Intent V Reality

The over the top coverage of the dress and makeup of a young fellow at a party some 20 years ago has reached the point of a media frenzy, whilst our society clearly needs a discussion about how we treat and view individuals who look or dress different from ourselves, the current media frenzy is motivated almost exclusively by political opportunists. Does anyone really believe that these obscure pictures were 'accidentally' found by someone who was genuinely concerned with the appearance of someone who is now almost two decades later in the public eye and were publicised just before said individual is up for reelection? Or is it more probable that one or more (and I think we know which 'one) political opponent was busy searching for something, anything, to spin the media coverage and public opinion to their advantage?

This whole discussion should NOT be about how we look or dress but how we ACT in our daily interaction with others, if our actions towards others is questionable it is the INTENT that needs to be examined not necessarily the perception given by the actions. Is a woman who wears a headscarf in the rain mocking one who wears a head covering for religious belief? I dont think so! On the other hand someone who takes to the streets to oppose immigration by those whos ethnic background is not the same as their own is clearly 'racist', dressing up as someone who looks different from ourselves at a party may be questionable given the sensitivity of such issues nowadays but circumstances must be examined. Are we to now to start being 'politically correct' and more closely examine our kids Halloween costumes for fear that our neighbours may be offended, where do YOU draw the line.

Perhaps the words of Calgary’s Muslim mayor Naheed Nenshi says it best …..
“I’m. “Canadians cannot stand on moral high ground calling out leaders for offensive things they did, years ago, if we’re not also willing to stand up to the racist and discriminatory behaviour that is directly in front of our faces in 2019,” He referred to the law in Quebec that bans some public sector employees from wearing religious symbols during work hours. “I, as a Muslim man, could hold any job I want, but under this law, a Muslim woman who covers with a headscarf cannot,” 

It is NOT about how we look or dress (except perhaps in Quebec) but how we treat others that may be a little different from what we are used to, its about respect towards others INCLUDING those with differing political views ….. enough said!

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

The ABC Dilemma ….again

As 'be counted' day approaches each of us of voting age must decide which 'party' to vote for, yes I know we do not vote for the party but for an individual who 'represents' (or more correctly is a member of) said political party. Lets face it the whole idea that we are voting for an individual is becoming more and more of a farce each time an election comes around be it federal or provincial, the 'party' the 'leader' and the back room boys of said party have all the power and for the most part our individual MPs have very little influence in what is said and done in their name by that inner group.

Cynical you say, perhaps so but when we see 'leaders' (of all stripes) dictating who and who cannot run under their banner even after the local Electoral District Association has selected and endorsed a candidate, when even the smallest long past comment is grounds for 'the party' rejecting a candidates ability to run under their banner, then perhaps my initial thoughts above are not so far wrong. Let he who is without fault cast the first stone is perhaps the appropriate comment here!

This leaves those of us who intend to vote on Oct 21st in a bit of a dilemma, do we vote for that local candidate who we like and trust but who has little chance of getting elected, do we vote for the 'next best' candidate who has a better chance 'representing us'? Do we vote for an individual we dislike and distrust but whose party is our preferred choice of government or do we vote to reduce the chances of a party we don't want to see in power from having one more MP in the house and possibly gaining power.

This latter choice is then where the heading for this piece comes from ABC ….. Anyone But Conservative ….. Long time readers will know that this blog was originally started to highlight and document the previous conservative government of Stephen Harper attacks on our democracy. Whilst I have attempted to highlight issues that jeopardise our democracy by any and all partys I cannot help but say that I still think that the conservative mind set as evidenced by the Frord regime here in Ontario is the greatest danger to it. That Scheer seems to want nothing to do with his Ontario counterpart kinda says it all in my mind, there may be a bit of a divide between provincial and federal politics but I see little difference in the ideological beliefs of the various leaders or would be leaders.

In May of this year I wrote “Frankly the thought of Ford in control of our province scares the living shit out of me, I am firmly convinced that he will do and say anything to gain power, nothing he says can be taken at face value.......” That assessment has been proven to be correct and I can but hope that we don't get to see if indeed Mr Scneer is cut from the same cloth!

