Wayward Son

Just because something seems to be on the rise does not mean that it is. I care much more how things actually are than how things seem. Are they on the rise? I don't know, but when I look into the evidence and statistics the answer seems to be no. In Pinker's book, for the western world, the USA is the statistical outlier. Violence is still going down there, but not as much as other western countries. In the rest of western world violence declined by a huge amount starting a couple hundred years ago and that decline continues to the present. In the United States the violence rate was dropping along with the rest of the western world until about 100 years ago when violence levels stabilized or decreased at slower rate then the rest of western world. Still, are mass killings even in the US on rise? Doesn't look that way. That could be wrong, but far too many people seem to be looking to explain the increase in mass shootings - with their own pet theory that conforms with their world view - before we even have actual evidence that said increase actually exists. I had a conversation with an aunt once. I asked her to look up the evidence for murder and violence trends to see if it confirmed or countered her belief that both were dramatically increasing. She said that doing so would be pointless. Either the evidence would either confirm her beliefs or the evidence would be wrong. Her beliefs are simple - violence and murder must continue to increase until the second coming, as we are moving farther from the garden of eden and our connection with god. These beliefs can't be changed or argued with as that is what her worldview tells her must be true. Coming across evidence that counters her worldview just convinces her even more that no "evidence" outside the bible can be trusted and insulates her further from the real world.

Do you even think about the possibility that your belief (also stated in several other threads) that violence is on the rise and that there is an "escalating epidemic of monsters among us" might be completely wrong? Books like Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature" show that almost all forms of violence have been, and continue to fall dramatically - both recently and over the last several centuries. I have yet to hear any evidence-based counter arguments to the facts provided in that book.

The media should have covered exactly zero of Darrell Scott's speech. It was completely devoid of facts and statistics. It was completely devoid of rigorous thought about a complex subject. It was simply the opinion of someone who has put very little thought into the matter and simply says what he feels is correct based on his ideology. There is nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong if that opinion is elevated beyond what it is: a raw ideology-driven opinion backed up by no facts, statistics or evidence. Furthermore several of the things in it were completely wrong. Such as his son praying in the school despite it being against the law. His son can pray however much he chooses. However, his son cannot be FORCED to pray in school by law. I certainly understand Mr. Scott's grief, and I applaud him speaking before the committee, but the media has no obligation to report nonsense just because it is said by a grief stricken father shortly after an extreme tragedy. Having said all that...unfortunately, the media did report about Mr. Scott's speech. It got a lot of media attention - much more then would be expected for a speech before a house subcommittee. But that was 13 years ago, so it is ripe for unethical fundamentalists to ignore reality and "lie for jesus" by saying that the speech was ignored. They know that their audience is too uncritical to care if it is true or not.

Will teacher's likely face concessions in two years time? Probably. Will that be the case regardless of their actions? I think so. Those I know who oppose the teachers will never support them under circumstance. At least for me, it was amusing to watch them on my facebook where people who would never support the teachers even if they were working for free would post that "x" has cause them to stop supporting teachers, as if they supported them in the first place. What was also amusing was when several of those people posted back in forth to each other saying that teachers had a 25% wage increase since 2003 and they hadn't had a wage increase in a decade. I pointed out that in two seconds of searching online I could find the wage increases of 2 of the 4 of them. In one case the wage increase was 33% between 2002 and 2010, For another it was 22% between 2003 and 2010. One person I didn't need to look up because I used to work with him and knew that his wages had increased by almost 80% since 2004 despite doing the exact same job. Regardless of pointing out those facts, they still denied that they had received any wage increase. So that is the problem that teachers face. The government will once again trash them in the media, and people in general always believe that they, themselves, have things much worse then they do. So the teachers can't win. They have to decided what is best for them. Personally, I would say "up yours" to the public, refuse to volunteer, and deal with the consequences. I disagree with everything you say. I say make them essential and then strikes no longer are an issue. You seem to want to avoid that because you want to have your cake and eat it too. I think that nothing good has come out of this. I hope that the court system not only declares the bill unconstitutional, but then an arbitrator awards the teachers massive compensation - not because I feel that they deserve it contract-wise, but because I feel that there should be consequences for this stunt the government pulled. Taking away the rights of a group people simply because you wish to win an extra seat in September is about the worst reason there is. The Drummond report came out a year ago. What is interesting is not only that the government has followed none of the recommendations to cut costs (at least as far as I can tell), but also that the only thing this government has actually attempted to do is the very thing that the Drummond report warned against: This week, as they announced a cap on the salaries of public-sector executives and a lengthy freeze of their pay-for-performance – aimed mostly at making it easier to freeze the salaries of unionized workers – it was obvious that the Liberals have rejected one of Mr. Drummond’s central premises. Central to his prescription was avoiding “short-term fixes” and “across-the-board cuts,” which allow structural problems to fester. “We must be students of history and history shows that simple cost-cutting by governments too often generates fiscal improvements that peter out after a few years as pressures build,” Mr. Drummond wrote in his introductory letter. “In the end, spending surges again and the result is more of the same, but at a higher cost.” No section of the report was more explicit on this front than the one on labour costs, which account for the bulk of government’s expenditures. “Wage freezes are often followed by wage catch-up periods,” the report says. “Such action, if undertaken in the current fiscal climate, would undermine our longer-term fiscal mandate and damage labour relations.” The government, Mr. Drummond argued, should instead pursue more thoughtful ways of improving public-sector productivity and efficiency. This government undermined the rights of a large group of people. Harmed labour relations for years to come. And there is nothing good that will come out of it in the long run. It is stupid policy, and it is an example of Government not providing actual solutions, but instead creating more problems a couple years down the road. There opportunity was there to make things better - to implement policy based on the best evidence for a better long-term outlook - instead we did the exact opposite. Hurray.....

When I said that I hope public sector come out this process stronger, it was not in terms of public relations, but in terms of union members recognizing that their choices are either improved solidarity or join the race to the bottom. I am not part of a union, public or private, but I really don't think that they should care what the public support is when their rights, the same rights everyone else has, are being taken away. I am sure there are plenty of people who chastised African Americans fighting for their civil rights by telling them their actions were not a good way to build public support. The opinion of the public can be (and has been countless times) completely wrong and pandering to public ignorance and stupidity only causes more harm in the long term. As to your quote by Buzz, who cares? People will quote a solitary individual like Buzz when, and only when, that person says something that they agree with...as if that person now has some kind of authority (argument from authority logical fallacy) that said same person apparently lacks when he/she says something which you disagree with. I care about what the majority of constitutional scholars have to say about whether this bill violates the charter. As to your solution, it seems little different then making teachers an essential service - something that Manitoba did long ago. It won't happen, and why should it when the government knows that if it leaves teachers with striking as their only option then they can use that threat of a strike, along with bad mouthing teachers in the press, to turn parents, and the rest of the public against the teachers. The government can then say that they didn't want a strike, but those evil teachers did, even though it is the government that can easily, and lawfully prevent the threat of a strike by making them essential and submitting to arbitration if a deal can't be made. Of course, the government can also go farther, by just saying that "this" is the only deal we will accept, and if you don't accept it we will just impose it on you, by removing your rights and changing laws. That is the farthest thing possible from negotiations, but some of the general public are so dumb that they consider it negotiations.

This incident has shown why public sector unions are necessary. I can only hope that the unions come through this process stronger. Private entities like Ford have to follow the law. They have to abide by human rights legislation. They have to allow matters to be reviewed before the courts and the OLRB. Those in the public sector face an employer that creates the laws, and has shown that instead either declaring a service essential, or actually negotiating with them in good faith, they will just impose a contract on them and deny them the right to the same legal process that all other employees have access to.

Well apparently, based on your previous comment that you couldn't understand why the power to repeal the bill was not held by the legislature, but by the cabinet and Minister, you are missing the part where the bill give sweeping power to the cabinet and Minister. So you are ok with giving far reaching powers to a minister and cabinet, over the legislature, as long as you agree with the actions taken. If the actions taken are ones you find questionable all the sudden you care about power being held in the hands of a few people. I prefer to hold an ethical and political philosophy that is consistent myself. When you give a government the power to take away the rights of those you do not like, you give a government the power to take away your own rights. First they came for ___________ and I did not speak out because I was not a ___________. "Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security." Benjamin Franklin

It is a little sad to see that someone has spent dozens of posts vociferously supporting a bill they know nothing about. It is why ideology should never trump evidence. That should be a learning experience. Sadly it rarely is.

Good to know. I guess the fact that Canada lost (according to stats Canada) more then 1/7th of its manufacturing jobs in the 4 years leading up to the start of the financial crisis and US recession - a time when the US economy was humming along and while Canada had a high dollar - combined with the strength of our manufacturing sector during the preceding years when our dollar was much lower....are not reality.

Well actually Norway did follow the same course as other oil exporters. The difference is when (about 2 decades ago) they saw that their dollar was increasing and that was hurting other industries they asked themselves do we have to be stupid about this? They came up a shocking answer...No, they actually did not need to be stupid. They decided to be as smart as possible, base policy on reality and they will benefit for decades after their oil is gone. On top of having an economy that puts ours to complete shame, they also have more money locked away in their Government Pension Plan (which is not really a pension plan, but where they invest their oil wealth to stop it from flooding the economy) then they know what to do with. We asked ourselves the same question and decided to be as stupid as possible and base policy on denying reality. When we see negative results we conclude that if we could just take that stupidity to a new level then things will turn around. Any day now I am sure it will.

This is not the same thing at all. I have stated that the Sun is reporting a salary for Spence's partner which is wrong, and they continue to do so knowing that it is incorrect. You made a comparison with Canwest giving a statement that you claim they made. If you were to say that Canwest made a statement that John F. Kennedy was still alive, I would say that their statement is wrong. If you then come back and say that Canwest actually said that "John F. Kennedy was still alive in 1962" and therefore I was wrong to say their statement was wrong, then I would say that is your fault because my response, which you requested, was based on assuming that your claim was accurate. Your statement was that Canwest made a comparable statement to Sun Media. Now you claim that Canwest provided context for the statement, but at the same time use this example to show that Sun Media is not the only one inciting their viewers. A contradiction. I wrote "at least, according to what you write." Indicating that my response was based on what you were claiming that Canwest said. Then I wrote "The comment that they together earn 6 figures without any context is designed to incite, not inform people." This does not mean that I am claiming that Canwest used no context, or even made any claim at all, but that I am basing my response to what you wrote. As I didn't watch the f'ing show I can not determine whether they used any context, or even whether they discussed Attawapiskat at all. I can only make the comment that if the comment you claim they made was made without context then it is designed to inflame not inform. If it was made with context, then it is you who decided to remove the context in order to either inflame or create a false equivalency between Sun Media and Canwest- and that is why I wrote "according to what you write."

Really? You think I should provide context for the statements of various protesters, and provide context for various things that are not being discussed in this topic at the moment, because I feel that context should be provided for statements that are actually being made in this topic? Brilliant. If you want to discuss those things and add the context then no one is stopping you. Nor would I say that providing said context is silly because there are other claims which are potentially related for which context has not been provided.

I didn't say that there was no context. I was simply responding to what you said that Canwest claimed. You provided no link and you provided no context. Maybe Canwest did provide the context to ensure that their audience was informed. If that is the case then you opted not to provide the context to ensure that this audience was informed.

"Facts" is a term used pretty loosely here. For instance they purposefully used a year when there was an election so that they could inflate the number of politicians. I could similarly use 2006 and ask why does Canada have 2 Prime Ministers, 2 Governments, and many more MPs then we are supposed to have. Outrage!! I say purposefully because they know they know what they are doing. I actually had a short discussion with Ezra about it around a year ago, and yet it continues. And using Sun Media's own numbers the average councillor salary would be less then 16g for those positions Sun Media deems "full-time." The number of councillors may be too high (although a city council doesn't look after things like education, so a straight up comparison is not perfect), but then why lie and exaggerate the real number? Because this is not about informing, but instead about demonizing and inflaming.

