Monthly Archives: November 2013

Nov 18 2013
Leave a comment
Business, Education

The many-splendored sources of innovation

DSC_0074

No compendium of great inventions would be complete without a nod to the personal computer. Naturally, those born after Blondie first warbled “Heart of Glass” will almost certainly rank the device as mankind’s No. 1 brainchild.

Clearly, the scientists and historians who contributed to The Atlantic’s Technology Issue (this month’s edition) are somewhat longer in the tooth than the average computer geek. For the cover story, “The 50 Greatest Breakthroughs Since the Wheel”, they relegated the near-ubiquitous machine to 16th place.

Meanwhile, the top spot went to. . .wait for it. . .the printing press, because, in the words of one judge, “the invention was the turning point at which knowledge began freely replicating and assumed a life of its own.”

In other words, Gutenberg’s invention (circa 1430) is, arguably, more significant in the history of innovation than a box of transistors and capacitors, because, without it, the pace of technological advancement would have remained stuck in first gear.

That’s oddly comforting to an ink-stained wretch such as myself, who was still writing magazine copy on a Royal portable typewriter as late as 1991.

But, The Atlantic’s exercise, and others like it (The Smithsonian magazine is just out with is “101 Objects That Made America”), is more interesting for what it says about how we perceive innovation than for its actual choices.

Indeed, writes lead contributor James Fallows, “One aspect of the results will be evident as soon as you start looking through them: the debatability of the choices and rankings once you move beyond the first few.”

He continues: “For instance, anesthesia, which, on its debut in 1846, began to distinguish surgery from torture, barely made the top 50, and that was only because one panelist pushed it hard. If I were doing the ranking, it would be in the top 10, certainly above the personal computer. In this case the test for me is: Which would I miss more if it didn’t exist? . . .I rely on personal computers, but I got along fine before their introduction; I still remember a dental procedure in England when the National Health Service didn’t pay for novocaine.”

Here, in Canada, the policy debate about innovation and technology has drawn a line in the sand between researchers and scientists, on one side, and bureaucrats and politicians, on the other.

The thinking, becoming ever more prevalent, in government is that innovations must be “useful” or “relevant” and replete with everyday applications to justify public investment. The National Research Council (NRC),  the Government of Canada’s “premier research and technology organization (RTO)” puts it this way: “RTOs are mission-oriented providers of innovation services to firms and governments, dedicated to building economic competitiveness and, in doing so, improving quality of life.”

Its vision is “to be the most effective research and development organization in the world, stimulating sustainable domestic prosperity.” Its mandate is to work with “clients and partners” and “provide innovation support, strategic research, scientific and technical services to develop and deploy solutions to meet Canada’s current and future industrial and societal needs.”

The language signals a recent and deliberate shift in the NRC’s position in society – one that’s more closely aligned to the interests of industry than to those of academia. And that worries many in the research community.

“You can’t convert a government research agency into a contract research organization,” Peter Morand, former dean of science and engineering at the University of Ottawa and a past president of the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council told the Globe and Mail last May.

Added David Robinson of the Canadian Association of University Teachers in the same article: “It’s a very sad day for science in Canada. . .(The NRC) “was established to develop Canada’s basic research capacity and did perform admirably.”

Still, the root causes of innovation – especially of the technical varieties – are notoriously difficult to pin down. It is more often than not the case that hard science and applied research dance a stately minuet, from which emerge everything from nuclear fission and the telephone to the personal computer and the printing press.

Tagged , , , ,
Nov 12 2013
Leave a comment
Economy, Politics

Toward a living thing in politics

IMG-20120922-00003

Across the River Styx, the heroes of the Underworld extend their hands to shake our own as they muse bravely about the future of this perdition that is New Brunswick.

Or, perhaps, “perdition” doesn’t quite capture the esprit de corps in Canada’s lagging indicator of a province. This is, after all, where the unemployment rate moves up or down by mere tenths of a point, and never more, around the 10 per cent mark.

This is the place where the annual rolling deficit assumes a life of its own despite feckless efforts to reign it back below $500 million.

Meanwhile, in this place, where we be, the trail of breadcrumbs leading our wee Hansels and Gretels due west grows ever broader, ever more inviting.

Perhaps, then, New Brunswick is not so much a country for the damned, but rather this nation’s one, true country for old men (and women).

What say you, provincial NDP Leader Dominic Cardy in your official response to the recent Throne Speech of the reigning Tories?

