I made a deal for delivery my paper from Irving press to my door early in the morning. It hasn't happened since December. I wonder. If Mr. Irving had made such a deal with a contractor and the contractor later changed the terms on his own, would Mr. Irving forgive and forget?
________________________________________________________________________________
The headline –
golly, gee whiz – is “Moncton rocks out to AD/DC. Oh, I could
die. I could just die. It's been the headline for days, now – and
today there are two stories about it. That's almost two, full pages
saying nothing about a concert. Oh, somebody came from Tennessee to
see it. Gee, golly, whiz.
The real story about
it is that the crowd was much smaller than last time, perhaps fifteen
thousand smaller. Remember that next time somebody tells you the
'events centre' is sure to pay for itself.
The second biggest
front page story is “Teachers excited for first day of school.”
Gee. I hope nobody collapsed out of sheer ecstasy. B4 has a big photo
of a fire that looks as though it could have been put out by spitting
on it. And there's an exciting story that another rapper is coming to
town.
A4 has one, worthwhile story. “One in ten New Brunswick households
doesn't have adequate housing.” Essentially, it's a long and very
informative statement by the executive director of New Brunswick Non
Profit Housing Association. Certainly, there's a lot of sub-standard,
jerry-built housing in Moncton.
Editorial page?
Well, I don't see the point of the cartoon. It's about how Trudeau
needs to jumpstart his campaign. In fact, Trudeau as been rising in
the polls. As well, we're coming to the point in the campaign that
both Trudeau and Harper like. There's a reason this is the longest
election campaign in Canadian history. Harper has piles of campaign
money. Trudeau has less, but still enough for the long campaign. The
party that's feeling the strain is the NDP because billionaires don't
give it money. Harper and Trudeau both hope to win on that.
The editorial is
disgusting. It's all about how Labour Day is a salute to Canadian
workers for their contribution. It even gives a nod to the unions for
a decent living wage, but saves its greatest praise for unions that
'cooperate' with business.
Mr. or Ms. Editorial
writer, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
First, we don't have
living wages. Have you taken a look lately at the minimum wages
across this country and the U.S. Do you seriously think one can live
on that?
Second, the wage gap
in Canada and the U.S. is getting worse, not better.
Third, the reason we
have Labour Day is not the puking reason this editorial gives. We
have it because industrializing Canada had vile and dangerous working
conditions at extremely low pay. The Canada of a century ago produced
some very wealthy few – but millions who lived in a poverty almost
unimaginable. In the cities, people lived in dilapidated shacks,
often with no water, no toilets. Some of these existed well into the
1950s and later.
There were six
working days a week. - and they were long days. Women could work only
as laundresses or servants or factory hands for pennies a day.
Children worked the same hours, and were subject to physical abuse
daily in the factories. My mother became a household servant at age
11 in a great house. She never, ever spoke of it. And the only time
off was an hour to go to church on Sunday.
In Toronto, a
teen-age boy lost his arm to a machine that had no protection. He was
fired immediately, with pay immediately stopped, and sent home – on
his own.
People who tried to
organize unions found themselves facing police and armed troops in
Canada and the U.S. Many union organizers were murdered by order of
company bosses. In the U.S., when state militia machine-gunned tents
full of families of striking mine workers, Mackenzie-King stepped
forward to manipulate the press to make the bosses (Rockefellers)
look like sweethearts.
Unionizing was slow
and dangerous – with editorial writers like the one at Irving press
always on the side of the bosses. Teachers, slow to unionize, were
getting paid $600 PER YEAR – and even less as late as the 1940s.
Yes, prices were lower then; but not that low.
Big capitalists of
the time were, to put it bluntly, thorough bastards. They still are.
That's why they love free trade which gives them the right to fire
North American workers, and hire cheap and dangerous and polluting
labour, including children as young as five – and even to beat and
murder on a large scale. And big Canadian capitalists are up to their
ears in this.
Labour Day was
founded to honour the contribution of Canadian workers. It was
founded to remember those who risked and lost their lives to form the
unions that made Canada more livable.
And we honour the
workers who hammered the rails for our trains? Like hell we do. It
was a miserable and dangerous job. So we imported Chinese to do the
most dangerous parts, like dynamiting, where the rate of fatality was
very high. Then we stuck the Chinese workers into our vilest slums,
confined them to those Chinatowns, and wouldn't let them bring their
families over. Canada's racism against Chinese lasted at least into
the 1970s.
