Is It Brinkmanship?

 

H/t Moudakis

One has to wonder, given the lack of any real movement on a national pharmacare program, whether Justin Trudeau is gambling on Jagmeet Singh's NDP being more afraid of an early election than are the Liberals. Given that the polls show an almost inexplicable lead by PP's Conservatives, that is quite the roll of the dice.

For whatever reason, the NDP has never, with one real exception, captured the hearts and minds of 'ordinary Canadians'. Perhaps they consider themselves temporarily embarrassed millionaires, or fear that wild-eyed socialists will run amok in their home and native land.

However, one thing that is certain, at least in my mind, is that the Liberals, especially under their current leadership, have never met a corporate entity they didn't like. To bring in a true pharmacare program would 'disenfranchise' health insurance companies and reduce big pharma's profits by bulk purchases of drugs at significantly lower prices. Despite their rhetoric, this is not something Justin and the gang want.

All of which is to say that the rich and their money enjoy special government protection. Consider, for example, Linda McQuaig's latest column about wealth taxes and what they could achieve for an increasingly impoverished citizenry:

Understandably, people feel enraged when they can’t afford food and shelter for themselves and their children -- especially when they’re working full-time, often at several jobs. They know they’re getting the short end of the stick.

But unless they read Statistics Canada releases, they’re probably unaware just how long the other end of the stick has suddenly become.

Of course, it’s conventional wisdom that the rich always get richer.

This has not always been the case, McQuaig points out that we used to have a progressive taxation system that redistributed wealth quite effectively, but that ended in the 1980s, and now the wealthy are profiting more than they ever have.

Just-released Statistics Canada data show that, in 2021, the top 1 per cent of Canadians saw their incomes grow by fully 20 per cent. Farther up, the incomes of the top .01 per cent grew by a stunning 30 per cent -- to an average yearly income of $12.5 million. This prompted Statistics Canada, not known for rabble-rousing, to note that (in inflation-adjusted dollars) this is “much higher” than at any point in the past 40 years.

Meanwhile, that same year, the bottom half of Canadians (some 14 million working people) saw their incomes actually drop.

McQuaig's solution, which will please many and appal some, is a wealth tax. 

A wealth tax would apply exclusively to those with net assets of more than $10 million – just 87,000 families. Under one model, they’d pay 1 percent a year on assets above $10 million, 2% above $50 million and 3% above $100 million. Yet, the tax could raise an estimated $32 billion – about 60 times more than the Liberal income tax charges.

Despite almost no public debate about it, a wealth tax has the support of close to 90 per cent of Canadians.

But the current crop of politicos, both Liberal and Conservative, and their enablers, will likely continue to protect the interests of the few, since

the wealthy have managed to keep it off the agenda. Their phalanx of lawyers, accountants and economists are quick to dismiss all attempts to raise taxes on the rich. And a wealth tax, given the way it can be so effectively targeted, is considered particularly odious.

Jesus is reported to have said that the poor will always be with us. Given the sad caliber of our political overlords, I see no reason to dispute that assertion. 

 

 

The Politics Of School Boards

Having worked as a teacher for 30 years, I am well-aware of the politics that pervades and blights education. The higher one goes up the ladder, the more one is concerned about damage control. Since I was a mere peon, i.e. a classroom teacher, I had little tolerance for such nonsense.

It was therefore with much disgust but little surprise that I read about the Toronto District School Board putting an embargo on principals when unpleasant things happen in their schools. Apparently, the drawing of swastikas in washrooms is something they like to deal with 'in house.'

Parents at a Toronto elementary school vandalized with swastikas were stunned to hear of the incident from their children and not administrators, saying they are “disappointed” by a board procedure that prohibits principals from sharing such information.

The Toronto District School Board says it takes allegations of hate and racism “very seriously” but has moved away from telling parents about these incidents because it’s concerned that students who may have been involved will be vilified and the reports will lead to copycat acts.

Hmm, consequences for the malefactors - what a horrifying prospect.

“As an educational institution, we have a duty to create a school community that is not only safe for students, but one in which they can learn from their mistakes.”

In an interview with the Star, school council co-chairs Rachel Cooper and Livy Jacobs say their children told them the principal made an announcement about washroom graffiti, urging those with information to come forward. It was through the rumour mill that students, and parents, learned two swastikas had been drawn in the washroom.

Cooper and Jacobs, both Jewish, met with the principal and told her that parents should have been informed. They were surprised to learn the board doesn’t notify the school community about incidents of hate, including antisemitism, Islamophobia and anti-Black racism.

“The principal’s hands are tied, and they’re not allowed to send a communication even if they feel that they should,” said Cooper....

The TDSB, it appears, is more concerned about transgressive students than their victims, and optics over openness, revealing in an email that informing parents of such incidents

“often led to the identification, surveillance, and stigmatization of the specific students who may have been involved — making it difficult for them to reintegrate with their peers.

But never fear, the board is 

developing a “distinct strategy” to combat antisemitism, which had been in the works before the war. It’s also addressing other kinds of hate, such as anti-Black racism, Islamophobia, anti-Indigenous racism, ableism and homophobia.

