The Social Contract... wait, what?

Hey peeps!  Long time!  Thanks for tuning in!

Yes, I am still around, and I do occasionally think of interesting things, I've just been really busy playing Candy Crush for a while... ;)

All kidding  aside, I finally decided to write something down because a) I find myself with a little spare time this evening, and b) it occurs to me that perhaps not everyone (of the age of majority) in Canada knows that they are indeed participating in a social contract and what that entails.

Thomas Hobbes wrote a good book about the idea of a social contract a few hundred years ago.  It was called Leviathan; famous for it's rather quotable idea (often misquoted) that life 'in a state of nature is... nasty, brutish and short':  

In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.^[5]

 Rousseau later wrote a book called (oddly enough) The Social Contract.  Both excellent works as far as I'm concerned. 

To save you the effort of reading them (I know you're busy too), I'll sum up:  in order to enjoy a life free from the constant anxiety found in a state of nature (i.e. free from worry that your neighbour will rise up against you at any time for any reason; free to pursue your pursuits, whatever they may be; free to actually walk around freely, without undue fear) society needed to get together and come up with some kind of agreement.  An agreement that would allow us to feel safe in our homes.  An agreement that it was indeed not cool to attack your neighbour just because you wanted some of the stuff in her house.  An agreement that society could be and should be civilized and that we, as citizens of that society, should work together for the greater good.

Clearly I am paraphrasing A LOT.  And obviously, I've left out a lot about their discussions regarding government  and personal liberties etc., but the essence of a social contract is that we, the people participating in the social contract, agree to do so willingly, for the greater good (our safety and our betterment is included in this greater good too).  And that we give up certain things in exchange for the security the social contract affords us.  Things like the freedom to kill others willy-nilly, or steal their stuff.

So what is this greater good you ask?  I'm glad you asked!  Hobbes mentions some things in the quote above.  Arts, letters (written works), society itself, commerce, exploration, (and I'm going further here now) advancements in technology, education, medicine.  This list could go on ad infinitum.  Essentially the greater good is that which is good for humankind, that which is good for the advancement of the species:  our species.  US.  All of us.  You and me.

One of the reasons that I've been thinking about the the idea of the social contract lately is that we, as a society, seem to have forgotten the idea of a greater good.  I don't know whether or not you've noticed this, but it seems to me that we have become incredibly self-absorbed.  To some degree it may be that we just aren't as polite as we used to be but even beyond that, it's as though nothing else matters but us.  You could call it self-absorbed-ness (I know, that's not a word).

Everyone with access to the internet seems to think that he or she is an expert on something (or everything) and that everyone else in the world needs to know this and should join in (read: follow his or her example).   There is a ridiculous ad being shared on the interwebs by Similac that is supposed to remind us (well, mothers I think) that despite our differences, we all have the same goals, but it really just serves to remind us how extreme we've become in our know-it-all-ness (again, I know it's not a word) and our self-absorbed-ness.  We are so busy surfing the web and trying to tell other people how great we are that we lose sight of what's really important:  the greater good.

There's that term again!  What is up with that?!?  Well, when we're parents, the greater good is raising our children and everything that goes into that.  But then of course, everyone is an expert on that too:  no one agrees on anything, and everyone does their own thing which does no one any good, least of all the children; who, as Whitney Houston told us, are our future.  I jest only slightly.  I really do believe that raising children is a very serious responsibility.  It's why I haven't chosen to do it:  I would probably mess it up.  Before any of you think I'm being judge-y about parents, I'm not:  I admire people who are creating our future.  It is a tough job raising children, and, as is evidenced by that commercial, lots of people are always judging you as a parent.  It is always easier to criticize than to create.