I still don't know if I will be voting for my local candidate, the party of choice (both Green at this point) or strategically to stop the Frord want to be. Stay tuned.......

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Democracy in danger?

Given the title of this blog I must ask the question is our very democracy in danger from the proliferation of discourse on social media, whether true or not, about our political leaders and their various 'platforms'. I will freely admit that being one of the rare individuals that has no social media presence himself and thus only see media reports about some of the political mud being thrown in such places as Twitter and Facebook that my perception could be totally skewed from reality. That said, it seems to me that anybody can say anything about the various 'platforms' put out by the established parties whether true or not and much of the rhetoric gets picked up and amplified by the users of said social media.

The disinformation on such media would seem to be totally over the top, uncontrolled and without any accountability for such untruths, the twit in chief to the south Mr Trumph being the greatest spreader of such lies. Once the election period starts the political parties themselves will have some restrictions as to expenditures and can be challenged about glaringly partisan lies, but what of similar similar lies and partisan BS on social media? Our MSM, the newspapers and TV stations, are less restricted in what they can (and do) say than the political parties themselves but still can be held legally responsible for published information, individuals on social media not so much.

Is the ease with which anyone no matter who they are or where they live (including foreign entities who would like to destroy our democratic systems) can spread their opinions a good thing in promoting dialog or a dangerous thing with the potential to give those who would destroy or subvert our parliamentary system a foot in the door. I don't know, but I sure see some troubling trends developing.

The current situation in the U.S. and Great Britain is as much the result of the spread (by the twit in chief and facecrap) of dissenting, often inaccurate or misleading, opinions by both political pundits and their social media followers as the very questionable output from said 'leaders'. So far it has not reached such epidemic proportions here in Canada but I see an alarming trend in the increase of such disinformation spread by such means.

A fellow blogger who writes about democracy wrote a commentary yesterday upon the current state of affairs at https://billlongstaff.blogspot.com/2019/08/i-vote-cbc.html which promotes the CBC as perhaps the only remaining 'neutral' MSM, whilst I would hope its not that quite that bad yet I cannot help but agree that it is increasingly looking bleak in that regard.

As an old man who has been kicking around on this ball of dirt we call earth for more than 70 years have I just started seeing more clearly or simply become much more cynical? Or is my strong dislike and distrust of 'social media' coloring my concern that rhetoric will overwhelm common sense? You decide!

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Much ado about nothing?

Does anyone believe that most, if not all, large national and international companies seeking to do business with overseas entities such as Saudi Arabia do not provide 'incentives' to the principals involved?

Does anyone believe that without such 'incentives' said companies would not receive the contracts but would be passed over in favor of those that do 'grease the wheels'?

Does anyone believe that all governments, past, present and of any political stripe do not 'encourage' and / or turn a blind eye to such practices when large contracts that benefit Canadian companies and jobs are at stake?

Does anyone believe the the opposition Conservatives who signed a deal with said corrupt overseas government for a London, Ontario company to supply military equipment to them will not pretend moral outrage at such actions.

Does anyone believe that JWR was not under immense pressure to find a way to avoid having such a large employer of Canadians be effectively removed from carrying on government related business in Canada?

Does anyone believe that JWR was not removed from her post as AG in direct response to her unmoving decision regarding the SNC-Lavalin prosecution?

Does anyone believe that much of the 'outrage' by both the Conservatives and the NDP is not politically motivated and will be kept 'in play' right up to election time?

Does anyone believe that the AG's role should not be separated from government control and influence and any political influence and not be a member of cabinet?

The whole fiasco is not over yet by a long shot and I predict that the court proceedings will drag on till AFTER the election at which time, irregardless of what party is then in power, a way will be found to 'rescue' SNC-Lavalin and save Quebec jobs.

'A deal to allow SNC-Lavalin to avoid criminal liability could still be on the table amid a furor over whether the Trudeau government tried to meddle in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, the Star has learned.