I have never been a fan of theatre of the absurd, but at least until now I have had the choice not to attend such performances. Give what is going on with the TDSB, that obviously no longer holds true. 

 

 

 

 

A Walk In The Country

One of the pleasures of my retired life is going out for long walks with former colleagues. Having taught at the same school, we have known each other for many years and, dare I say, we are all fairly well-read and attentive to the events that unfold in our world.

Yesterday's two-hour walk in the country covered a number of events, some frivolous, some serious. The topic of the Middle East came up, of course. We all expressed alarm at the incidents of anti-Semitism that are growing rapidly, but at the same time we also felt free to criticize the state of Israel over its killing of so many innocents in Gaza as retaliation for the Hamas attack. 

So one might conclude that educated and intelligent people can hold views that entail a degree of nuance and require the capacity for empathy. 

But that conclusion would be inaccurate, as made very clear by Shree Paradkar in her examination of the treatment of doctors who have spoken out about Palestinian suffering and are now understandably reluctant to go on record with The Toronto Star.

Yipeng Ge, a doctor indefinitely suspended from his University of Ottawa residency after social media posts critical of Israel, did not want to comment, saying, “Out of respect for the University of Ottawa process, I will not be making comments at this time.”

A Toronto physician who is a friend of Ge and describes him as a “outstanding physician” and “consummate professional” does not want to be identified because says he “worries about being punished for supporting Yipeng.”

Having worked with the WHO in the West Bank, Ge is well-versed in the suffering of Palestinians. But that seems to account for nothing.

An associate professor at the university wrote a blog this month calling Ge’s social media posts antisemitic. Among them he took issue with a photo of a protest poster on a pole that equated Zionism with genocide, claimed Ge was indulging in “blood libel” by sharing “conspiracy theories” about Israel bombing hospitals. Another was an image of a poster with the contested protest chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” While protesters say it is a common call for Palestinian liberation, those opposed see it as a call for genocide.

The university confirmed Ge’s suspension and said it was based on complaints of an alleged breach of conduct.

But Ge is hardly alone in his horror over what Israel is doing.

Another high-profile incident involved Ben Thomson, a nephrologist at Mackenzie Richmond Hill Hospital, who was suspended from his job, threatened and doxed online after posting in support of Palestine. 

Then there is a coalition

named Health workers Alliance for Palestine [that] released an open letter this month calling on Israel to stop bombing hospitals in Gaza.

“There are no circumstances in which health facilities, patients, and healthcare workers can be viewed as legitimate targets of military operations. Israel’s war crimes must stop immediately,” the Nov. 10 petition reads in part. 

Consequences ensued.

It was signed by more than 3,000 professionals from across the country. Since its release, many the signatories have said they are facing professional repercussions. They’ve been hauled up by higher-ups, told there were complaints lodged against them and accused of making Jewish colleagues feel unsafe.

An Arab-Canadian physician in Quebec signed the letter on Nov. 10. “Less than 48 hours later, the attacks on my email began,” he says. The attacks were from colleagues he thought he was close to, who accused him of antisemitism and “blood libel” and copied in senior management of the hospital. “I thought it was not only a case of intense silencing and harassment, but also, quite frankly, character assassination.”

A senior Egyptian-Canadian physician in a GTA hospital was told by senior administrators that while they received several complaints about his signing of the letter and his tweets, they did not find any evidence of wrongdoing. He now knows he’s being watched closely. 

A medical resident with a prominent university in Ontario who signed that letter said he received intimidating comments from colleagues asking why he’d written the letter. One of them told him anti-Zionism was equal to antisemitism. Another said he was “disgusted” to be his colleague. “Essentially, pro-Palestinian voices or … any advocacy for Palestinian human rights has been essentially vilified and turned into something that it’s not and it’s disheartening.”

We have long bruited our respect for freedom of speech and expression. Unfortunately, in the current environment, it would seem that those rights end as soon as they conflict with someone else's sensibilities. It is sad and perilous when one becomes frightened to speak up for human rights and against cruelty and senseless killing for fear of consequences.

I am reminded yet again of an old peasant saying I have referenced in the past: "Better a bitter truth than a sweet lie." Apparently, that is a sentiment with which increasing numbers take issue. And that cannot be a good thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Warning Signs Are All There

There are many reasons that can be adduced for the declining health of democracy: widespread disaffection from the political process; pervasive anger among citizens; the disproportionate influence of social media; economic inequality and inequity, widespread ignorance and mental laziness, the endless scramble to provide food and shelter for one's family, etc.

But whatever the reason, people ignore the warning signs of this decline at our collective peril. Not unlike Hitler in Mein Kampf, in the United States Donald Trump is clearly signalling his plans to dismantle the constitution and country that people have traditionally pled their allegiance to.

And people should be very, very afraid.

During a Veterans Day speech, Mr. Trump used language that echoed authoritarian leaders who rose to power in Germany and Italy in the 1930s, degrading his political adversaries as “vermin” who needed to be “rooted out.”

“The threat from outside forces,” Mr. Trump said, “is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within.”

From a man who has professed admiration for dictators like Vladimir Putin and Rodrigo Duterte, these are dangerous utterances.

Scholars, Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans are asking anew how much Mr. Trump resembles current strongmen abroad and how he compares to authoritarian leaders of the past. 

“There are echoes of fascist rhetoric, and they’re very precise,” said Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a professor at New York University who studies fascism. “The overall strategy is an obvious one of dehumanizing people so that the public will not have as much of an outcry at the things that you want to do.” 

Beyond his dangerous rhetoric, what exactly is Trump planning? Apparently, this tactics will

include using the Justice Department to take vengeance on his political rivals, plotting a vast expansion of presidential power and installing ideologically aligned lawyers in key positions to bless his contentious actions.

Even Trump defenders trying to explain away these seeming threats reveal more than they know in their pallid defences of their man.

Steven Cheung, a campaign spokesman, responded to criticism of the “vermin” remarks by saying it came from reactive liberals whose “sad, miserable existence will be crushed when President Trump returns to the White House.” 

He has tested the legal system with broadsides against the integrity of the judiciary, railing against prosecutors, judges and, more recently, a law clerk in his New York fraud trial as “politically biased” and “out of control.”

 Crowds at Mr. Trump’s events have generally affirmed his calls to drive out the political establishment and to destroy the “fake news media.” Supporters do not flinch when he praises leaders like Mr. Orban, Xi Jinping of China and Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

Standing amid nearly two dozen American flags at an Independence Day celebration in South Carolina in July, Mr. Trump promised retribution against Mr. Biden and his family.

“The gloves are off,” he said. The crowd unleashed a resounding cheer.

Simple people like simple solutions. Given the composition of the American populace, it is clear that many living there have found their voice, and their man, in Donald Trump.

Shiny New Things

 

Despite our professed admiration for things that have withstood the test of time (heritage buildings, old literature and traditional values come to mind), it is undeniable that there is much allure to be found in the new as well. We marvel at innovative architecture, science and engineering, to name but three. And that is often all to the good; otherwise we would simply be mired in the past. 

However,  sometimes we can be blinded by the sheen of shiny new things and fail to appreciate the many costs that accrue in throwing out the old and embracing the new.

Such is the case with the Doug Ford government's plan to redevelop Ontario Place in the image of a tawdry but expensive spa, a development that has both  profound financial (think $600 million taxpayers' dollars to build an underground parking lot), aesthetic and environmental costs. Many protests have occurred opposing this development, and now an insider has emerged to voice his concern.

A prominent landscape architect, known for designing Trillium and Tommy Thompson parks, has walked away from the redevelopment of Ontario Place, citing his opposition to clearing hundreds of trees to make way for a private spa and waterpark on Toronto’s waterfront.

After it became clear he couldn’t influence plans from the inside, Walter Kehm told the Star he could no longer be tied to a project that threatens a decades-old wildlife habitat, likening his professional commitment to protect nature to a doctor’s Hippocratic oath: “Do no harm.”

Earlier this fall, the former director of the University of Guelph’s school of landscape architecture resigned as a senior principal at Toronto-based LANDinc, one of two firms under contract to help design and construct the “public realm” of Ontario Place.

Kehm voices concern about the less-obvious destruction involved in this construction.

In more than half a century, “the 800 trees on the West Island have developed their own ecological niche,” he said. “We’re talking about more than the trees. We’re talking about a home for all the species that live there.”

Refreshingly, this expert  is able to consider something other than the bottom line.

Kehm said he had repeatedly advocated to preserve the trees on the West Island, as part of his broader vision for a forested Toronto waterfront, including during a meeting near the end of last summer.

The “big vision” for Toronto’s waterfront that Kehm had fought for, one he’s dubbed the “Emerald Necklace,” takes inspiration from a connected chain of parks that runs through Boston.

In the midst of a mental health crisis — on top of a changing climate — he stressed the importance of not only protecting “urban forests,” such as the one found on West Island, but also creating more opportunities for Torontonians to harness nature’s therapeutic benefits. 

In the world of quick profits and secret, sleazy backroom deals that characterize the Ford government, a public expression of integrity is both rare and welcome. I therefore leave the final world to Kehm:

“Nature is calming for the soul,” he reasoned. “You don’t need a spa for that. You need trees.”

 

 

 

Such Elequence!

This took place at a school board meeting in Virginia. The rest is self-explanatory.

I'm Getting Tired

The woes of the world are wearing me down. I therefore choose to change channels completely today and focus on comedy, one of the few escapes this world permits almost everyone.

There are five comedians whose work I have revered for many years. At the top of the pantheon is George Carlin, whose clips I have featured more than once on this blog. The other four are as follows: Albert Brooks, Gary Shandling, Larry David and Jerry Seinfield. The absurdity of their observational and conceptual humour may not appeal to everyone, but in this fractured world, you have to find relief where you can.

There is a new documentary on Crave called Albert Brooks: Defending My Life. Here is a clip from it:

Enjoy, and forget the rest of the world, if only for a brief time.