; the Trudeau government didn't even bother to appeal.

“In choosing not to seek leave to appeal, the government effectively countenanced the evisceration of its own reform,” [resigning board member Matthew] Herder said.

Grovelling before Big Pharma has a long and odious history. As reported in The Breach, because Canadians pay among the highest drug prices in the world, in 2017 the government launched something called Protecting Canadians from Excessive Drug Prices. 

The original policy would have saved almost $13 billion in drug costs over 10 years. 

Almost immediately, the policy hit a wall of resistance from the industry and industry-funded patient groups. After a series of delays, court challenges, and threats that included withholding new drugs from Canadian patients, the industry appeared to have won the fight.  

To appreciate the full extent of industry resistance to anything that would reduce their profits, I encourage you to read the above Breach article in full.

And so I end as I began: our government, while happy to engage in political theatre, refuses to stand up to its real master, the corporate sector. And all of us, both literally and figuratively, are the poorer for that sad fact.