“My understanding is when criminal proceedings are ongoing that that option is always available,” Public Services and Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough said in an interview.

The requirement to continually assess the strength of the prosecution case, evidence, witnesses, and changing circumstances are “an ongoing obligation” within the DPA (deferred prosecution agreement) regime, as in any prosecution, she said.'

Enough said!

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

The Echo Chamber....

Is 'Social Media an asset or an intrusive addiction? Is the ability to instantly access this stream of unfiltered information an asset or simply spreading misinformation? As someone who could be said to be addicted to the internet but is not 'on' any 'social media' I have mixed feelings about whether having the world in your hand is a good thing or a path to misinformation.

With well over 90% of adult Canadians using the internet regularly in one form or another and about 80% of those 'on' Facebook or some similar platform it can be seen how quickly 'news' (good, bad, or simply wrong) can be spread.

According to a new Nanos Research survey for The Globe and Mail more than seven in 10 Canadians think Facebook does a poor or very poor job of monitoring how the platform is used to influence politics. It also found that more than eight in 10 Canadians think Facebook is untrustworthy or somewhat untrustworthy with people’s personal data. Also, more than six in 10 Canadians say Facebook will have a negative or somewhat negative effect on the next federal election.

Twitter trolls linked to suspected foreign influence campaigns stoked controversy over pipelines and immigration in Canada, according to a CBC/Radio-Canada analysis of 9.6 million tweets from accounts since deleted. Roughly 21,600 tweets from those troll accounts directly targeted Canadians — many of them with messages critical of Canadian pipeline projects and tweets that highlighted divisions over Canada's policies on immigration and refugees......

"While social media and digital platforms create forums that allow Canadians to engage in a dialogue about important issues, they also have a record of being manipulated to spread disinformation, create confusion and exploit existing societal tensions," said Amy Butcher, a spokesperson for Minister of Democratic Institutions Karina Gould. "We expect [social media] companies to take concrete actions to combat manipulation."

And yet so many folks think everything they read there is gospel but as we have now found out there are those out there both foreign and domestic that would try to subvert our very democracy by spreading false information via these platforms. Even our own government is jumping on the bandwagon but how much of that content is unbiased 'information' and how much is self promoting spin is debatable.

Social media websites like Facebook and Twitter now take in the lion's share of federal advertising dollars, thanks to an ongoing increase in the use of digital advertising by government departments and agencies, new figures show. Of the $39.2 million spent on government advertisements last year, federal departments spent almost $18.2 million on digital ads — roughly 46 per cent of the total budget, which doesn't include production costs.

And, for the first time ever, social media ads made up the biggest slice of digital spending — 43 per cent, or roughly $7.8 million.

Make no mistake even this 'over 70 old fart' who is one of the very few NOT on social media but who is very much aware of its power is not advocating for ditching your cell phone but think that perhaps some of those platforms should come with the same sort of warning that comes with some other equipment “Danger extended use of Social media can set unrealistic expectations and create feelings of inadequacy and low self-esteem”! . Finally there is little doubt that the outcome of our upcoming Federal election will be greatly influenced by 'millennials' who in turn will be greatly influenced by what they read on their smart phones, let us hope they are smart enough to not believe everything they read.

Millennials are also digital natives. We (they) grew up with technology and have made it a central part of our lives. To the 94% of millennials who own a smart phone, that device is our most trusted assistant. It’s our bank, our travel agent, our newspaper, our telephone, our music player, and our weather person. That device lets us watch the video content we crave, order food, and get us from one place to the next (by using the Uber app in many cities).
And to the 85% of Canadian Millennials who check Facebook at least once a day, social media is how we stay connected, find out what’s happening in the world, and increasingly the way we learn about and connect with brands.

The question is whether its the information age or the disinformation age?

 

Update

A British MP committee has just released a report that mirrors my concerns regarding Social media and Facebook in particular..

"Democracy is at risk from the malicious and relentless targeting of citizens with disinformation and personalised 'dark adverts' from unidentifiable sources, delivered through the major social media platforms we use every day," concluded the report.

