I just made this posting on my other blog, but thought it might be of interest to some readers of this blog, as it really deals with the politics of education:
Recently, the McGuinty-led Liberal government of Ontario has proposed extending to two years from one the training of new teachers. The logic seems to be that the additional training will make for better teachers AND reduce the number of unemployed new graduates.
While I can't really address the efficacy of such a proposal in turning out better-qualified teachers, my own memory of teacher training being that it was only during the practicum that I learned anything useful, I can address its second purpose with considerable confidence.
As a retired teacher who has long opposed teachers doing supply and contract work post-retirement, one part of the solution to unemployment amongst new graduates is to ban this practice, something neither the teacher federations nor the government have shown any appetite for. It has always seemed manifestly unjust and selfish to me for retired colleagues to be denying new grads the opportunity to gain some experience and make some contacts within the crucible of supply and contract work.
However, the proposed lengthening of teacher training to two years from one as a solution to teacher unemployment is only a way of avoiding political risks. Several years ago, in anticipation of a teacher shortage that never materialized, the Ontario government significantly increased the number of university spots to train teachers. Rather than now reducing that number to realistic levels, (which would also reduce education faculties' revenues,) the McGuinty government has once more opted to play politics instead of showing real leadership.
And speaking of politics, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation, of which I am a former member, by immediately and reflexively supporting this two-year initiative, has demonstrated that it is more interested in supporting the objectives of the Liberal government than it is in representing the interests of its members.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Happy Labour Day
A few child labour images from the past are perhaps useful reminders of the destructive power of unregulated market forces, not to mention where we would likely be without progressive politicians and unions.
Happy Labour Day
Please sign this petition urging Prime Minister Harper to stop threatening Michaela Keyserlingk and to stop exporting asbestos.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Two Sunday Morning Links
Echoing some of the sentiments I expressed the other day, this morning's Star editorial endorses the Toronto Police Services Board's decision to deny promotions to nine officers recommended by Police Chief Bill Blair. Is it possible that these officers, who behaved illegally by removing their name tags during last year's G20 Summit, were chosen by Chief Blair to be rewarded for their initiative? After all, if they couldn't be identified while violating people's Charter Rights, wouldn't they have in fact spared the good Chief more serious embarrassment and questions about his flawed leadership during the Summit?
Also in today's paper, Martin Regg Cohn's column, entitled Will Tory Trojan Horse hurt Hudak’s crusade? offers some interesting insight into an extreme right-wing faction of Tim Hudak's Ontario Progressive Conservative Party whose tactics, according to the article, "make the U.S. Tea Party look like … well, a tea party by comparison."
Enjoy the day.
Please sign this petition urging Prime Minister Harper to stop threatening Michaela Keyserlingk and to stop exporting asbestos.
Also in today's paper, Martin Regg Cohn's column, entitled Will Tory Trojan Horse hurt Hudak’s crusade? offers some interesting insight into an extreme right-wing faction of Tim Hudak's Ontario Progressive Conservative Party whose tactics, according to the article, "make the U.S. Tea Party look like … well, a tea party by comparison."
Enjoy the day.
Please sign this petition urging Prime Minister Harper to stop threatening Michaela Keyserlingk and to stop exporting asbestos.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Brand Obama
While I do not usually wade into American politics on this blog, I am going to make a rare exception tonight. The posting will be brief, as the link I will provide says things much better than I could.
Almost two years ago, my wife and I attended a talk by Chris Hedges, who was promoting his book, Empire of Illusion. Deeply pessimistic about the future of the United States, Hedges saw little hope for change with Obama as President. Dismissively, he referred to him as "Brand Obama," asserting that he was no different from other brands such as "Brand Bush, pere et fils."
At the time, I was deeply offended and thought Hedges extraordinarily cynical. Time, of course, has demonstrated his prescience.
And with that thought in mind, please follow my link to an essay by Robert Redford entitled, Is the Obama Administration Putting Corporate Profits Above Public Health?, in which the actor offers his thoughts on Obama turning his back on promised environmental legislation that would have saved about 12,000 lives per year in the United States.
Almost two years ago, my wife and I attended a talk by Chris Hedges, who was promoting his book, Empire of Illusion. Deeply pessimistic about the future of the United States, Hedges saw little hope for change with Obama as President. Dismissively, he referred to him as "Brand Obama," asserting that he was no different from other brands such as "Brand Bush, pere et fils."
At the time, I was deeply offended and thought Hedges extraordinarily cynical. Time, of course, has demonstrated his prescience.
And with that thought in mind, please follow my link to an essay by Robert Redford entitled, Is the Obama Administration Putting Corporate Profits Above Public Health?, in which the actor offers his thoughts on Obama turning his back on promised environmental legislation that would have saved about 12,000 lives per year in the United States.
Star Exclusive Reveals Harper Government Collaborated With U.S. In Framing Legislation
A shocking Star exclusive today, one that will probably be met for the most part with typical Canadian complacency and passivity ('Peace, order and good government, and may I please go back to sleep now?') reveals that the Harper Government collaborated with, took direction from, and leaked information to U.S. legislators while framing a new copyright bill.