“We have to think of our seniors as an asset, not a burden, and their experience as an economic engine that can strengthen our economy,” he declared in the Telegraph-Journal this past weekend. “Engaging and unleashing the potential of seniors in the education and social services field will have a significant and immediate benefit.”

Well said, oh ye of great faith, if little actual experience governing anything. The same observation, of course, can be made about his opposite number, Liberal Leader Brian Gallant, who also has a thing or two to say about New Brunswick’s prospects.

“We have to ensure that we invest on ourselves and that we believe in ourselves,” he opined in Saturday’s T-J. “It is the best way to ensure that New Brunswickers can fill the jobs that are waiting for them and that employers can get the jobs that are waiting to be filled.”

It is entirely probably – even guaranteed – that Premier David Alward will voice similar sentiments – very nearly identical ones, in fact – in the weeks and months ahead. He seeks another mandate on the strength of his stewardship of the provincial economy and, again, on the supposition that things will get better if only we have faith in the future of the province’s commercially viable natural resources.

But where the Tories and their rivals part company is in the respective locations of their priorities. And this is substantially a matter of emphasis.

The Throne Speech is, in tone, an almost technocratic document. It talks about people, but largely in a perfunctory way; as the recipients of sound government planning and policy. Individuals emerge as passive participants in the political process and in their own lives, even though they are, and will continue to be, the subject of extensive “consultations” on just about every file in the legislative docket.

In contrast Messrs. Cardy and Gallant (the latter, in particular) proceed from an almost humanist perspective and fill in the policy agenda as they go.

“Investing in knowledge and in ourselves is by far the best economic investment, but, at the same time, it is the best social equalizer,” Mr. Gallant stipulated in his weekend commentary.”. . .All the people who lobby me talk about education or training, whether it is to start growing our economy, whether it is to help their specific businesses,  whether it is to help our children, whether it is to combat obesity, whether it is to increase our literacy rates, or whether it is to eliminate poverty. . .How are we going to do this? First off, we have to believe that we are capable of doing this.”

Implicit in all of this is the contention that New Brunswick is not “going to do this” by exploiting natural resources, alone.

The solution, he suggests, is nestled somewhere in a much bigger picture, a larger and more inclusive vision of the province’s future – a vision that posits classically liberal notions of intellectual and manual dexterity, rather than the machinery corporate exploitation, at the centre of a durable economy.

Messrs. Gallant and Cardy still linger, like the rest of us, in the Underworld, but their notions are beginning to resonate among voters, who are, in the end, the only arbiters of the future who matter.

Tagged , , , , ,
Nov 12 2013
Leave a comment
Education, Society

Banging the drum loudly for early learning

DSC_0011

As Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne exhumes the corpse of John Maynard Keynes and pivots from belt-tightening to sluice-opening in her bid to jumpstart the nation’s largest provincial economy, fiscal conservatives are already muttering darkly about the consequences.

Now, they say, is the time for more cutting, more trimming, more shaving. Now, they say, is not the time for economic stimulus of any sort, for what governments in a spending mood like to call “strategic investments”. Ontario, insists the editorial board of The Globe and Mail, “does have room to cut.”

Why, wasn’t it just two years ago when Don Drummond, an economist, suggested that Ontario get its fiscal house in order by avoiding a few costly distractions, including full-day kindergarten, “the cost of which,” The Globe says, the good fellow “pegged at $1.5 billion.”

This is, of course, just the sort of false economy that deficit hawks and their ideologically right-wing fellow travellers love to embrace. And it’s one reason why Canada does not maintain a universally accessible, structured system of early childhood education, integrated into public schools nationwide.

Nope. As parents and grandparents, our political leaders assure, we know best. About everything. We are the bosses of our home lives, the masters of the little blighters we bring into the world. You can keep you nanny state. Just send me my Child Tax Benefit and stay out of my way.

Fortunately, this partisan pabulum doesn’t fortify everyone whose opinions count on subjects economic. It doesn’t, for example, move Craig Alexander, senior vice-president of TD Bank Group.

In a paper, penned and dated October 25, the economist states that “more access to affordable and high quality pre-school education could help to boost literacy and numeracy skills and would help to reduce income inequality in the long run.”

Specifically, he notes, “Investing more in children would help to address Canada’s essential skills challenge. Evidence from an international benchmark study on literacy showed that 5-in-10 Canadians have literacy skills below the desired level for a modern knowledge based economy, while 6-in-10 have below desired numeracy skills. Canada’s performance in the 2012 survey was weaker than in the prior surveys in 2003 and 1994. And, Canadian youths scored lower than the average of youths in other industrialized economies.”

What’s more, “Raising investment in early childhood education would bring long-term benefits. Most studies show that a one dollar investment reaps a long-term return of 1.5-to-3 dollars, and the return on investment for children from low income households can be in the double digits.”

The obvious question is: What are we waiting for?

Erecting a national system of early childhood education might cost as much as $4 billion. But that’s a bargain given the savings promised through lower incidence of poverty, joblessness and crime and higher rates of entrepreneurship, innovation and productivity.

As Mr. Alexander points out, “Businesses strive to balance short-term priorities with their long-term strategies. The same is true for policymakers. Governments . . .can’t lose sight of the need to develop the most skilled labour force of the future. And, the future is our children. This calls for much more investment in high equality early childhood education and better access for such services for low and middle income Canadians.”

In fact, a recent precedent on the kindergarten front supports the broader argument.

“When looking at the evidence,” writes Charles Pascal (a professor at the University of Toronto, and former early learning adviser to the Premier of Ontario) in a recent piece for The Toronto Star, “the number of children with risk factors who have had two years of full-day kindergarten has dropped from 27 per cent to 20 per cent. Even after one year of Ontario’s world-class play-based learning program led by our highly competent early learning educators, risk in the area of language and cognitive development has plummeted a stunning 75 per cent.”

These aren’t mere conjectures; they are tangible results. And they should be enough to convince even the most uncompromising austerity devotee in our midst.

Tagged , ,
Nov 12 2013
Leave a comment
Humour, Science, Society

Teachable moments from the living dead

DSC_0028

What accounts for the unrelenting zombie craze that finds perfect prime-time expression in the American Movie Channel’s The Walking Dead and in the distraught, if otherwise perfect, visage of Brad Pitt, hero of the summer blockbuster World War Z?

Let us say the scholarship on the subject is diverse.

According to one Todd Platts, a researcher at the University of Missouri’s Department of Sociology, “It may be tempting to brush zombies aside as irrelevant ‘pop culture ephemera,’” he writes in a recent edition of Sociology Compass. “Zombie infected popular culture, however, now contributes an estimated $5 billion to the world economy per annum. In addition to movies, comics, books, and video games, individuals routinely don complex homemade zombie costumes to march in zombie walks and/or engage in role-playing games like Humans vs. Zombies.”

None of which should surprise anyone, says Daniel Drezner, a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Tufts University and the author of Theories of International Politics and Zombies.

“Zombies thrive in popular culture during times of recession, epidemic and general unhappiness,” he writes in The Wall Street Journal. “Traditional threats to U.S. security may have waned, but nontraditional threats assault us constantly. Concerns about terrorism have not abated since 9/11, and cyberattacks have now emerged as a new anxiety. Drug-resistant pandemics have been a staple of local news hysteria since the H1N1 virus swept the globe in 2009. Scientists continue to warn about the dangers that climate change poses to our planet. And if the financial crisis taught us anything, it is that contagion is endemic to the global market system. Zombies are the perfect metaphor for these threats.”

Still, this doesn’t explain why zombies are more suitable, metaphorically speaking, than other types of monsters to represent our scared-stiff times.

When I was a kid, growing up in Toronto and Halifax, the preferred creatures of the night included Frankenstein, Dracula, Wolf Man, Godzilla, and even Mothra. These were physical and spiritual mutations, solid incarnations of Cold-War dread. They reminded us of the existential threat – nuclear annihilation – we were not quite powerless to control. But just about.

These bad guys also had personality. Some of them even had rhythm.

Ever see a zombie dance? It’s not a pretty site.

But, of course, that is the point.

There is nothing especially charming or quaint or ingenuous about life on Earth in the breaking decades of the 21st Century. More often than not, mobs, not individuals, enlist our attention. Good ideas are becoming indistinguishable from bad ones as the steady feed of information from the world’s 650 million websites fries our neurons.

Eventually, facts become no better than opinions. Meanwhile, the weight of one’s opinions grows only in direct proportion to the number of “absolute unique visitors” to one’s blog.

In 2013, zombies are the monsters we deserve. We don’t see them coming, though they are slower than molasses in winter. They are lousy conversationalists, and yet they always move in packs. And like members of any mob, they are at their most annoying when they swarm.

We didn’t see the dotcom bubble of 2000 until it was too late. Ditto about the financial crisis of 2008-09.

We didn’t notice the chorus rising up against science (evolution versus intelligent design; global warming versus climate conspiracists) and cheering on folksy, everyday heores (tea partiers versus “elites” of any and all persuasions).

As Mr. Drezner notes, “there’s a real downside to constant references to the living dead. The most serious problem lies in the suggested analogy. Policy entrepreneurs piggyback on zombies to capture attention, but they too often overlook a key element of zombie stories: They are relentlessly, depressingly apocalyptic. In almost all of them, the living dead are introduced in minute one, and by minute 10, the world is a wasteland. The implication is that if zombielike threats emerge, the state and civil society will quickly break down.”

But this is neither the time nor place for yet another dissertation on Toronto Mayor Rob Ford.

Tagged , , , , , ,
Nov 07 2013
Leave a comment
Municipal Affairs

Hog Town’s Ford farce on world tour

DSC_0162

The world, it seems, cannot get enough of Toronto’s very own booze-guzzling, crack-smoking Falstaff. And he of coarse demeanor and rotund comportment is more than happy to oblige his growing audience.

“Yes, I have smoked crack cocaine,” Rob Ford admitted on Tuesday. “There have been times when I’ve been in a drunken stupor. That’s why I want to see the tape.

I want everyone in the city to see this tape. I don’t even recall there being a tape or video. I want to see the state that I was in.”

So, then, he was lying in May when he declared: “I do not use crack cocaine, nor am I an addict.” Not exactly, hizzonner said this week: “I wasn’t lying. You didn’t ask the correct questions.”

On the broadest interpretation of this point, if on no other, Mr. Ford is right. We in the media rarely ask the correct questions. If we did, then one question we might want to ask now is: Why is Hog Town’s chief magistrate enjoying a bump in this personal approval rating among municipal voters just as his confession to truly bad behaviour is transforming him into an international media darling?

To restate the question: Have we all lost our minds?

Chris Batemen, a staff writer at blogTO, has compiled a compelling assortment of  news items about the fine fellow from the world’s press. From his research, we know that Esquire has expressed an interest in Mr. Ford’s manners while under the influence of substances, illegal or otherwise.

“As it turns out, the mayor may have been the very model crack house guest, Charles P. Pierce blogged. Referencing original reporting by The Toronto Star, Mr. Pierce links directly to a November 5 story which observed, among other things, “The City of Toronto has refused to say whether Mayor Rob Ford paid utility bills for the Etobicoke crack house where he was photographed with three alleged gang members.

But a city official has confirmed that on January 7, Chris Fickel, one of Ford’s special assistants, called the city’s water department on behalf of resident Fabio Basso regarding a sewage issue at 15 Windsor Rd., said Toronto Water manager Lou Di Gironimo. . .The bungalow. . .is home to the Basso family, including Ford’s old friend Fabio Basso and his sister, convicted cocaine trafficker Elena Basso, who also, according to the police document, has a conviction for prostitution.”

Meanwhile, Stephen Marche wrote on the opinion pages of The New York Times, “The old clichés are beginning to fall away from the city where I live. What has happened to Toronto the Good? Where is ‘New York run by the Swiss’? Mayor Rob Ford’s crack smoking. . .is only the most extreme example of his recent illicit adventures. Perhaps the most telling anecdote from a police file that surfaced late last week involves Mr. Ford’s heading into the woods with his buddy Sandro Lisi, currently out on bail after being charged with extortion, and leaving the pathway strewn with bags of empty vodka bottles. His mayoralty has been an experiment in what would happen if you had a feral 16-year-old boy for mayor.”

Then there’s Rolling Stone’s Tim Dickinson, who has helpfully added Mr. Ford’s name to the list of the magazine’s Top Five Political Excuses of All Time. He joins former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, former New York Congressman Anthony Wiener, former mayor of Washington, D.C., Marion Barry, and former Idaho Senator Larry Craig.

Yes, yes, it’s all so very amusing. One wonders what Mr. Ford plans for a second act. A blood-letting for Heroine addicts at Nathan Phillips Square? It’s not as if he’s going anywhere, anytime soon. He loves the limelight. Indeed, in his fevered mind, his personal disgrace actually becomes him. And, absurdly, Toronto possesses no mechanism for booting him from office.

There is, of course, another audience who is not as rapt about the boy: It’s comprised of those who, like me, were born in the downtown and raised there. We can’t wait for City Hall to get back to work before the Gardiner Expressway finally crumbles along with Mr. Ford’s credibility.

Tagged , , , , , ,
Nov 06 2013
Leave a comment
Economy, Energy, Politics

A good try, but say good-bye PCs

Fame is so fleeting, so cold in its remembrance

Fame is so fleeting, so cold in its remembrance

The New Brunswick election is 11 months out, and I’m calling the odds.

David Alward’s pseudo-Tory juggernaut – that un-merry band of hometown heroes who thrashed the brash Shawn Graham and his ineffectual Liberals in convincing fashion three years ago – is dead on arrival.

Other metaphors spring to mind.

There’s “toast” and “belly-up.” There’s “froggies on a slow boil.” There’s knocked and knackered and out cold.

But however you term the imminent future of New Brunswick’s sitting government, the conclusion that it has become as useful to this province as a pocket is on the back of a shirt is impossible to escape.

Still, somehow, the shirt continues to fit in the minds of those who craft things like Throne Speeches, the most recent of which – delivered Tuesday – leaves no issue unmentioned, though few merit much more than passing references.

As for the forestry, in the upcoming year, our government promises to implement “a strategy to ensure New Brunswick has a competitive industry for generations to come” – whatever that means.

Meanwhile, “on the innovation front. . .in the coming year” our government’s focus on research and innovation will start “bearing fruit” as “other policies and initiatives are being designed to bolster our knowledge economy and create new, sustainable jobs.” The specifics, apparently, are temporarily unavailable.

There’s neat stuff on culture. “By establishing a Premier’s Task Force on the Status of the Artist, your government will work towards recognizing and supporting the profession of artists in our province.”

There’s a cool measure to protect personal pocketbooks. “Your government plans to introduce amendments to unproclaimed legislation aimed at regulating payday loans to create an effective regulatory regime.”

Where the Alward government appears unequivocal, clear-eyed and firm is on the subject of natural gas – shale gas, in particular. In fact, the “responsible” exploitation of all the province’s commercially viable natural resources has become the Tories’ single loudest rallying cry leading to the next election.

“As you may recall, your government has done a great deal of work towards making sure that our natural resources – and, in particular, our natural gas potential – are identified to determine whether there is potential for economic benefits in the future,” the Throne Speech notes. “Economic benefits that could be derived from our natural resources are what will allow government to help fund and improve education, health care and many other services in the years ahead.

“Backed by the strongest rules for industry, introduced in February, as well as an action-oriented Oil and Natural Gas Blueprint for New Brunswick, introduced in May, your government will continue on the course of responsible exploration and development.

“A key aspect of managing oil and natural gas development is ensuring that the province secures a fair return to New Brunswickers for our resources. Your government recently announced a new natural gas royalty regime that ensures a fair return to New Brunswickers while encouraging investment in this sector.”

To many in the Progressive Conservative camp (and outside of it), this is the economically right thing to do. And Premier Alward and his team deserve praise for sticking to their principles regarding shale gas. New Brunswick is the only province in Canada that has not posted job gains in the past year; its $500-million annual deficit is beginning to resemble a permanent feature of the landscape.

But common sense rarely wins elections. Voters in this province are in no mood to award power to anyone. They’re far more apt to deny an incumbent his mandate, especially if that mandate depends on the most incendiary issue to come along in this province for many years.

Shale gas is not about royalty regimes, deficit reduction, and funding increases to social programs. In New Brunswick, it’s about symbols of justice, law and morality. It’s about defending the little guy against the big, bad, rapacious corporate elite. It’s about taking a stand in the absence of a trustworthy, faithful government.

In other words, a lot of it is pure nonsense.

Still, no party – Tory, Grit or otherwise – can win against those odds.

Tagged , , , , ,
Nov 06 2013
Leave a comment
Transportation

Whither, or wither, Canada’s National Dream?

You won’t find the date marked on any calendar, but November 7 is, officially, Canada’s National Railway Day, which is either a meaningless designation or a cruel joke, depending on your perspective.

Transport Action Atlantic’s point of view is clear enough, and its members are not at all amused. “Three years ago the Government of Canada declared. . .National Railway Day. . .to commemorate annually the driving of the last spike in the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) – often called ‘the wedding band of Confederation,’” a media advisory from the group declares. “That historic event came nearly a decade after the Maritimes were joined to Central Canada by completion of the Intercolonial Railway (ICR), which linked Halifax with the existing Grand Trunk Railway in Quebec.”

One-hundred-and-twenty-six years later, the national rail network is troubled; a victim of institutional negligence, short-sighted policy and managerial malaise.