"The big tech companies are failing in the duty of care they owe to their users to act against harmful content, and to respect their data privacy rights."

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Leadership, Democracy & Twitter

Recently I read an opinion piece in The Hill Times decrying the 'Lack of Leadership' in both the U.S. and GB given the current Cluster Fk in both countries. It goes on to say 'The answer is fairly simply: lack of leadership.' and that 'Unbridled populism fails unless it is given direction, order and coherence from good leadership. Without such leadership, both our nations appear destined to continue their saunter towards this form of government by self-inflicted anarchy, a truly unfortunate state.
Whilst it is unclear exactly how this writer proposes to 'fix' this 'lack of leadership' I would suggest that leadership or the lack thereof is not the problem. In both countries you have strong leaders unable to proceed with their proposals due to equally strong opposition from other elected representatives both affiliated with their 'party' and not. The problem lies not so much with the leadership but their fixation on looking good in the public eye so that they not 'the other lot' will be elected to power the next time around, its not so much about good governance as maintaining power to move forward their particular agenda.

There is nothing new about that mindset by politicians of all stripes in all democracies what has changed is the interaction between those we elect and those who elect them. Back in the day, way back, the 'representative' had very little direct contact with his or her constituents, they got their information as to what was going on days or weeks later via a newsheet and writing a letter was perhaps the only way for the average citizen to contact him (and was always a him back then). Over the years that process has gradually evolved so that now such communications are instantaneous for those who who, like the twit in chief in the U.S., subscribe to such services, and certainly quite timely via on line news. Those few left without internet connections who rely upon printed materials delivered to their door are perhaps at a disadvantage in not knowing about the daily shenanigans issuing out political mouths (or perhaps that is a distinct advantage!) but will still get most important news, probably filtered by the authors point of view, within a couple of days.

Perhaps the point here is not so much the increased ability to communicate a point of view or intended decision but the instantaneous reaction and feedback from pundits and political junkies that are increasingly coloring the decisions made by those in power. The request from the press for a comment from this politician or the other on an item of news before the ink is dry, to use an old outdated phrase, hardly encourages thoughtful and meaningful responses either. We here in Canada are not yet governing by twitter bursts but you may be sure that as we approach the upcoming federal election day that such communication will have a disproportionate effect on both the perception and the results of said election. Much to our detriment IMHO!






Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Ho, Ho bloody Ho

This time of year is not my favorite season, yes its nice to visit family and catch up with both their recent activities and their plans for the future but the whole clamor of what is now largely a retail opportunity leave me less than enthusiastic. For far too many folks it is an excuse, or is that a perceived obligation, to spend money they cant really afford on items that have a good chance of not being used or useful to the recipient who similarly feel obliged to return the 'favor'. Me cynical and a grumpy old man? Yep!

That said I do feel 'obliged' to wish those few folks who read these pages, some of whom even take the time to comment upon my ramblings, seasonal greetings and wish them a happiness and contentment in the upcoming year. Just because I do not embrace those feeling this time of year does not mean I would wish such on others, if the state of our world locally, nationally and / or world wide both politically and environmentally bothers you, as it does me, then I suggest you do NOT read on for this is not going to be an uplifting creed.

It may make for bleak reading, but of the 162 countries covered by the Institute for Economics and Peace’s (IEP’s) latest study, just 11 were not involved in conflict of one kind or another. Then there are countries which are involved in no actual foreign wars involving deaths whatsoever - like North Korea & China – but which are fraught by the most divisive and entrenched internal conflicts. The number of authoritarian regimes that suppress their own citizens or the ethnic minorities who they consider interlopers is also considerable whether included in the above or not. The few that do not fall within those parameters are far from trouble free, much of Europe is in disarray between fending off Russian aggression and trying to agree to disagree with neighboring countries not the least of which is GB where the whole Brexit thing can only be described as the largest Cluster Fk since Cromwell's days.