The first sentence of the article provides a concise summary of the issue:
Secret U.S. government cables show a stunning willingness by senior Canadian officials to appease American demands for a U.S.-style copyright law here.
My use of the word 'collaborated' in my post title is not meant to connote something positive, but rather to invoke the odium associated with those who worked with Germany during World War Two to betray their own countries' interests. Like those collaborators, the policy director for Tony Clement, when he was Minister of Trade, suggested that American demands for tough copyright law might be aided "if Canada were placed among the worst offenders on an international piracy watch list."
"Days later, the U.S. placed Canada alongside China and Russia on the list."
A chief collaborator seems to have been Maxime Bernier, who was the Industry Minister prior to his public disgrace and worked closely with American Ambassador David Wilkins.
“Bernier promised to keep the Ambassador informed on the copyright bill's progress, and indicated that US (government) officials might see the legislation after it is approved by Cabinet, but before it is introduced in Parliament,” the cable adds.
Bernier also “encouraged the Ambassador to speak publicly about the importance of (intellectual property rights) to the United States, saying such efforts would improve the chances of Cabinet and Parliament approving a good copyright bill,” the cable says.
The contentious copyright bill was not passed due to the dissolution of Parliament prior to the last election. It is expected to be reintroduced this fall.
I can only hope that two things precede the opening of the fall Parliamentary session: that this story has 'legs' and provokes outrage, and that the opposition parties have the stomach to pursue it.
Both long shots indeed.
Please sign this petition urging Prime Minister Harper to stop threatening Michaela Keyserlingk and to stop exporting asbestos.
The first sentence of the article provides a concise summary of the issue:
Secret U.S. government cables show a stunning willingness by senior Canadian officials to appease American demands for a U.S.-style copyright law here.
My use of the word 'collaborated' in my post title is not meant to connote something positive, but rather to invoke the odium associated with those who worked with Germany during World War Two to betray their own countries' interests. Like those collaborators, the policy director for Tony Clement, when he was Minister of Trade, suggested that American demands for tough copyright law might be aided "if Canada were placed among the worst offenders on an international piracy watch list."
"Days later, the U.S. placed Canada alongside China and Russia on the list."
A chief collaborator seems to have been Maxime Bernier, who was the Industry Minister prior to his public disgrace and worked closely with American Ambassador David Wilkins.
“Bernier promised to keep the Ambassador informed on the copyright bill's progress, and indicated that US (government) officials might see the legislation after it is approved by Cabinet, but before it is introduced in Parliament,” the cable adds.
Bernier also “encouraged the Ambassador to speak publicly about the importance of (intellectual property rights) to the United States, saying such efforts would improve the chances of Cabinet and Parliament approving a good copyright bill,” the cable says.
The contentious copyright bill was not passed due to the dissolution of Parliament prior to the last election. It is expected to be reintroduced this fall.
I can only hope that two things precede the opening of the fall Parliamentary session: that this story has 'legs' and provokes outrage, and that the opposition parties have the stomach to pursue it.
Both long shots indeed.
Please sign this petition urging Prime Minister Harper to stop threatening Michaela Keyserlingk and to stop exporting asbestos.
Friday, September 2, 2011
The Toronto Police Board and Bill Blair
It is somewhat heartening that the Toronto police board, which has traditionally enjoyed harmonious relations with the Toronto Police, is showing a bit of spine.
As reported in today's Star, the board is refusing to accept Chief Bill Blair's recommendation for the promotion of nine officers who brought discredit to themselves and the force, not to mention undermined public respect for the police, by removing their name tags during the G20 demonstrations last year.
Apparently the police association, which is filing a grievance on behalf of the offending officers, argues that they were already docked a day's pay for their misbehavior and that further punishment is unwarranted. Funny, I always thought a promotion was a reward for good work, not an automatic bump in pay grade.
One can only hope that the board is sending an unequivocal message to Bill Blair about who is really in charge of the police.
As reported in today's Star, the board is refusing to accept Chief Bill Blair's recommendation for the promotion of nine officers who brought discredit to themselves and the force, not to mention undermined public respect for the police, by removing their name tags during the G20 demonstrations last year.
Apparently the police association, which is filing a grievance on behalf of the offending officers, argues that they were already docked a day's pay for their misbehavior and that further punishment is unwarranted. Funny, I always thought a promotion was a reward for good work, not an automatic bump in pay grade.
One can only hope that the board is sending an unequivocal message to Bill Blair about who is really in charge of the police.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Why Higher Taxes For The Ultra-Wealthy Is Truly Progressive Taxation
Back from my annual retreat from technology, I've had the opportunity to do a bit of thinking within a relaxing environment. The following is one of the things I've been thinking about:
Current political orthodoxy suggests that income tax increases are a thing of the past, and that only by continuing to reduce the tax 'burden' on both individuals and corporations can prosperity for all be assured. Happily, that specious argument is coming increasingly under fire.
The central thesis of The Trouble With Billionaires, written by Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks, is that the growing inequality gap being experienced in North America can be narrowed by a return to the notion of progressive taxation directed at the ultra-weathy who now pay a historically low rate on the tremendous income they enjoy. Soundly reasoned and within a rich historic context, the authors make some compelling arguments for their vision. It is reading I highly recommend.
Similarly, in a recent op-ed piece for the New York Times, share one of the world's richest men, Warren Buffet, makes a similar request. He says people with wealth of his magnitude, and there are many such individuals, need to be taxed at substantially higher rates, given that they owe much to the countries that have made it possible for them to prosper, offering an effective challenge to the myth of the self-made man or woman.
A few days later, a group of French billionaires made the same plea, arguing that they can and should do much more to help their country's economy. 16 company executives, business leaders and super-rich individuals called for the creation of a "special contribution" that would target wealth without forcing the rich to quit France for overseas tax havens.
In a recent Toronto Star article entitled Where is Canada's Warren Buffet, Larry Gordon asks the pointed question of why Canadian wealthy elites are not offering similar help to our country.
Sadly but predictably, the political establishments in the aforementioned countries don't seem to be listening. Indeed, in the United States, the extreme right, aka The Tea Party, has mocked and lambasted Buffet for his proposal.
And in Canada, neither of the two main opposition parties federally has shown any enthusiasm for the idea. During the recent federal election, the boldest suggestion made was to roll back some of the corporate tax cuts. Not a mention was made of increasing individual rates.
We have to wonder why the shyness exists. For the NDP, it is perhaps to avoid the traditional association of being the party of high taxation as the only solution to inequality. The Liberal and The Conservative reticence on the issue is consistent with the contention made by many that despite the facade of democracy reinforced by going to the polls every four years or so, the voice of the people is not the voice these parties listen to. Rather, they listen to those with whom they most identify and stand to benefit from, the economic elite of the country.
At one time, I would have attributed such a notion to the rather overwrought ravings of the extreme left. Today, I see it as a realistic assessment of the current sad state of politics in North America, a state where few politicians dare challenge the orthodoxy of spending cuts as the way to a productive and responsible economy, resulting in societies that increasingly seem to afford benefits only to a select few.
It is time that we we begin to force a change in the conversation. More about that soon.
Please sign this petition urging Prime Minister Harper to stop threatening Michaela Keyserlingk and to stop exporting asbestos.
Current political orthodoxy suggests that income tax increases are a thing of the past, and that only by continuing to reduce the tax 'burden' on both individuals and corporations can prosperity for all be assured. Happily, that specious argument is coming increasingly under fire.
The central thesis of The Trouble With Billionaires, written by Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks, is that the growing inequality gap being experienced in North America can be narrowed by a return to the notion of progressive taxation directed at the ultra-weathy who now pay a historically low rate on the tremendous income they enjoy. Soundly reasoned and within a rich historic context, the authors make some compelling arguments for their vision. It is reading I highly recommend.
Similarly, in a recent op-ed piece for the New York Times, share one of the world's richest men, Warren Buffet, makes a similar request. He says people with wealth of his magnitude, and there are many such individuals, need to be taxed at substantially higher rates, given that they owe much to the countries that have made it possible for them to prosper, offering an effective challenge to the myth of the self-made man or woman.
A few days later, a group of French billionaires made the same plea, arguing that they can and should do much more to help their country's economy. 16 company executives, business leaders and super-rich individuals called for the creation of a "special contribution" that would target wealth without forcing the rich to quit France for overseas tax havens.
In a recent Toronto Star article entitled Where is Canada's Warren Buffet, Larry Gordon asks the pointed question of why Canadian wealthy elites are not offering similar help to our country.
Sadly but predictably, the political establishments in the aforementioned countries don't seem to be listening. Indeed, in the United States, the extreme right, aka The Tea Party, has mocked and lambasted Buffet for his proposal.
And in Canada, neither of the two main opposition parties federally has shown any enthusiasm for the idea. During the recent federal election, the boldest suggestion made was to roll back some of the corporate tax cuts. Not a mention was made of increasing individual rates.
We have to wonder why the shyness exists. For the NDP, it is perhaps to avoid the traditional association of being the party of high taxation as the only solution to inequality. The Liberal and The Conservative reticence on the issue is consistent with the contention made by many that despite the facade of democracy reinforced by going to the polls every four years or so, the voice of the people is not the voice these parties listen to. Rather, they listen to those with whom they most identify and stand to benefit from, the economic elite of the country.
At one time, I would have attributed such a notion to the rather overwrought ravings of the extreme left. Today, I see it as a realistic assessment of the current sad state of politics in North America, a state where few politicians dare challenge the orthodoxy of spending cuts as the way to a productive and responsible economy, resulting in societies that increasingly seem to afford benefits only to a select few.
It is time that we we begin to force a change in the conversation. More about that soon.
Please sign this petition urging Prime Minister Harper to stop threatening Michaela Keyserlingk and to stop exporting asbestos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)