Not sure it is the best for Ontario taxpayers, though.
If you have been following the news here in Ontario, you will know that the government, in its deep wisdom, is relocating some privately-owned Service Ontario sites to Staples. Now, not only will you be able to renew your OHIP card, but you can also pick up that new printer, computer or tablet you didn't know you needed!
The following clips shows reporters, one from City News (Richard Southern) and the other from CHCH (Laverne McGee), asking Business Service Delivery Minister Todd McCarthy some hard questions about the selection criteria for this sole-source contract and the costs to the taxpayer of this new 'synergy'.
If you click on this link, you will see Laverne McGee do a slow, sly walk to the back of the store to show where the service is located. Hard to resist all of the merchandise blandishments on the way, I imagine.
I do like it when reporters serve as more than stooges for government announcements.
Recently, I finished reading a book called The Failed Promise: Reconstruction, Frederick Douglass, and the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, by Robert Levine. The American Civil War and its aftermath are topics I find of great interest, not just because of their long-lasting impact on American society, but also because those echoes of history continue to reverberate today.
As vice-president, Andrew Johnson succeeded to the presidency upon the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Although he showed initial promise in the struggle for Black rights, (indeed, he fancied himself as "the Moses of the Black people") he turned out to be a raging racist who hid his myriad prejudices behind rhetoric that suggested he was concerned about moving too quickly on things like Black citizenship and Black male enfranchisement lest it lead to racial strife and danger for the Black people,
Johnson revealed his nature in many ways, including how he pandered to Southern fears that enfranchisement of Black males would dilute the voice of white people, making them a 'minority'.
A pity we don't know history better, because if we did, we would know that Johnson's rhetoric was merely an early version of the Great Replacement Theory, the idea that immigrants are changing the complexion of Western nations, supplanting 'old stock citizens' and thereby disempowering them in pursuit of a political agenda. You may or may not be surprised that it also has some traction in Canada.
If you read David Climenhaga's post, you will know that Alberta premier Danielle Smith recently dined and chatted onstage with Tucker Carlson, the erstwhile Fox 'commentator' who was let go because he criticized his bosses. He found open-arms in Ms. Smith, however, pictured below with a couple of other attendees you might recognize:
It was at this gathering that Carlson, knowing he had a receptive audience, vented his spleen, as discussed by Shree Paradkhar:
"They're taking away your voting power by changing the population of your country, but nobody's talking about that," he said. "Canada has the highest immigration rate in the world per capita. ... If you change the population of the country, you change the country. And you dilute the voting power of the people who are vested in that country who have lived there long term. Who understand the history and culture of the country. All of a sudden, their vote means much less."
There are certainly rational discussions one can have about immigration levels, as Paradkhar points out. However, there will be be those Canadians who see the world only in black and white, absolutist terms. They of untutored minds, limited education and a paucity of critical thinking skills will lend a credulous ear to the likes of Carlson's racist nonsense, and without doubt will feel he is speaking their 'truth'.
And others are listening as well.
Immigration is emerging as a top issue in the 2024 U.S. elections. Donald Trump, who in 2016 so charmingly called Mexican immigrants rapists and said "they're bringing crime," has now upped his toxicity to say immigrants "are poisoning the blood of our country."
In Germany, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland expanded its base in recent regional elections, riding on the fear sparked in German voters by the sudden burst of asylum-seekers.
But as Paradkhar points out, theymiss the poimt that immigration is necessary.
If Carlson had only spoken to Ontario Premier Doug Ford, he would have learnt in 2021 that there was a labour shortage and that "We’re in such desperate need of people from around the world."
But rationality is rarely appreciated, and thus the endless cycle of history prevails.
UPDATE: Michael de Adder captures Tucker rather nicely, don't you think?
In my previous post, I mused about how much better society could be if we had fair and progressive taxation, taxation that forced those who make a lot to pay a little more. It almost seems as if such talk today is heretical, given the anti-tax mania that is cultivated by the far-right.