North America is not immune to the political induced madness that is spreading across the globe much of it caused by individuals who seem to think they are democratic leaders but are in fact the exact opposite or quickly heading that way. Whilst the current U.S. 'leader' is perhaps the best example of such thinking where due process is just something to be ignored or circumvented and any opposition is demeaned or suppressed it is far from the only one who thinks that way. Which brings us to our own impending CF here in Ontario where the newly elected premier is cutting a swath though the checks and balances previously thought to be unassailable starting with the members of Toronto's council and a number of other 'cuts' seeming made with little or no input from the folks that citizens chose to represent them, flawed though that process may have been.

Across the country it looks no better as what appears to be an increasing division between those who do not believe in climate change or simply put the almighty dollar ahead of the ever increasing destruction of out atmosphere and life as we know it. We will not change thing overnight and the use of oil to power our economy will not substantially reduce in the short term but it should be clear by now that increasing its use is simply not on. I will leave it to others more eloquent on the subject to detail the dangers but polluting large areas by taking tar from the ground, adding more pollutants to it to send through aging pipelines to then ship it out of country where after processing and creating more pollutants much of it will be sold back to us make zero sense to me.

That our current federal leader, whom we thought was somewhat moving away from the excesses of the previous regime, seems to have been blinded by the rhetoric coming out of one particular province and bought said aging pipeline (for many mega dollars when the owners who had made their millions whined that they were pulling out) is 'disappointing'. To add insult to injury we now learn that further millions are being given to the diggers of tar because no one want to buy the crap and actually 'digging' it up and flogging it to distant suckers is no longer financially viable. In short between the world wide political situation, the idiot in charge next door to us and our own ever increasing divisions both politically and environmentally we are screwed.

Merry bloody Christmas eh.

IF I can find the fortitude (and that is highly debatable at this point) I will return sometime in the new year to cobble together what will no doubt be a long list of the questionable actions undertaken by the Ford Regime in the short time since they came to power.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Enough said...

In a longish op-ed published in iPolitics Michael Harris says the next election is Trudeau's to loose, I cannot help but agree for the other choices are bleak.

“By insisting on making war on the carbon tax his call to political arms, Scheer couldn’t say more clearly that he is yesterday’s man.

That doesn’t mean Trudeau is politically bullet-proof in 2019. Just that, should he lose, it will not be because Canadians suddenly want a Ford prototype in 24 Sussex Drive.

Whatever his shortcomings, the PM’s greatest strength is aspiring to something his father once aimed for: a just society.

Despite the broken promises, the awful lapses of judgment, and a few policy face-plants, Trudeau is arm-in-arm with Canadians on values. Scheer continues to hold hands with Harper on everything from climate change to immigration. And both of them continue to cast loving eyes southward to marvel at the power of lies.

Bottom line? Canadians won’t be flocking to populists in 2019 because they suddenly become climate-change-deniers, anti-immigrant, or bow down to a fact-free universe.

Short of a five-alarm scandal for the Liberals, or a serious abdication of the social values Trudeau stands for, they will choose the Liberals over Republican wannabes.

Which is just to say that, populist waves notwithstanding, the next election is Trudeau’s to win — or lose — all by himself.”

Whilst NO politician is going to be gods gift to the population and some, possible all, may have SOME proposals worth consideration at this point in time I see little choice but the liberals unless the slash and burn policies of the likes of Ford, Scheer, Kenny, Trump etc are your preference. The only thing that we can be certain of for the upcoming federal election is that the rhetoric is going to come thick and fast and be over the top and in all probability very ugly.

At this point in our collective history both nationally and world wide we need leaders who seek to unite us not divide. I very much fear that such voices will be drowned out by those for whom political expediency comes long before such things as social and environmental concerns or cooperation and consensus building.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Sen. John McCain Eulogized

"He was a great man," "We gather here to mourn the passing of American greatness." "The real thing, not cheap rhetoric from men who will never come near the sacrifice he gave so willingly, nor the opportunistic appropriation of those who lived lives of comfort and privilege,"

Meghan McCain during her speech at her father's funeral service on Saturday in Washington, this was followed by some similar words from former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush who said.....