Or, as Transport Action Atlantic opines, “In recent months, Canada has experienced the tragedy of the Lac-Mégantic derailment, several other serious rail accidents, severe cuts to the nationwide VIA Rail passenger service, the threatened severing of the ICR along New Brunswick’s North Shore, a hostile takeover of the CPR by a corporate raider, and the dismantling of 200 miles of the CPR’s transcontinental main line in eastern Ontario.  Once the pride of the nation, our rail system is in turmoil.”

Naturally, you won’t read a syllable of this on Transport Canada’s website. The most recent item regarding National Railway Day, posted precisely two years ago, quoted Denis Lebel, then-minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. “The rail industry contributes enormously to our economy by moving people and goods across vast distances,” he said. “Canada’s rail network is part of a legacy going back to that historic last spike and one that helps unite Canadians. The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of maintaining a rail system that is safe, efficient and stands as an example to the world.”

It’s comments such as these that makes you wonder whether the centre of power in Ottawa (AKA the Prime Minister’s Office) churns out cheerful tropes for any and all occasions, regardless of their veracity, much like a greeting card company. Canada’s rail system is many things, but an example to the world is not one of them.

Once upon a time it was, and it still ranks as the fifth largest, integrated network of its kind in the world (behind India’s, Russia’s, China’s and the United States’s). But these, and other, countries are making the investments necessary to both maintain and expand their rail infrastructure. According to Transport Action Atlantic, the reasons are sensible: “Every other G8 nation. . .(is) investing heavily in their railways to tap the vast economic, social and environmental benefits of moving people and goods with steel wheels rolling swiftly and safely on steel rails.”

This includes the United Kingdom, where Network Rail has announced a $63-billion (CAN) scheme to expand British passenger service by more than 170,000 commuter seats next year to accommodate an expected increase in riders of 225 million by 2019. Meanwhile, some industry reports indicate that spending on new rail engineering projects in the UK is poised to jump thanks, in part, to a $54-billion high-speed project and a $25-billion crossrail system.

The Middle Kingdom, too, is lurching ahead of the curve Canada once lead.

“Fixed asset investment in China’s railways rose 25.7 percent year-on-year to 37.63 billion yuan ($6 billion US) in the first two months of the year (2013), the railways authority said,” Chinadaily.com reported earlier this year. “The investment is a part of the ministry’s 650 billion yuan fixed-asset investment package this year, slightly higher than last year’s 631 billion yuan.”

These nations know something we have forgotten: Moving people and goods (apart from oil) by rail is still the safest and most efficient method to cover vast distances

“The time has come to ponder the consequences of Canada’s failure to do the same,” Transport Atlantic points out. “Where does this leave Canada in an increasingly competitive world?”

It’s a good question. Are we only now facing our last spike?

Nov 05 2013
Leave a comment
Society

Slapping away the open hand

DSC_0180

Politicians, of course. Lawyers, naturally. Journalists, obviously. But charity workers? They are supposed to be the good guys in a society overpopulated with assorted villains and charlatans. Why, then, have we suddenly lost faith in the open-handed among us?

A new survey commissioned by the Muttart Foundation finds that the trust Canadians invest in various sorts of charities is sliding, though it points out that “results of the 2013 survey indicate that Canadians’ opinions and attitudes about charities are both stable and positive.”

It’s just that “compared to previous surveys, the trust in certain types of charities – including environmental organizations, churches and other places of worship and international charities – has declined.”

What’s more, the organization observes, “there have also been negative changes in the extent to which Canadians believe charities are adequately explaining how they use donations, or whether charities only ask for money when they really need it.”

It’s worth noting that Muttart is, itself, a charitable group. It describes its operating philosophy, thusly: “The Foundation considers a robust charitable sector as central to a strong, healthy society. Through their work charities build community and address key social issues and concerns. The Foundation’s philanthropy focuses on. . .strengthening the charitable sector; early childhood education and care; (and) management development and leadership.”

What, one wonders, would Canadians make of its use of precious resources to fund a survey that falls somewhere on the periphery of its charitable mandate? Or, is this, in effect, a “sector strengthening” exercise?

At any rate, the data seems clear: People in this country want their money to go to hospitals, kids and disease prevention. They are less fond of funding arts organizations, international development and religious groups.

Meanwhile, according to the survey, “the percentage of Canadians who believe that charities are generally honest about how they use donations is still high at 70 per cent, but has decreased from the 84 per cent who felt that way in 2000. Similarly, only about one-third of Canadians (34 per cent) believe charities only ask for money when they really need it, compared to 47 per cent of Canadians who felt that way in 2000.”

Perhaps the most illuminating findings concern attitudes, not about institutions or general principles of giving but about the individuals who pull the purse strings.

“Trust in charity leaders has decreased and softened,” the poll reports. “Only 17 per cent of Canadians trust charity leaders a lot, a decrease of 10 percentage points since the 2000 study. In total, 71 per cent of Canadians say they have some or a lot of trust in charity leaders, compared to 77 per cent in 2000 and 80 per cent in 2004.”

On the other hand, Muttart reports, “trust in all kinds of leaders, other than doctors and nurses, has decreased over the span of 13 years, and notably since the last survey was conducted in 2008. These decreases are particularly noticeable for religious leaders (down 14 percentage points to 63 per cent), lawyers (down 10 percentage points to 62 per cent), federal politicians (down eight percentage points to 33 per cent) and provincial politicians (down nine percentage points to 36 per cent).”

In fact, this probably explains the woeful trend in the piety sector. It’s not that we mistrust charity workers, per se. It’s that we mistrust just about everybody for myriad reasons, of which the most persuasive is that everybody lies. Or, so we believe.

That may not be especially revelatory, or historically novel, but the near barrage of news, opinion, fluff and nonsense emanating from switched-on, round-the-clock media renders everybody’s prevarications – consequential or otherwise, real or imagined – up close and personal.

And, so, ours has become a society of trained cynics, observing the “outsiders” in our midst with a jaundiced eye, presuming their guilt until they prove their innocence.

At least, that’s what the polls seem to indicate, including the ones that rank professions by “most loved” and “most hated”.

Most loved? Firefighter, of course.

Most hated? Need you ask?

Pollster, naturally.

Tagged , ,
Nov 05 2013
Leave a comment
Municipal Affairs, Politics

Toronto mayor stoops to conquer

DSC_0162

To fully appreciate public office at its worst, look no further than the front page of Canada’s so-called national newspaper last Friday. There, depicted in all his inglorious bluster, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford is telling a mob of reporters that he’s staying put.

Forget the fact that his own police chief had, only hours earlier, confirmed that the long-rumoured video of Mr. Ford smoking what seems to be crack-cocaine is, in fact, real and that the Toronto drug force has a copy of it.

Forget the fact that the cops had just unloaded a trunk load of documents outlining more than five months of phone calls and meetings between the mayor and one Alessandro Lisi, an alleged drug dealer.

“The digital file that we have recovered depicts images which are consistent with those that have previously been reported in the press,” Police Chief Bill Blair said at a news conference on Friday. “As a citizen of Toronto, I am disappointed. I know this is a traumatic issue for the citizens of this city and for the reputation of this city – and that concerns me.”

The individual it should concern most, of course, is Mayor Ford. Apparently, it doesn’t. “I wish I could come out and defend myself,” he told reporters. “Unfortunately, I can’t because it’s before the courts. That’s all I can say.”

Others had plenty to say, most of it archly critical.

“If Mayor Ford truly has the city’s well-being at heart, he would step aside,” architect Jack Diamond told The Globe and Mail. “Whatever the courts eventually decide, the circumstantial evidence is enough to constrain the mayor on any issue to the extent that managing the city’s affairs can only be harmed.”

And, of course, the editorial pages of Hog Town clamored for Mr. Ford’s removal.

“Under (the) circumstances, having Ford at the helm badly undermines Toronto’s reputation,” The Toronto Star declared. “If Ford possesses even a scintilla of respect and concern for the city he is supposed to lead, he will step down as mayor.”

Concluded The Globe: “For months, Mr. Ford has been stonewalling. He can’t do that any more. His behaviour can’t be explained away, and he isn’t even trying. He’s simply ignoring and evading that which cannot any longer be denied. Toronto deserves better.”

I reality, Toronto is a big town. It will survive Mr. Ford, just as it has other public officials who have besmirched its reputation. The trains will continue to run on time. The wheels of the buses will continue to go round and round.

But “Fordgate” is a particular species of political scandal that seems be growing more common these days. When faced with evidence of their wrongdoing – or, the appearance of their wrongdoing – certain public officials seem to think that defiance, rather than circumspection, is in order.

True, none of the allegations against Mr. Ford have been proven in a court of law. (In fact, they are not actually before the courts). But the mayor of the country’s largest city at least owes a debt of indulgence to those elected him. He is an office
“holder”. He does not own the position of chief magistrate.

All of which is to say that the public institutions we trust to protect our democracy from perdition are only as good as the quality of the people we assign to run them.