It is unhelpful, but at least, according to what you write, technically correct. We already know Spence makes just under 70g, undoubtably her partner makes at least 30g, as the average CGA in Ontario made over 100g in 2010. The comment that they together earn 6 figures without any context is designed to incite, not inform people. Does anyone think that if Spence made nothing instead of 70g that the infusion of 70g would fix the housing problem? Any evidence that the partner who has a good record of financial management in Attiwapiskat (a decade ago) and elsewhere is either involved in corruption or is over-paid (It was the ministry that demanded a co-manager, his company's bid was the most competitive of the 5 bids, Spence was not the chief at the time, nor is their any evidence brought forth of a conflict of interest). Poisoning the well only ensures that a reasonable solution can not be met.

The cost of the zamboni was a fraction of what it costs to provide a single new house in Attawapiskat. The claim made here and at Sun Media is that the money is being provided but is being lost through corruption. The best they seem to be able to muster to support this assertion is that some community members fund-raised to replace their zamboni which has zero to do with the claim. At the same time we have several years of Shelia Fraser AG reports on FIrst Nations housing that have been pretty damning, to put it mildly, towards the various federal governments. The federal government is my representative on this issue and AG report after AG report has said that they are not doing their job, and not improving from audit to audit. That is what I concern myself with. Passing the buck from a ministry, and a bunch of very large organizations all doing a very poor job with a large amount of money, to a small group of people using their time and effort to improve the lives of children in their community is most likely the stupidest thing I have ever read in my life.

He did not. In fact the contracted firm that he works for did not make that much money (about 150g). The very source that Sun Media uses for this makes that very clear. Sun Media knows that what they are saying is not correct, as it has been pointed out to them repeatedly, but you can sure that they will keep blowing that dog whistle. If Sun Media feels that they need to lie to incite the level of anger and racism they feel is required...maybe they should re-evaluate their position. The zamboni did not come out of band funds, but through community fund raising. Sun Media also knows this full well.

Well, not a shooting (truck bomb), but the worst school massacre remains the one in Bath, Michigan in 1927. And for percentage of students killed, the shooting in Greencastle, PA in 1764 resulted in only 3 students surviving with 9 or 10 dead. So, I don't we should ideolize the past by elevating it (or degrading society today) without justification. (edit: I see bush-cheney beat me to it)

As it is before the courts - no, the media generally stays clear. Another reason why big companies and big legal firms use delay tactic after delay tactic.

Not inappropriate at all. Do you have any experience going through the court system against a large company and large legal firm?

Oh I have no doubt what you would like to know, as the hypocrisy and intrusiveness of authoritarians knows no bounds. As to whether it is your right, the courts will decide. And if this was about knowing whether the unions of public employees were funding the PLO or a socialist agenda then the bill would not include all unions, would it now?

Would I like to know where my taxes go? Yes, and unlike you, I don't find the government any more transparent then they are forced to be (at best). Would I like to know where my union dues go? Yes, when I worked in a unionized environment I wanted to know where my dues went, and I definitely did not find the union sharing such information willingly in my case. However, it was up to the union members to get their leadership to be more transparent, and they did not push for such. That was their decision to make. Not yours. Would I like to know where my former union dues go? Or any other union? It is none of my damn business. Just like it is none of my damn business how a church spends their money (unless I am a member). Just like it is none of my damn business how a charity spends their money (unless I am a member). Just like it is none of my damn business if you own a firearm. It might be greater transparency for the government to tell homeowners that they have to post to a website whether or not there is a gun in their home, and to do so at an expense to themselves of time and money. I would call that an intrusion by the state where they have no business being. I consider this example to be big government at its worst. I guess we will see what the courts decide.

Again, if you are not a member why do you have any right to know? And why should they have to provide that information to you at their expense. These so-called small government conservatives turn out to be the exact opposite once again.

Unions are not public.

And anyone who has no connection to the union should be allowed to know exactly how the union is spending their money why? Private citiziens needing to report their firearms to the government is big intrusive government (I agree), but private organziations needing to report all their financial information to everyone in the country is A-ok. Look if CAW members feel they need more transparency from their union, then that is something they should demand and fight for, and if need be government legislation may need to be enacted to help them out. However, there appears to be no push from ordinary union members for this legislation, but instead a push from the most vocal anti-union people in the country. That makes it more then clear that this legislation has zero to do with helping out average joe union member get transparency from his union.