The railways did
much the same with Italian immigrants after World War Two.
This is a disgusting
and ignorant editorial. It reminds me of the slimy role that
Mackenzie-King played to kiss up to the Rockefellers.
Oh, and we now have a fair living wage? Does the editorial writer
know what our minimum wage is?
Norbert, too, writes
on a topic he knows nothing about. He says our education system is
rooted in the nineteenth century. I doubt very much where Norbert has
a clue about nineteenth century education. For that matter, he works
for a news medium that has it roots in the eighteenth century, and
has been going downhill since the 1890s.
And he blames the
teachers and the teachers' union for our illiterate population,
though he produces no evidence whatever. In fact, Norbert, as a
teacher at all levels for fifty years, I can tell you why many
children are illiterate. It's because their parents don't care and
because their parents are illiterate.
That's not just a
slam. I've taught students from a great many religions and countries.
Jewish and Chinese students (possibly Dutch as well) commonly are
excellent students. That's because their parents commonly place a
high value on education. And it's because their parents read and
think, and publicly discuss things like politics, art, world affairs.
(In China, I taught students who never missed a class, were never
late, always handed in papers on time and who, if I even casually
mentioned an article, would have it read by the next class. (There
was even a student I had to threaten to hospitalize if he didn't
stop taking pills to stay awake all night studying.)
New Brunswick
parents have the least interest in schools that I have ever seen. And
a very, very high proportion don't read ( certainly nothing more than
how to grow a bigger bust or what some Hollywood dimwit is doing.)
And they avoid
public discussion of public issues as if it were poisonous. A very
high proportion don't think, don't want to think and are, I would
guess, afraid of having an opinion in public.
As to your
'brilliant' insight that we can fire teachers because the number of
students has gone down – well, think hard Norbert – has it
occurred to you that the province didn't have nearly enough teachers
in the first place? And now, for the first time, it might have
enough?
All you can think
about is budgets. I see no concern about the students – not in you,
and not in most of the adult population of this province.
Tell me, Norbert, if
Irving were to take over the schools and privatize them – as he
well might – would you have the guts to criticize him for weak
results?
And, while we're
talking about budgets, how about digging up the figures on how much
of our money is wasted on public/private projects. And how much tax
is it that the very rich don't pay in this province?
Norbert, you know
nothing whatever about education. This province does have a serious
education problem. But it's not the teachers. It's the whole social
tone of a province of people who are afraid to think, afraid to
learn, and afraid talk about anything except how hot the day is.
We need more teachers – and more school spaces – to educate the
parents..
Good columns by
Craig Babscock and guest columnist Ross Galbraith who is the business
manager of a union.
But, much as I like
both, I have to reserve the crown for Alec Bruce. His column is
brilliant.
He thinks that
universities should be teaching much more about thinking – and much
less about job-training. He's quite right. And he's right that
learning to think comes from such fields as math, science, history,
literature and language. All my teaching experience tells me he's
right – so right that I'm not sure business programmes should be
taught in universities at all.
Most of the
information pumped into students in all fields is memorized for the
exam, and forgotten soon after it. But the skills and temperament of
thinking will not be forgotten. And those skills are essential for a
person in any career.
Alas! I have little
hope of the universities. For a start, the boards are commonly
dominated by the wealthy who really aren't interested in people who
think, and who want money-making to have the prestige of a university
degree. (And they also happily donate money in exchange for an
honorary degree.)
As well, university
teachers tend to the strong on ego, praise, recognition. But those
don't come from being a good teacher. In fact, an interest in
teaching is often looked down on as suggesting a feeble mind. No.
Egos and reputation are built on publication. (You can read news
stories in the Irving press for confirmation of that.)
In consequence, I
suffered some nine years of really boring, forgettable, and useless
lectures- - with only one or two exceptions. But that's what
universities are like – and likely to stay that way.
__________________________________________________________________________________
There's only a
little of importance in Canada&World.
The lead is quite a
startling story about 43 students murdered in Mexico. I think it was
about a year ago.
There's a big photo
of a gathering at Vancouver, highlighted by the release of whlte
balloons over the harbour. It's in memory of two Syrian boys,
refugees, who were drowned. I would be more touched if they also flew
them for the million or so children killed in Vietnam, Iraq,
Pakistan, Afghjanistan, Libya, Guatemala…
.
