More On The Struggle Of Minimum Wage Workers

We hear it all the time from those who slavishly and unconscionably parrot the corporate line: raising the minimum wage is a job-killer. While that rhetoric may serve the insatiable business appetite for greater and greater profits at the expense of vulnerable workers, it simply isn't true. While I have written several posts recently on American fast-food workers' attempts to double their wages, we would be indeed foolish and willfully ignorant to believe that the American struggle is not also the struggle of their Canadian counterparts.

Even if you only have a few minutes to spare, I would urge you to watch at least part of the following video, and read the accompanying story on Alternet.

Legalization Of Marijuana - The Need For A Vigorous Debate -UPDATED

I believe the sterotype is that as we get older, our views become more entrenched and conservative. In my own life, I have found the opposite to be true.

When I was young, I was certainly to the right of centre in my social views. I was a supporter of capital punishment, and felt severe sentencing acted as a deterrent to crime. As I got older and more educated, I learned to think more critically, and thereby progresssed in my views. While I am still opposed to the gutting of sentences through easy parole and the fact that most incarceration means only serving one-third of the sentence, an affront to the notion that justice must be seen to be done, I also feel that prison terms should be served by far fewer than currently occupy our detention facilities. I guess, to use the demonizing categorization of the Haper regime, I have become soft on some 'crime'.

One of those crimes is incarceration for drug possession. Thanks to Bill C-10, the Harper omnibus crime bill, there is a six-month mandatory minimum sentence for growing as few as six marijuana plants, something that strikes many as overkill. At a time when many jurisdictions, including the United States, are pursuing legal reforms as they realize the growing costs of the increasingly futile 'war on drugs,' Canada's postion seems both regressive and anachronistic.

In any event, a vigorous and informed debate is clearly needed on the issue of drug legalization. In pursuit of that goal, I offer the following:

Retired police captain Peter Christ makes some compelling arguments for the legalization of drugs. While I don't agree with the legalization of all drugs, the perspective of a former law enforcement offical is surely useful:



In light of Justin Trudeau's recent announcement that he favours legalization of majijuana, the following are additional resources that add meaningfully to the discussion:

The Star had an interesting piece on what legalization of marijuana likely means in states like Colorado and Washington, which recently held referenda on the issue.

They also ran an editorial evaluating Justin Trudeau's proposal, suggesting he needs to more clearly define how it would be implemented.

You can check out the Globe's take here and here. You may be surprised at what 'the newspaper of record' has to say.

As well, The National Post looks at both sides of the pot debate here.

Finally, in this morning's Star, Rosie DiManno offers her withering assessment both of Trudeau and his advocacy.

May there be much constructive debate on this controversial issue.

UPDATE: Here is an interesting video in which Doctor Sanjay Gupta apologizes for his past opposition to medical marijuana use:

Hooray for Free Speech!

Unless, of course, that freedom is used to criticize Israel.

Noam Chomsky Reflects on Contemporary Education

Despite the fact that it was fraught with a marking load I would not wish on anyone, my career as an English teacher offered many satisfactions, not the least of which was the opportunity to explore issues that are increasingly considered off-limits in the classroom: contemporary politics, the use and abuse of language for manipulative and sinister purposes, environmental degradation, etc., all within the context of the literature we were studying. However, by the time I retired six years ago, thanks to curriculum changes in Ontario, many disciplines became locked in a race to cover the material at the expense of what I would consider an essential part of learning: an open and informed discussion and the concomitant development of critical thinking skills. Structure began to supplant imagination, and I think students became the poorer for it.

I recently came across a very interesting interview on Alternet with Noam Chomsky, the famed linguist, political commentator, activist, and iconoclast. A man rarely heard these days in the mainstream media thanks to his seemingly endless capacity to challenge what passes for conventional wisdom, Chomsky reflects on his own upbringing and education, and has some very pointed observations about the current overemphasis on test results:

...the great educational innovation of Bush and Obama was 'no child left behind'. I can see the effects in schools from talking to teachers, parents and students. It's training to pass tests and the teachers are evaluated on how well the students do in the test - I've talked to teachers who've told me that a kid will be interested in something that comes up in class and want to pursue it and the teacher has to tell them - ' you can't do that because you have to pass this test next week'. That's the opposite of education.

Chomsky suggests that at its best, education is essentially subversive, in that it challenges the corporate demand for trained but passive and submissive workers. The cultivation of such an education model is regarded dimly by the elite, a fact he demonstrates by reference to a report and book produced in 1975 for the Trilateral Commission called The Crisis of Democracy. Its conclusion? ... the problems of governance "stem from an excess of democracy" and thus advocates "to restore the prestige and authority of central government institutions."

Says Chomsky:

[The] commission that put together this book was concerned with trying to induce what they called 'more moderation in democracy' - turn people back to passivity and obedience so they don't put so many constraints on state power and so on. In particular they were worried about young people. They were concerned about the institutions responsible for the indoctrination of the young (that's their phrase), meaning schools, universities, church and so on - they're not doing their job, [the young are] not being sufficiently indoctrinated. They're too free to pursue their own initiatives and concerns and you've got to control them better.

That an independent-thinking citizenry should be regarded as a threat speaks volumes about the power of a real education. I'm glad I was a part of it for 30 years, and while I ardently hope that a reasonable balance can be struck between the needs of industry and the larger needs of society, I must confess that I am not especially hopeful about education's future.

UPDATED: The Vatican Needs A Good (Re)boot

Although I am a man with spiritual beliefs, I have little but contempt for religious institutions, given as they are to making rules and interpretations that serve only to inhibit inquiry and honest discussion about the true nature of reality as they desperately try to maintain their waning political power.

Particularly guilty of this is the Catholic Church, the mother church of Christianity, and the religion in which I was raised.

Even now, well into the twenty-first century, the Vatican tries to carry on as if the Middle Ages had never ended.

The latest in a myriad of insults to intelligence, progressive theology, and human equality comes in its battle with the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, the organization that represents 80 per cent of American nuns, all seeking dialogue with the intractable institution that they serve.

Last April, the group was ordered to put itself under the authority of Seattle Archbishop Peter Sartain. Their crimes?

Officially, the Vatican’s criticism focuses on accusations that the nuns are too vocal on social justice issues and too silent on backing church doctrine opposing birth control, abortion and homosexuality. They are also accused of dissenting on all-male priesthood and taking positions with “radical feminist themes.”

Just imagine the audacity of these women who willingly and radically altered the course of their lives to pursue Christ's injunctions about justice, love, and acceptance. What were they thinking, confronting an institution that, through its historical and contemporary propensity for corruption, the concealing and condoning child abuse just one example, cares nothing about those ideals?

You can read the full story of these brave women confronting the wanton abuse of authority here.

UPDATE: For more information about theses nuns and the repressive reaction they have elicited from the male hierarchy of the Church, Alternet.org has a good article.