I think one of the reasons that parents in particular seem to have forgotten 'the greater good' is that there is SO much involved in being a parent.  People want to do the best they can.  They want to provide the best life they can for their kids; they want to make sure their kids are as best prepared for the big scary world (which we know from Thomas Hobbes can be nasty, brutish and short) as they can be.  They want to protect them from it for as long as they can, and they want to make sure that they are not hurt by it in any way.  Unfortunately, this is impossible.  No one is perfect.  Life is not perfect.  Life is not fair.  You are never going to prevent your child from ever getting hurt ever; no matter how much research you do.  Regardless of how much you love them and how hard you try:  you can't always protect them from everything.  They have to live in this world.

But in our efforts to protect our children from the nasty brutish world, we seem to have lost sight of why we have a social contract in the first place.  Of course our instincts have always been to protect our children (it's why vaccines were developed in the first place), and now that most of us have never seen first hand what life in a developing nation is like, we have no idea the privilege we've been granted by our ancestors who first created the social contracts which enabled the societies we live in today.

As a result of social contracts, we, Canadians, enjoy one of the best standards of living in the world.  (I know, I've seen the discrepancies.)  With very few exceptions: we have hot and cold running water in our homes; we have national highways and railways from coast to coast to coast.  We have an airline that flies coast to coast to coast.  We have phone service all over the country.  (And we take all of this for granted:  not everyone can get anywhere in their country easily, or phone anyone from anywhere.)  We have universal healthcare (granted it's a little broken, but if you're having a heart attack, you'll be taken care of).  We have universal public education (again, not perfect, but it's pretty good and it's covered by your taxes).  We have labour laws.  We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  We have the right (obligation) to elect our own government, and the right to complain about it.  These are just the basics;  we have world class universities, museums, hospitals, and there is so much more, too much to list.  Compare all of this to life in Hobbes's state of nature:  we would have none of that if no one ever thought beyond what was best for him or herself (or their children).

So what is the actual greater good?  I'm sure people would debate that too.  A little bit of knowledge (and access to Google) can be a dangerous thing.

My short definition of the greater good is the advancement of humankind; not at any cost mind you, but overall.  I know that's easy for me to say when I have no children.  I know that your life changes completely when you have a child and that nothing else seems to be very important anymore (this seems to hold true for people in my life anyway).   

From a slightly distanced perspective (i.e. not a parent) it seems to me that the more import we put on ourselves and our children (i.e. the good of the one or few over the good of the many) the closer we get to being back in a state of nature.

I don't want to live like that.  Do you?

If we've learned anything from Star Trek, it's that Spock is usually right and that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

Until next time, drive safe!

Lesley

Bill 115 - Putting Students First?

Hello my friends,

Happy New Year!  Thanks for tuning in!

I've been thinking about this subject for a while now.  As a somewhat disinterested bystander I wasn't following the story too terribly closely at first, assuming that the interested parties would figure themselves out sooner or later.  Well, it's later; much later and they still haven't figured themselves out.  Before I get too far into this please understand, I'm not taking sides.  The point of this post is just to raise a few points and perhaps clarify a few things for some people who may not know the whole story.

For those of you who do not live in Ontario, Bill 115, Putting Students First Act - 2012 was implemented by the current Liberal government as an amendment to the provincial Education Act seemingly because the current (at the time) teacher and support staff agreements were about to expire (on August 31, 2012) and only two unions had reached agreements and signed memoranda of understanding with the government.  Theoretically, this bill was implemented so as to allow for two years free of labour disputes.  While I'll go through the nuts and bolts of the bill in detail below, this is the meat of what the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (OECTA) had agreed to (and the one upon which the government has based Bill 115):

• Zero per cent salary increases in 2012-13 and 2013-14.
• All teachers will take a 1.5 per cent pay cut in the form of three unpaid professional development days so that younger teachers will continue to move through the grid according to their experience and additional qualifications.
• Agreement to restructure the grid with a view to long-term, sustainable savings.
• Elimination of the current retirement gratuity for payment of unused sick days that was responsible for a $1.7 billion liability for school boards.
• A restructured short-term sick leave plan that would include up to 10 sick days. This sick leave plan would benefit younger teachers by providing income protection for serious illness and improved maternity leave provisions.