I'm not crazy about
selective grief.
The NDP is calling
on Harper to accept many more refugees immediately. But Harper has
never shown interest in refugees. He knows it could cost him votes.
Case closed.
B2 has “Vatican to
shelter refugees fleeing war, hunger; pope wants other to do the
same.” I'm not a Catholic. But sometimes I wish the pope were
prime minister of Canada.
On B3, the
Conservatives are giving $15,000,000 to museums. Well, that's the way
elections work. Many, perhaps most, voters decide who to vote for
based on relatively minor matters like this. Big mistake. We have to
learn to look at the real issues.
But don't worry
about the Conservatives. It's not their money. They're buying us with
our money.
The same page has a
story about Elizabeth surpassing Queen Victoria in years as ruler.
I'm no admirer of royalty. But Elizabeth (and her father, George VI)
played their roles to perfection. They have been, without doubt, the
outstanding British monarchs of at least 3 centuries.
The story says
Elizabeth and Victoria had much in common. Nonsense. Victoria was an
unpleasant woman interested only in herself, did nothing for
anybody, and who only rarely appeared in public for fifty years.
Egypt has confirmed
its decision, finding three journalists (including on Canadian)
guilty of belonging to a terrorist organization. The evidence Egypt
has presented is absurd. Egypt was, briefly, a democracy. But the
U.S. didn't like that. So it overthrew the elected government and
installed a military dictatorship. The U.S. is, you know, the land of
the free and the home of the brave.
Will Harper demand
the Canadian be deported to Canada to face a real trial? Not likely.
Not unless Obama tells him to do it.
Section B,
Canada&World, has only 4, lousy pages. Most of them are taken up
by trivia – like the story about a policeman in Texas who pasted a
sign “In God we trust” on his squad car. There isn't a single
story of any great importance.
If people in New
Brunswick are, as Norbert suggests, suffering from illiteracy and
general lack of knowledge, he doesn't have to examine to schools to
find out why. He just has to look in a mirror.
I thought Mackenzie-King was referred to Rockerfeller, because he wrote one of the first papers on Industrial relation when he was at University. I also thought he helped Rockerfeller bring in the first company union. Sometimes it's hard to know if what you are reading is true.
ReplyDeleteKing's master's thesis was on inidustrial relations, later published as "Industry and Humanity". Rockefeller liked it because it gave lobour no power at all. King worked for some years for the Rockefellers beforre and during World War One. In that period, he sent an autographed copy of his book to one of the Rockefeller daughters.
ReplyDeleteThat was King's standard warning to a woman that he wanted to marry her. His demands were simple. He wanted a wife who was beautiful, rich, and acceptable to his mother. Untortunately, he never found such a woman who wanted to marry a short, fat, fussy, balding man.
What he proposed in his book was not a union. If he ever even thought of that, Rockefeller would never have touched him. He proposed the Company Association which was like a union, sort of. But it had to no power to strike or to do anything else, and no money to do the necessary research in negotiating. I belonged to a company association when I worked at Bell. It was useless. But big business just loved it.
King also handled press relations for Rockefeller. In other words, he covered up for them. When a mining company he owned in the U.S. went on strike, Rockefeller fired them all, and kicked them out of their homes. (Rockefeller owned all the houses. He also owned all the stores.)
The strikers and there families could only shelter in tents that were in a valley. (I believe it was winter, but I'm not sure.) State militia were posted on the hill. One day, they opened fire, then went through the tent settlement smashing and burning everything.
Enter King to cover up for th e press. He convinced Rockefeller to send his sons to visit the strikers. And he set up a social evening attended by the Rockefeller boys to dance with miner's daughters. And he arranged for press photographers galore. To this day, many Americans believe that the Rockefeller sons all married miners' daughters.
In his whole life, King never did anything for anybody but himself. And he certainly did nothing for unions.
His political instincts were amazing. Like a mouse in a h ouseful of cats, he always sensed how to avoid trouble, and make himself look good.
The best teacher I ever had was Fred Gibson of Queen's University who had been King's secretary for some years, and who was, without question, Canada's leading historian of Mackenzie-King.
Thanks for taking the time to explain.
ReplyDelete