"So much of our politics, public life, public discourse can seem small and mean and petty, trafficking in bombast, and insult, and phony controversies, and manufactured outrage," said Obama

"He was courageous, with a courage that frightened his captors and inspired his countrymen. He was honest no matter whom it offended. Presidents were not spared," "John detested the abuse of power. He could not abide bigots and swaggering despots," Bush said during his speech.

The current presidents name was not spoken but its pretty clear to whom Meghan, Barack and George were referring to and those few words spoken by these people at such a difficult moment says much about the current situation south of the border.

Nuff said!

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Promises, promises, promises...

With the Ontario election period rapidly approaching the major political partys are busy trying to buy your votes with your own money (or actually promises to spend it by putting various shiny things in the window) whilst at the same time using 'creative accounting' to say how much it will cost. With the daily revolving door of promises and attacks its hard to keep up so much of my commentary will be 'last weeks news' however here are a few observations regarding a few recent announcements.

First up the child care thing where they all are promising the impossible in which they promise unavailable spaces for all in some distant time in the future!

The Ontario Liberals are set to unveil a pre-election budget with billions in new spending, including a plan to provide fully government-funded child care for preschoolers by 2020.
(costing) $2.2-billion over the next three years to provide child care from the time children turn 2½ until they are eligible for kindergarten.
For every parent, even those in rural areas without access to 'aproved' child care spaces?
The NDP child-care plan would be phased in over five years, would be free for households that earn $40,000 or less, and would grow to include infants, toddlers and preschoolers.
Fees for parents earning more than $40,000 would be based on ability to pay and the party says the average fee for families would be $12 a day. The party projects five consecutive deficits to pay for its plan, with a $3.3 billion deficit in 2018-2019 and a $1.9 billion deficit in 2022-2023.
A more reasonable plan with a sliding scale of user pay but like the other plans I have to ask 'what of those parents who cannot access external child care and have to (or choose to) care for their own children at home (with the associated costs of doing so including loss of income)?
Ontario's Progressive Conservatives announced Saturday that if elected in the province's spring election, they will cover up to $6,750 of childcare costs for Ontario families through a tax rebate program.
Low-income families would receive 75 per cent of their child-care costs back, at a maximum of $6,750; higher income families would receive an incrementally lower rate, bottoming out at 26 per cent of child-care costs for families earning $150,000 or more.

So up to about half (they say 75%) of the typical 'approved' child care costs as a tax credit, guess you would have to be in that 150,000 bracket to get any back, the poor low income bugger trying to survive on minimum wage wont get much (if any) benefit (you have to pay it in first to get a 'credit!).

As someone who raised their children at home without child care subsidies I could say more on this but recognize that the situation in urban areas may be much different from those for us rural residents both in access to services and to 'subsidies' but both should have the same access to funds.

Whilst on the subject of the Ontario PCs I see that Doug Trump (sorry Doug Ford, its hard to tell the difference sometimes) has now not only denied the press access to his campaign bus but is now producing his own 'news reports' where his spin and BS cannot be questioned or edited by the real press. Gota keep those lieing 'fake news' purveyors from reporting on gods gift to the Ontario Voter, one Rob (my shovels bigger than yours) Ford. Given that he will say and do anything that is convienent to his narrative its not surprising that he does not want 'independent' news reporting, take the reversal of the pave over the green belt idea and now the firing of Granic Allen the 'king maker' who he once endorsed and now rejects. Like his buddy to the south you cannot believe a word he says, its going to be hard (if not impossible) to select a 'good' government in Ontario but the above eliminates one choice without further consideration! 

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Tending the Garden

"You have to tend to this garden of democracy, otherwise things can fall apart fairly quickly. And we've seen societies where that happens,"

Former president Barack Obama

In these days of a clearly 'unstable' individual in a position of great power in the US of Eh who does not seem to realize that his words have a (largely negative) impact world wide it is becoming increasingly important for those who are concerned about the decline of reasonable dialog and being replaced by unhelpful rhetoric to speak up. One such person who chooses his words very carefully is Mr Obama and his recent words to a gathering at the Economic Club of Chicago need to be listened to by those who still think that we are not ALL are in great danger from the words and actions of would be power hungry dictators world wide.