 Those of us who aren't government employees read this and think to ourselves "So?  What's the big deal?  Lots of companies have or have had wage freezes.  At least they have jobs."  The vast majority of people who work outside of government have no such thing as banked sick days or even job security anymore, so they have a hard time feeling any empathy towards people who, in their opinion, only work 10 months of the year (with 2 weeks off at Christmas plus March Break) and 7 hours of each day.

I know teachers.  I'm related to teachers.  I like teachers.  And that myth isn't exactly true; but it isn't entirely false either.  They do get most of the summer off.  And they get two weeks off every Christmas plus they get March break off.  But they also work all day, every day.  Even when they're not actually teaching your kids.  They're there before your kids are and they're there after they leave.  They take their work home with them.  They organize the concerts and the sports teams and the school plays.  Sure, that's part of what teachers are expected to do, but they don't do it during class time.  My point here is that I think the public has maybe forgotten that we expect an awful lot from teachers.  I would not trade places with a teacher for the world.  I'm not sure I could manage a whole class of children and I wouldn't want the responsibility these days when parents seem to expect everything and a bag of chips from teachers.

Moving on to Bill 115, lots of the news, tweets, messages etc. seem to focus on this 'work to rule' (my words) protest being about labour rights rather than the actual changes in the agreements.  So, I looked it up.  and since most people probably don't want to read the whole bill (or any of it)  I'll give you the highlights (there is mention that these powers are granted on an exceptional and temporary basis):

• Section 4(1) refers to the types of agreements which the collective bargaining must resemble:  i.e. the one agreed to by the OECTA and the terms must not be inconsistent with that agreement.
• Section 9 is actually called Minister’s advice to Lieutenant Governor in Council.  
• Subsection (1) specifies how the Education Minister can, and should, give orders to the Lieutenant Governor (LG) regarding signing agreements.  Essentially, the Minister must approve of whatever agreement the boards and teachers come up with, and those agreements must resemble the agreement reached with the OECTA.
• Subsection (2) is a little more complex, but it specifies that if the Minister advises the Lieutenant Governor that an agreement does not meet the above-mentioned criteria, then the LG may order just about anything, "(vi)  do anything else that the Lieutenant Governor in Council determines is necessary in the circumstances".  It then goes on to detail what things may need to be done if the Minister advises the LG that a board and a bargaining agent are not going to be able to come to an agreement before the December 31, 2012 deadline:  impose a collective agreement as per above, prohibit strikes, prohibit lockouts and everything associated with those things.  
• The rest of the subsections are mostly legal stuff, nothing earth-shattering.

• Section (10) makes it okay for the LG to impose a collective agreement.  Period.

Whew, that section 9 was killer huh?  So now we're getting to the really good stuff and I won't bore you with lists anymore.  In section (11) the bill states that the Minister can make a complaint to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging a contravention of this Act.  Section (12) follows by declaring that the Minister must be notified of any proceedings relating to this Act including request for judicial review.  Then in section (13) it states that the Labour Relations Act, 1995 applies, except as modified by this Act.  Which sets us up nicely for section (14) wherein we learn the following:

   14.  (1)  The Ontario Labour Relations Board shall not inquire into or make a decision on whether a provision of this Act, a regulation or an order made under subsection 9 (2) is constitutionally valid or is in conflict with the Human Rights Code.

   (2)  An arbitrator or arbitration board shall not inquire into or make a decision on whether a provision of this Act, a regulation or an order made under subsection 9 (2) is constitutionally valid or is in conflict with the Human Rights Code.

Yikes!!!  They can't even complain if their human rights are violated!!!  That would be breaking the law.  Seriously. 

The bill goes on to say that there will be no review by court.  Period.  No orders made or advice given under this Act will be reviewed or arbitrated.  There will be no causes of action resulting from this Act.  There will be no remedy.  There's more after that, but it's legal stuff; this is the meat and potatoes.

So, if someone was taking my rights away, I might be a little miffed too.  Wouldn't you?

Having said all of that, I'd like to go in a different direction now.  When I was first researching this bill, the idea that kept popping into my mind was that while this bill is a Draconian measure, would it have been necessary if the threat of labour disruption wasn't real?  Yes, this bill goes too far in my opinion,  but I think the threat was real.  And why was the threat there in the first place?  Because the government was trying to control spending by implementing the measures listed at the top of this post; and, as I mentioned above, I don't know very many people (outside of the government) who would have a hard time accepting those provisions as long as they still had jobs.  So as much as the teachers want to take the high road and claim that this isn't about money or banking sick days, that's what started it.

That and the fact that they are unionized professionals.  Think about that for a minute.  Roll it around in your mouth.  Professionals.  Because teachers are professionals.  They have to get a second university degree to teach at any level, they have specialties, they have to maintain and continue their education and keep current.  Teachers are professionals.  But they're also in unions.  What's up with that?  Are there any other professionals you can think of who are unionized?  I can't think of any.  The other professionals that come to mind have organizations which are responsible for maintaining their membership, accreditation, discipline when necessary, education etc., but they aren't unions.  The Law Societies, The Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, the Associations of Chartered Accountants, to name but a few. 

At the risk of offending teachers (which is not at all my intent), the rest of the western world is in, at the very least, a recession.  Much of southern Ontario over the past five years has had to deal with the fallout of the collapse of the auto industry and everything that rippled from that and the American banking collapse.  Teachers have been laid off and still there is a threat of strikes or lockouts.  No one wants to lose something that they already have.  That's understandable.  But banking sick days?  Forever?  There are teachers who can't get jobs and the ones who have jobs want to strike because they can't save up their sick days.  Many people don't even get paid when they're sick.  Other professionals get paid for the work they actually do (doctors get paid per client visit, lawyers bill by the hour that they are actually working on your stuff etc.).  They don't get paid a salary and they certainly don't get paid when they don't do anything.

 As I mentioned above, I have the highest regard for teachers, and I am always suspicious of the government.  This legislation is outrageous and while the teachers themselves can't do anything about it, perhaps the taxpayers should:  because if the government can do this to one group of people, then they can of course do it to another group (and you're fooling yourself if you think not).  I have no idea how to go about that at this particular time, so I'll just leave that in your laps for now.

I think that I have rambled enough for today and I will remove myself from my soapbox after saying one more thing:  I think that both sides are wrong and neither is putting students first.  The Minister and the teachers (or at least the organizers of the work stoppages) are antagonizing each other and holding the students hostage. 

Drive safe peeps,

Catholic Schools Ban GSAs? That's a Shocker!

Greetings my Friends,

I hope all is well with you on this sunny (in the GTA anyway) Sunday.

Today's little story came to me through an email from a friend of mine who is, understandably, alarmed at this news. His email didn't contain the actual story but I have great faith in him. Most of you don't know him so I'm including a link the The Globe's story.

If you don't want to jump to the Globe, I'll sum up: St Joseph's Catholic Secondary in Mississauga has decided not to allow students to form a Gay-Straight Alliance. This is not terribly surprising to me. It is a Catholic school.

PLEASE DO NOT THINK THAT I AM CONDONING OR AGREEING WITH THE DECISION. I am simply not surprised. I was raised as a Catholic and anyone who follows the goings-on in the Vatican should know that the Papacy officially frowns on homosexual behaviour. (I'm not even going to start on priests.) The Catholic Church frowns on any type of sexual behaviour outside of marriage too (marriage being defined as the union between a man and a woman), and even within a marriage it really should only be for the sake of procreation. Seriously.

So, having said that, let's look at what institution is making this decision. An aging, fearful, corrupt one. I'm not suggesting that each and every Catholic is old, scared and corrupt/evil. I'm talking high-level.

I am not and have never been a Church-basher. The Catholic Church has been responsible for a lot of good in the course of modern history. They educated and nursed the poor (in droves); they provided light where there was only dark for many. They helped untold numbers of people. They gave me a good education and I never once was abused (neither were my brothers). However, they have also been responsible for their share of bad. I'm sure I don't need to go into it, but I think the biggest mistake the Church is making is not evolving.

Things which don't change die. The Church refuses to accept that the world and the people in it are not the same as we were 2,000 years ago. We are not afraid of the dark anymore. A growing number of us do not even believe in their God and thus we cannot be cowed into obediance with threats of everlasting hell.

There have been gay people as long as there have been people: that hasn't changed. What has changed is society's acceptance of difference. I'm not gay, but my friend who sent me the email offers this:

Growing up gay in suburban Toronto during the nineties was not easy. Feeling different from a young age, and hitting puberty with an attraction to the same-sex, I realized very quickly my environment was not friendly towards such feelings.

My attempts to suppress my attraction, and fit in, led to a major depression in my early teens, with self-destructive behaviours that were all-consuming.

The only support groups for gay teens were in downtown Toronto at the time, and accessing these supports was difficult for a north of Steeles Avenue teenager on a school-night. It involved making up stories about where I disappeared to every Tuesday night, and feeling there was no space for gay teenagers in the suburbs.

I was lucky enough to meet other gay, lesbian and bisexual students in my Thornhill public high school, and together we started York Region’s first LGBTQ support group in Richmond Hill , open to all youth living in York Region. With the support of the York Region Public Health Department, we secured a space, and were happy to see large numbers of youth attend these meetings, finding a place to grow their self-esteem and realize they were not alone. This group became very meaningful for me, and for many other youth who were struggling with isolation.

Perhaps I'm a little too jaded sometimes, but part of me thinks, is anyone really surprised by this school's decision? It's the second recently. The Halton District Catholic School Board had it's similar decision overturned (and I assume the same will happen here). Perhaps we shouldn't be sending our kids to Catholic schools if we don't want them to be excluded.

Perhaps most important to remember: the Catholic schools in Ontario are no longer separate. They are entirely funded by public money now. As far as I'm concerned, that's all that matters. These are not Catholic schools any more, these are public schools that teach the Catholic religion. Of course, either way, individuals should not have to feel invisible or excluded. Either way, all kids should feel that they have a voice and a safe place at school.

That's all I've got for now peeps!

Peace out,

What's Happening to our Little Girls?

Hello peoples,

I was sitting in a waiting room again the other day so I picked up a Maclean's that I hadn't read. It was old(ish); I think it was from January. The letters section had several letters from readers about an article in a previous issue on how we're dressing our daughters. They made me want to read the article, but that issue wasn't there and I had to go, so I looked it up online and found it here.

It's a little long, but the essence of it was that we're dressing our daughters like little tarts and the author of the article was investigating the possible reasons as to why. She covered most of the common answers: girls are hitting puberty earlier, they are trying to emulate older girls, girls and young women have become one of the most targeted demographics for marketers, and my personal fave "everyone else is wearing it".

I will grant you that girls are reaching puberty at earlier ages on average now than we did when I was a pre-teen. I will also grant that little girls have always looked up to and wanted to imitate the older girls in their lives, this is not new. However, the next two reasons don't really hold water for me. Since when do we buy kids things they don't need just because someone has introduced them to the market? Further, I don't know about you, but when I was a kid if someone said to my mom "everyone else is doing it", her usual response was "if everyone else decides to jump off a bridge are you going to do that too?"

The article mentions that one company introduced a line of thongs for little girls 'because little girls worry about visible panty lines too'. The only reason a child would possibly care about this is if we told her to. There is no reason to even mention something like that to a child, and even if she has visible panty lines, that's okay. She's a child: she should be wearing underwear! With the days of the week, or superheros or flowers or something on them! Not things like 'juicey' or 'sweetcheeks'.

Another argument for allowing your daughter to dress like a skank is that parents don't want their daughters to not fit in with her peers and what with all of the pressures of life, sometimes it's just easier to give in. Well, I admit, I am not a parent, so this is a little bit like a priest giving marital advice, but I'm going to anyway. As soon as you let your children pressure you into making decisions you don't want to make just because you're tired or stressed out, you've lost control and you will never get it back. What kind of a lesson are you teaching your daughter with behaviour like that?

Or, you just don't care all that much and are just using that explanation as an excuse. Which is entirely possible. There are many many young women today leaving nothing to the imagination and they think they're sexy. They dress like that on purpose. Perhaps they think it's cute to dress their 6 year old just like mommy.

For the record, these clothes are not practical. Plastic heels for toddlers are counterproductive to their proper spinal development. Plus, they could hurt themselves. Tank tops? On a child? Low rise jeans? Toddlers and little girls typically do not have hips to hold them up and thus, they slip down. Belly tops? Mini skirts? You really can't do much in a mini skirt.

One of the biggest obstacles we have to overcome as a society before women and men are really equals is the sexual exploitation of women. One of the more insidious aspects of our sexual oppression is that it is so ingrained in society that most of us (women included) don't even question it. We think that because women can 'choose' or we can say 'no' that we are now equals. We think that pornography is okay because the women participating aren't being forced. This is simply not true. I am not going to digress into a rant against the pornography industry right now, but this is where it begins. With little girls. And they keep getting younger and younger.

Why are we dressing our little girls like tarts? If it's not sexual exploitation, then what is it?

Drive safe peeps, (and put a sweater on your kid!)

Tragedies

Greetings from snowy Toronto,

Sorry I've been slacking with the posts of late and only putting up videos, but they were good songs weren't they? Please forgive me, I've been distracted.

So, as I was reading through news headlines today, I found this:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/sask_child_shot

This is a tragic incident. An eight year old girl was shot and killed by accident with a rifle by her fourteen year old brother in their home. Their parents and another brother were also home at the time. I'm sure they're all feeling all kinds of guilt right now.

I'm not going to rant too long or hard about this one. One of the things that first came to my mind when reading this story is that this is another death that our infamous gun registry would not have prevented. However, blaming the colossal waste of money and resources that is our nation's gun registry is not going to bring this little girl back to life.

My next point is directed specifically at NRA types who like to say that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. Yes, typically someone has to pull the trigger, but if the boy was moving a hammer or even an axe, his sister would still be alive.

My final (though not least important) point is that this did not make national front page news. The CBC's news landing page has lots of other tragic stuff on it (dozens dead in Baghdad bombings, 34 452 civilians killed in Iraq last year, Brazilian subway collapse); but that's my point (though not made very well =). There is so much tragedy happening in the world right now (and for so long) that the accidental shooting death of one little girl in a small town in Saskatchewan isn't important enough to make the front page of our nation's public broadcasting website.

I'm not suggesting that the producers or editors at CBC are necessarily doing a bad job: this story made the provincial page. I'm just commenting on the state of our world today. I know, you don't really need me to point it out to you, but every now and then it hits me hard and makes me a little more sad.

On that note, I leave you.

Drive safe peeps,

end internet child abuse: the light a million candles project

From Cold Desert via raincoaster... pass it on

The innocent victims of Internet child abuse cannot speak for themselves.

But you can.

With your help, we can eradicate this evil trade.

We do not need your money.

We need you to light a candle of support.

We’re aiming to light at least One Million Candles by December 31, 2006.

This petition will be used to encourage governments, politicians, financial institutions, payment organisations, Internet service providers, technology companies and law enforcement agencies to eradicate the commercial viability of online child abuse.

They have the power to work together. You have the power to get them to take action.
Please light your candle at lightamillioncandles.com.

Together, we can destroy the commercial viability of Internet child abuse sites that are destroying the lives of innocent children.