But you get what you pay or don't pay for, and today that means multitudes of homeless who cannot afford the usurious rents being demanded, families lacking support or waiting for years on a list while their children grow up without the aid they need, overburdened healthcare systems that one strives to avoid except in extreme circumstances, etc., etc. - a dystopian nightmare that seems to only be getting worse.
In today's Star, a reader offers a sound suggestion that would help ameliorate our current crises:
If huge wage 'earners' paid their fair share, it could make a difference
Sadly, your editorial, truthful as it is, is not breaking news. For more than a decade, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) has been telling its readers that the growing salary gap between the top one per cent and the rest of us is becoming more and more massive.
It is hard to believe, even for a cynical observer of world news, that in 2024, so many CEOs have earned more than $60,000 by Jan. 2, 2024 — more than the average worker earns in a year.
We’ve known this almost obscene fact for all these years, so we can’t plead ignorance. How fortunate that we have the CCPA to prod the consciences of our politicians and business leaders. These people with power do have some means to create a slightly less unbalanced society, smoothing that gaping wage gap even a little — by taxing the rich a bit more — most would not even notice the difference if they paid another $10,000 more in taxes each year. And if all of these huge wage “earners” actually paid their fair share, it could make a difference for the rest of us. Even billionaire Warren Buffett is famous for saying that his office staff pay more taxes, proportionally, than he does.
In this "Theatre of the Absurd" scenario, who will take the first step and raise the minimum wage to $25 or $30 per hour? This radical move might assure that the everyday worker, many with no sick days or health benefits, can at least avoid food banks and clothe their families for the winter weather.
Della Golland, Toronto
Clearly, there are at least partial solutions to the problems people confront on a daily basis. Unfortunately, those we elect to represent us are listening to only a small part of their constituency as they strive to perpetuate political careers that serve, not the common good, but only their own selfish interests.
As a matter of course, I allow myself one hour of television news per evening, 30 minutes local and 30 minutes of either American or Canadian national news. It is a practice I highly recommend, not simply as a means of keeping up with events in this tortured world, but also as a window into the lives of others.
One conclusion I have drawn from this habit is that we can never know the lives of others, especially the burdens they must bear on a daily basis. In this, I am not talking solely about the very public problem of the homeless, but they certainly count. I am also talking about windows into the often fraught lives of people caring for special-needs children, elderly parents, waiting in the ER, or any number of other exigencies that comprise life. The common denominator is insufficient funding for the support they need.
In my more wistful moments I imagine a regime of fair and progressive taxation, where those who are more than comfortable pay a little more for programs directed toward the public good. At the very least, some of the aforementioned problems would be ameliorated. Yet we live in times where we have little control over how our money is spent, as, truth be told, we are not the ones calling the shots, political theatre notwithstanding.
This post was prompted by two letters in today's Star, which I reproduce below:
Canada’s proposal for expanding health care coverage to dental and medical drugs is flawed. The law would have handsomely fed politicians arbitrarily sitting in judgment over who beneath them can afford dental care unassisted and who cannot. Further the plan cuts out any Canadian currently paying private insurance premiums, under the facile presumption that anyone — let’s say, a retiree struggling to support a live-in parent with dementia, and put food on the table under roof that is beginning to leak, heated by a furnace nearing the end of it’s projected life — who has private health insurance can comfortably afford it.
We live under the rule of governments that take their policy orders from corporate economists and boardrooms. We are told that fulsome public health care would be too costly, in the same breath that we are told the inflated prices corporations charge us for essentials must only be combatted by using interest rates to make those essentials too expensive, and that modest homes must be taxed yearly on speculated values.
Canada can afford universal dental, vision, medical care but taxing all wealth equitably. Level the field.
The conclusion of the authors of this article is that we just need to invest $1.25 billion annually to solve the health-care crisis. Where will the money come from? I would gladly pay a reinstated licence plate renewal fee of $120 per year, as would most people I suspect, if the billion dollars saved by cancelling it would be put toward our health care system. If that will reduce wait times, improve worker incomes and boost staffing levels across the province, I don't see a downside. Politicians are the only thing standing in the way.
Most nights, after watching a half-hour of American news, my presence at the dinner table is suffused with cynicism and disgust. Tales of violence, savagery and complete disregard for other people depicted nightly will do that to a person. However, occasionally amidst all of the mayhem, a light emerges and I am reminded that despite the myriad failures of our species, there are strong, good, even noble people in our midst.
Such is evident in the following interview of two of the three Palestinian-American students who were shot last November in Burlington Vermont, presumably for being Palestinian. The depraved gunman has pleaded not guilty.
One of the victims, 20-year-old Hisham Awartani, was paralyzed in the assault. It is he who speaks so eloquently about the experience. Although well-aware that racism was the basis for the attack, he expresses gratitude for the medical treatment he has received and a heartfelt concern for those Palestinians in the homeland who have no access to such care.
As you will see, he is mature and self-possessed well beyond his years.
I very much doubt I could act with such grace under his circumstances.
If you read my previous post, you will know that the recent failure of a door plug in an Alaska Air flight was presaged by the air crashes of two 737 Max-8 flights, one in 2018 and one five months later, in 2019. Not only was the company culpable for shoddy, profit-driven practices, but so was the FAA, which had delegated safety inspections to Boeing employees, a clear conflict of interest if there ever was one.
The following deals with the aftermath of the recent near-disaster on Alaskan Air, which should not have been a surprise to those in the know. Belatedly, it would seem the FAA is ready to start enforcing real standards for this corporate behemoth.
Will these changes be enough to avert future catastrophes? A nervous public awaits the answer.
I will be the first to admit that my viewing tastes are unusual for a man my age. I enjoy the off-kilter, the unusual, even the bizarre in movie/streaming fare. And although I never watch television during the day, that still amounts to both wasted, and some well-rewarded, hours.
Sometimes, my tastes are more down to earth, so to speak, and such was my experience the other night when I watched a riveting documentary recommended by my brother-in-law entitled Downfall: The Case Against Boeing. Although made in 2022 and focussing on the crashes of the 747-Max 8, it sheds incredible light on the current safety issues plaguing Boeing, and in that regard is must-viewing.
Here is a trailer for the film, and I am happy to report the entire documentary can be found for free at Daily Motion. It is also available on Netflix.
How does a company go from one admired worldwide for its sterling safety record to one where two catastrophic crashes occurred within five months of each other? The answer is surprisingly simply: corporate greed. But the real story is how Boeing succumbed to such venality.
It began in 1997, when Boeing and McDonnell Douglas merged. Unfortunately, in that merger, the culture of the latter ultimately supplanted that of the former, whose decisions had been determined largely by engineers, their guiding principles innovation and safety. A comprehensive detailing of the results of this merger can be seen in this Atlantic article.
The film outlines how, in order to wrest sales supremacy from its new rival Airbus, Boeing embarked on an enhancement of its 737s, in operation since the late sixties. Speed, rather than safety, was of the essence. Because the new Max-8 required an alteration in the angle of the engine, the chances of a stall after takeoff, as the craft was ascending, increased. To counteract that possibility, they developed the MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System), a flight stabilizing feature.
Because things were being done on the cheap by this time, there were two major problems with the system: there was only one sensor (which could be easily disabled by a bird strike, for example) in the nose of the plane to measure its angle of attack as it ascended, and NO ONE was trained in its use. The big selling point for the Max-8, one that allowed it to regain sales supremacy, was the assurance that no flight simulator training was needed for MCAS. Such training is very costly to airlines, given the time needed to allow pilots to become proficient. This turned out to be a fatal false economy, and like a malevolent ghost in the machine, MCAS sent hundreds of people to their deaths.
The two crashes that ensued within five months of each other, killing a total of 346 people, were entirely avoidable. Why was nothing done after the first crash to remedy the situation? False assurances and bureaucratic inertia are part of the answer.
For the rest, you will have to watch the film. I may, in my next post, write about the ongoing fallout of the merger that now has the FAA threatening on-site oversight because of the latest symptom of laxity, the door-plug blowout much in the news these days.