Senator Mike Duffy blathers on about being knifed in the back by staffers at the Prime Minister’s Office, while accepting no responsibility, whatsoever, for his own considerable role in his undoing.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Stephen Harper changes his tune regarding his former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, declaring that he “dismissed” the man. (He had formerly allowed that Mr. Wright resigned of his own accord).

As for Mr. Wright’s reputation, it seems broadly intact. His friends tell the Globe and Mail that he possesses “high integrity” and “unbelievable ability.”

All of which is to say that everybody makes mistakes. It’s what we do about them that counts in both private and public life.

Tagged , ,
Nov 04 2013
Leave a comment
Climate, Communications, Economy

Modern mythologies in the post-apocalypse

 

DSC_0074

It’s been precisely 10 months and 10 days since the Mayan long count calendar ran down and the world, as we know it, was supposed to have ended in a cataclysmic fury. Not for nothing, but we’re still here.

Fortunately, as the world survives, popular myths and misconceptions continue to proliferate. I say “fortunately” because in the absence of such apocrypha, grim, intractable reality would be well-nigh impossible to bear.

A well-known, national newspaper columnist contends this week that “the idea that people ever achieved secure and stable lives with ease is largely a myth.”

Indeed, The Globe and Mail’s Margaret Wente writes, “My grandparents weathered the Depression. My folks lived with them until having their third child. My dad had health problems in middle age and lost his business. That’s life. I’m pretty sure that most of today’s up-to-their-necks-in-debt graduates will be fine.”

Sure they will, just as soon as they manage to obtain gainful employment, which is also “largely a myth”. Or so says the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives in a September 27 report, to wit:

“In 2013, the unemployment rate for Ontario youth aged 15-24 fluctuated between 16 per cent and 17.1 per cent, trending above the Canadian range of 13.5 per cent to 14.5 per cent and placing Ontario as the worst province outside Atlantic Canada for high youth unemployment.

“Windsor, Oshawa, Brantford and London stand out as youth unemployment hotspots: their youth unemployment rate is over 20 per cent, similar to the European Union rates. Toronto’s youth employment rate – the measure that determines how many youth actually have jobs – is 43.5 per cent. That’s the worst employment rate of any Ontario region and it may be driving some youth out of the province in search of work. Toronto also gets the prize for having the largest gap between youth and adult employment in the province, at 21.8 per cent. That’s the highest it’s ever been.”

Higher still, of course, is the percentage of voting-age Canadians, either employed or otherwise, who support the reigning federal Conservatives as they bob for apples at their policy convention tonight.

Received wisdom had called for a shellacking of Tory prospects in the court of public opinion – so appalled are we with the Senate expense scandal and the knobby knees of short-panted factotums in the Prime Minister’s Office.

But received wisdom begins to look like a myth when Ipsos Reid reports that the Conservatives currently enjoy a 30 per cent approval rating – virtually unchanged from a week ago, before the most serious allegations came to light.

Here, in New Brunswick, rank politics takes a back seat to. . .well. . .rank politics as we juggle the myths and realities associated with shale gas development.

The provincial government says it is committed to consulting with opponents of hydraulic fracturing, yet it has no intention of slowing down the exploratory work that has sparked most public protests and demonstrations.

Leaders of the Elsipogtog First Nation, chief among the anti-frackers, decry what they term unnecessary provocation in the debate, yet they formerly resolve to reclaim Crown land to “save our waters, lands and animals from ruin.”

Meanwhile, the stories we tell ourselves dip in and out of verisimilitude heedless of their sources.

“Britain’s energy secretary on Wednesday advocated a public awareness campaign to promote shale gas and dispel the ‘myths’ surrounding fracking, the controversial method for unlocking the natural gas,” the Wall Street Journal online reported this summer. “Energy Secretary Ed Davey said the concerns were being dealt with through study and regulation, suggesting they had given rise to false notions about the dangers. The industry’s main challenge is to win over the public, he said.

‘Because those myths have taken hold in some areas, and sometimes when a myth takes hold it’s quite difficult to dispel it,’ he told a cross-party parliamentary group on unconventional oil and gas.”

For its part, Friends of the Earth Europe reports, “The American myth of ‘cheap and abundant’ energy from shale gas is based on artificially low prices driven by speculation and industry overestimates. Trying to repeat this experience in Europe would only lead to even higher gas prices and would lock public subsidies into fossil fuel use at the expense of renewable energy and energy efficiency policies.”

Who’s right?

We may have survived the apocalypse, but we might not live long enough to know the truth.

Tagged , , , ,
← Older posts
Newer posts →