"There have been periods in our history where censorship was considered OK. We had the McCarthy era. We had a President who had to resign prior to impeachment because he was undermining rule of law. At every juncture, we've had to wrestle with big problems."

"During my presidency, the press often drove me nuts," he said. "There were times where I thought reporters were ill-informed. There were times where they didn't actually get the story right. But what I understood was that principle of the free press was vital, and that, as President, part of my job was to make sure that that was maintained."

“Timeless values should transcend parties. I’d argue that freedom of the press should be ideal,” he said. “What I understood was that principle that the free press was vital. As president, part of my job was to make sure that that was maintained.”

"I do think because we’ve been so wealthy and so successful that we get complacent. We assume things continue the way they have been just automatically, and they don’t. You have to tend to this garden of democracy, otherwise, things can fall apart fairly quickly. And we've seen societies where that happens. Now, presume there was a ballroom here in Vienna in the late 1920s or '30s that looked and seemed as if it, filled with the music and art and literature that was emerging, would continue into perpetuity. And then 60 million people died. An entire world was plunged into chaos. So you got to pay attention -- and vote."

Enough said, pay attention folks!

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Policticialy correct or a step backwards?

A group of activists called on the Ontario government to ban the practice of stationing uniformed police officers at high schools across the province after the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) voted to permanently end the program...... TDSB staff released a report recommending the elimination of the program because it left some students feeling intimidated or uncomfortable.


So because a few students feel intimidated by police presence this outreach by the police is 'banned'!


The School Resource Officer program, which the TDSB suspended at the end of August, saw police officers deployed at 45 of its high schools in an effort to improve safety and perceptions of police. ........ the majority of those surveyed had a generally positive impression. However, it noted, about 10 per cent felt intimidated, uncomfortable or that they were being watched at school.


Whilst a majority of the students had a positive view of the program the 10 or 15% who did not (supported by a few vocal anti police acctivists) diminish the work done by these officers to improve the relationship between kids and police in these schools.


Rodney Diverlus, a member of Black Lives Matter, said there are better supports for students than having officers in schools.
“We believe the removal of the program puts an emphasis on the Ministry of Education to actually give adequate funding to the TDSB and other boards to support in having child and youth workers, equity-based social workers, more guidance counsellors and more time for teachers and teaching staff,” Diverlus said. “A wide range of educators and community-based workers would better support students, student safety and student achievement.”


One cannot disagree that some schools need more resources to guide and support 'troubled' students however to remove the officers from these schools without a viable alternative in place is a step backwards. The idea that school boards already pressed for funds will provide such extra resources in the forseeable future is dreaming in tecniclouur


Toronto Police Association president Mike McCormack, however, said the board’s decision did not come as a surprise, adding that he thinks it was politically motivated.
“I think there is a lot of value in the program and now that value has been squandered or lost,” “here’s an opportunity to look at that 10 per cent and say, ‘Why do you have these perceptions?’” “For me, someone who has worked in community-based policing, this is the type of group where you want ... to understand what’s going on and you want to improve the relationship,” “For me, someone who has worked in community-based policing, this is the type of group where you want ... to understand what’s going on and you want to improve the relationship,” McCormack said.


Indeed this program appeared to have a positive impact with many kids and seemed to improve the relationship between law enforcement and the youth involved for the most part. Its a shame that a greater effort was not made to address the concerns of the vocal few that did not see it that way without the discontinuation of this attempt to improve the interaction between students and police.


Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Mixed Messages

Apparently some MPPs who regularly vote for or against long and complex pieces of legislation without fully studying it personally (they all blindly vote much of the time as told to by their leaders) need more time to study a simple bill to enable students whose future employment prospects may well depend upon getting back in the classroom.

“Responding to those concerns, the Liberal government attempted to pass the back-to-work legislation on Thursday night using a provision that allows bills with the unanimous consent of all parties to be fast-tracked. The NDP, however, refused to consent to the bill, triggering a debate that will take place at Queen's Park today.“

That whilst questioning why it took so long for the government to take action whilst at the same time delaying the passing of the back to work legislation and vowing to vote against it irregardless even after having had “time to read it” (are they slow readers or what?) its not clear what they want.

Apparently the back-to-work legislation “begs the question of what has been happening for the last five weeks” but said that “her caucus will sit all weekend to ensure that “the government’s conservative-style, anti-worker legislation” isn’t put into place without a fight.”

There are indeed “serious questions” to ask about how the strike stretched on for as long as it did in the first place. As there are for many more strikes effecting public services, most labour strikes in the public sector seem to involve already well paid unionized workers wanting more, more, more, this does not seem to be the care here so the part time instructors may well have a point but holding students hostage is not the best way to resolve the situation.

“The collective bargaining process is important. It is a principled process and we need to support it. But I believe that this went on too long and I believe there are some structural things we have to look at it so we are not ever confronted with such a long strike ever again,” Said Wynne, more like a confrontational process with little compromise on the table in most cases!

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

A New Name for Greed

I am not fond of 'labels', particularly political labels, they tend to be far to generalized and invariably lump a wide range of views under one label that is often cannot clearly define all the views encompassed by the generality. After all does 'Liberal' define all liberals or 'Conservative' cover all the various shades of grey surrounding that 'label'? One label that has seen a massive (doubled in the last year according to google) increase is ' neoliberalism', a simpler description would seem to me to be 'greed' or more specifically Corporate Greed with its closely associated Greed for Power.
Graeme Decarie in The Decarie Report put it all in perspective for me this week in that he says this is nothing new but simply a new label for an old affliction.


Recently, they (the corporate aristocracy) have introduced a new term to justify their vileness. It's called neo-liberalism. It's a belief that the wealthy need to be free from any government regulation or restraint, that humans are by nature competitive, and that by giving complete freedom to that competitiveness we will all become rich.
That is pure nonsense. There's nothing new about neo-liberalism. It was neo-liberalism that was used by the old aristocracy to plunder the world. Neo-liberalism made possible the slaughter of native peoples in the U.S. and Latin America - and in Canada. The only people it ever made rich were the neo-liberals. Even now, as neoliberalism gathers speed in the west, the very wealthy are getting richer while the rest of us get poorer. It can end only in a general crash. But our new aristocrats are too stupid with greed to think that far ahead.
As if that weren't a big enough crisis, we have an added one. Those who tried to deal with the great depression of the 1930s used the theories of Keynes who advised government spending when private spending slowed down.
But that may not work this time. It may not work because we're already making demands on our resources - like oil, mines, food - that cannot be sustained. Somehow, we need less growth, not more - but we still have to meet human needs.
But, with the present power of the corporation world there is no chance of concentrating on human needs. The starvation of millions means nothing to them. The evidence of climate change means nothing to them. Like the old aristocrats, these believe themselves to be born superior beings to the rest of us. And, like the old aristocrats, they are self-absorbed - and not very bright.


That last bit highlighted says it all for me, just like the pyramid schemes designed to make the instigator rich at the expense of those being sucked in later such things must by their very definition collapse under their own weight and lack of new building material (suckers). The whole idea that our economy can only survive if it is ever expanding is no less a scheme that must eventually run out of support from the bottom be it 'investors' or raw materials or simply those who would (or could) purchase the goods and services that keep the guys at the top happy in their corporate towers.


Call it neoliberalism if you like, I just call it greed and unfortunately it is not limited to the corporate world, for those of us the bottom of the heap many of the 'middle class' particularly the unionized worker be it white or blue collar, but particularly the public service crowd appear to be equally greedy. Everybody wants more, more, more and in a world of finite resources seem to forget that if they get more someone somewhere must pay for it and will have less. less, less. Until we all decide we can do without all the latest gadget, car, tool or toy (and the money to pay for them) and are satisfied to just live with what we have then we are ALL part of the problem IMHO.

Now, how much did YOU spend on non essentials over the last 30 days supporting that ivory tower?


Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers