Chris Schnurr
Carol Kosowan LL.B., B.A. (Law), B.A. (Policy)
The editorial writer should be constantly alert to conflicts of interest, real or apparent, including those that may arise from financial holdings, secondary employment, holding public office or involvement in political, civic or other organizations. Timely public disclosure can minimize suspicion. Editors should seek to hold syndicates to these standards. The writer, further to enhance editorial page credibility, also should encourage the institution he or she represents to avoid conflicts of interest, real or apparent.
Ontario Press Council
_____________________________________________
The Windsor Star admits that John Coleman, editor of the Windsor Star is married to Norma Coleman, Chief of Staff in the Mayor’s Office during their interactive online forum today – though if they believe a comment buried in an hour and a half of typing absolves them of their duty to the public, they have another thing coming.
Although it took the aggressive posting by an individual to finally get the answer some 40 minutes later.
But it’s okay – because editorials are developed in the publishers office and because, “We believe that even if one member of our group has a bias or conflict, the remainder of the group is in a position to offset that bias.”
Anyone considering an application to the Press Council of Ontario could have a field day with this one (Screenshot here – just in case):
11:51
The Windsor Star: Someone asked about Star editorial page editor John Coleman’s connection with the mayor’s office and here’s a response from Star publisher Jim Venney.
[My Note: Jim Venney does not answer the question the first time around].
11:51
The Windsor Star: The Windsor Star editorial opinions are developed and finalized in the Publisher’s Office. They are developed in a group setting by a group usually composed of Publisher Jim Venney, Editor-in-Chief Marty Beneteau, Editorial Page Editor John Coleman and Karen Hall.
We believe that even if one member of our group has a bias or conflict, the remainder of the group is in a position to offset that bias.
We also believe this method in an organization setting actually results in opinion formation that is far less open to conflict of interest that is more possible in the world of say – individual blogs.
In this case the potential for conflict for one member of the group is not a conflict for the overall group. Members of the group are able to adjust (or not adjust) as they see fit given their knowledge of the situation and the people involved.
12:33
The Windsor Star: Subsequent to closing, Tim at 11:53 asked, “So does John Coleman have a connection to the mayor’s office? Yes or no?”
The answer to the question is yes. John Coleman is The Star’s editorial page editor and his wife is Norma Coleman, who is chief of staff in the mayor’s office.
Please read The Windsor Star comment above to understand how editorial opinions are formulated.
Two-Term Eddie?
Chris Vander Doelen writes:
The strike is now a civic obsession, up there with the Spitfires and the Red Wings. Mayor Eddie Francis, the unlikely champion of taxpayers in the struggle, is suddenly the most popular guy in town.
The mayor’s annual speech to the chamber of commerce this week met with loud applause every time he mentioned the strike or controlling spending and taxes.
Some residents are even wondering aloud about the mayor’s chances of winning re-election — something that seemed unthinkable nine weeks ago.
Unthinkable!
Mayor Francis would not dare use the strike as a political tool to raise his sagging fortunes for an election he promised he wouldn’t run in 2010 – or for any other political purpose now, would he?
Filed under: Uncategorized
Is there no depth to which Eddie and The Star will not stoop?
I do recall a Windsor Star 08 article in which the mayor outlined his plans to actually run in 2010; the rationale for those plans was to ensure that the Greenlink project would not be harmed by subsequent municipal administration.
Francis hints at 3rd term; [Final Edition]
Gord Henderson. The Windsor Star. Windsor, Ont.: Jan 10, 2008. pg. A.1.FRO
Fed up with what he sees as certain councillors gunning prematurely for his job, Windsor Mayor Eddie Francis has left the door open just a crack to seeking a third term in the 2010 civic election.
Francis, who made a 2003 campaign commitment to serve only two terms, dropped a broad hint in an interview this week that he might, under certain circumstances, be persuaded to run again.
“I’ve got councillors approaching me now who want me to stay on. People have approached me and said I should give it some thought,” said the 33-year-old. He said their concern is that continuity must be maintained on the border file, given the foot-dragging by decision-makers who might be trying to outlast him in order to deal with a more pliable city leader.
The mayor didn’t say he would run again. But he didn’t say, irrevocably, that he won’t. Instead, he talked about how far off the next election is and how there are more pressing issues, beginning with hammering out a border solution and drawing investment to Windsor…
__________________________________________
Copyright Southam Publications Inc. Jan 11, 2008
Windsor Mayor Eddie Francis has no one but himself to blame. If city councillors are gunning to replace him and undercutting the effectiveness of council, as Francis claims, it is only because Francis issued them an open invitation to crank up the campaign and sharpen that stump speech.
He served himself up as a lame duck when he made the unequivocal promise, back in 2003 and reiterated again just three weeks ago, that he would only seek two terms as mayor. Voters who re-elected Francis in November of 2006 did so with the understandable expectation it would be his second and final term.
Yet little more than a year into that four-year mandate, Francis is refusing to rule out another run because some feel his stewardship is needed to protect this city’s interests on the border file. Francis has fought doggedly for a made-in-Windsor solution that doesn’t divide communities and lower the quality of lives and no one knows whether an acceptable solution will be embraced before the next election. Voters can judge his record then, if he runs, in the context of his two-term pledge and his work on the border.
But the suggestion made by Coun. Ron Jones that Francis should run for a third term because no one on council is ready to fill his boots is absurd, not to mention insulting to his council colleagues and dismissive of the many community leaders who care passionately about this proud but struggling city.
No rule stipulates mayors must first be councillors and, in fact, people who make politics a career often exist in a bubble surrounded by sycophants. They lose touch with the people they are supposed to serve. Many grow enchanted with the perks of power and lose sight of the ideals that first compelled them to run for office. The best candidate in the next election could well emerge from outside the cloistered, navel-gazing world of Windsor municipal politics….
That explains why:
- NO pro-CUPE posts were allowed past the online editor Roberta Pennington despite dozens of attempts
- instead of publishing the final tally of the related online poll regarding binding arbitration (which was 53% YES, 47% NO), they decided to publish results of their poll from last weekend).
The most telling line in Venney’s statement is this one: “Members of the [Editorial Board] are able to adjust (or not adjust) as they see fit given their knowledge of the situation and the people involved.”
The people involved, indeed.
Other notable quotes from “unbiased” Star reporters:
10:45 Chris Vander Doelen: Bias is being characterized these days as having an opinion. I am proud of having made up my own mind on the issues of the day. People who take their thinking orders from others are sheep.
When corrected on his earlier erroneous statement that post-retirement benefits were negotiated earlier:
11:03 [Comment From Luc] The P.R.B’s were not negotiated in any CUPE contract! They are a by-law passed by council in the 50’s
Chris only retorts:
11:04 Chris Vander Doelen: PRBs? Only on [sic] insider uses jargon like that.
And get this little nugget of an “unbiased” reporter:
11:04 [Comment From Richard] I heard the reason that the post retirement benefits for new hires is such an issue is due to the nepotism at City Hall. CUPE members may be trying to protect benefits for their relatives yet to be hired.
11:06 Chris Vander Doelen: Richard, that is a good point. Nepotism has always been rampant at City Hall, dating back half a century. It’s almost impossible to stamp out. I’d like to see a complete list of city employees, including cops and fire fighters, to see how bad it is. Of course, they would refuse, citing “privacy” concerns as the reason to block public knowledge.
AH – but Chris Vander Doelen is not a reporter, but a columnist with an opinion.
But you raise a valid point. If the Windsor Star is hosting an info-session to respond to the plethora of comments, you would think they would have at least one person who is fully knowledgeable on the subject, such as a labour lawyer.
Otherwise, the information given in the forum is simply a town-hall exchange of opinions and not fact.
Howeve,r there is no excuse for Mr. Vander Doelen’s statement re PRB’s.
That information is posted on the City of Windsor website. So it is difficult to understand how one can facilitate a discussion of the strike; when that individual is not aware of even the city’s position.
And finally, Chris admits that comments to the chat ARE being filtered out:
11:16 Chris Vander Doelen: By the way, we aren’t approving every comment or question here. There are too many, and we can’t address them all, as you’ve noticed. We’re typing as fast as we can!
Bitter much?
11:31 Chris Vander Doelen: I earn far less than people in public sector jobs doing comparable work. I know the guy at city hall who does a similar job, and I believe he makes at least $25,000 more per year than I do, with far, far better benefits.
Something tells me you’re not a fan of Chris Vander Doelen :)
The last thing I would compare it to is a Town Hall. Could you imagine every time someone pro-CUPE stood up to the mike to speak, it got turned off? Oh wait …. nevermind ;)
I liked the Q&A experiment. It was a real coherent dialogue from the Windsor Star – imagine that! I hope they keep it up. If a group of editors helps balance a possibility of conflict engaging the entire community should do even more.
This leaves Windsor city blog as the only monologue in Windsor.
I’m not a fan of the Windsor Star, period. Their biased reporting is unconscionable for a one-paper town. A few recent examples:
Resident scabs in the park with a lawnmower against the city’s by-law, yet the reported accused CUPE of stepping this up: “CUPE strikers step up picket line action” when one stands in in front of them. (Monica Wolfson)
The union has been waiting two weeks for the city to get back to the negotiation table, yet the headline reads “Mayor offers to restart talks” (Doug Schmidt)
Another headline reads “Almost half oppose arbitration, survey finds” rather than “more than half do NOT oppose arbitration” (Dalson Chen)
Vander Doelen also “put something out there” about how we never called Hurst “Mikey” or Millson “Johnny”…and that perhaps calling the Mayor “Eddie” implied
disrespect or something.
I pointed out that “Eddie” is the name puts on his campaign lawn signs etc.
But my comment did not make the cut. Nor did my mentioning that the Mayor’s office is connected to the Star through the Mayor’s sister-in-law who has a managerial position there, as well as Norma Coleman.
“Coherent” is debateable, Edwin:
• marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts; “a coherent argument”
• capable of thinking and expressing yourself in a clear and consistent manner; “a lucid thinker”; “she was more coherent than she had been just after the accident”
• (physics) of waves having a constant phase relation
sticking together; “two coherent sheets”; “tenacious burrs”
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
And it does little to “mitigate” any conflict – perceived or real. All it was, was the Star forums “live” with a reporter and columnist chiming in – really no different than even the comments on posted on this and other blogs.
The ‘conflict’ is a position of power and/or any influence a position of power may or may not have on another.
A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, insurance adjuster, a politician, executive or director of a corporation or a medical research scientist or physician, has competing professional or personal interests.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest
Um, it has been well known that Chief of Staff for Francis is married to the Editor for the Windsor Star. Arditti ranted about this back in 2006. Tell us something we don’t know.
Um, when did the Windsor Star declare this, as per the Ontario Press Council?
“Timely public disclosure can minimize suspicion. Editors should seek to hold syndicates to these standards. The writer, further to enhance editorial page credibility, also should encourage the institution he or she represents to avoid conflicts of interest, real or apparent.”
FURTHER:
“In the interest of credibility, a column should disclose any possible conflict of interest on the part of the writer.”
Find me the article, because I can’t, and I’ll post it.
Or is your disagreement with my position regarding the CUPE strike, affecting your objectivity? ;)
10:29 Chris Vander Doelen:
The only reason the mayor has been at the negotiating table is that the mediator has summoned him there. What’s he supposed to do, refuse to show?
* What Mediator? Mediator is gone. Mayor still running the show.
10:45 Chris Vander Doelen: Bias is being characterized these days as having an opinion. I am proud of having made up my own mind on the issues of the day. People who take their thinking orders from others are sheep.
* That would include most Windsor Star reporters…and editorial board
10:47 Chris Vander Doelen: There’s already a two-tier system in place: CUPE workers in Windsor are the top tier, their “employer” taxpayers are the lower tier.
* How much does Eddie make by the way? how much do members of administration make? if CUPE workers are the top tier, there must be like a superduper top tier. But then that wouldn’t be two. I’m confused.
10:59 Chris Vander Doelen: Richard; right now, the only check on CUPE is the ability of taxpayers to move out of the city to avoid the taxes associated with Windsor’s high labour and operating costs. In the last 25 years, I bet two thirds of local growth has taken place outside city boundaries for that reason. Competition is good for taxpayers and consumers alike.
* Pahlease. We’re okay with the $6,000,000 in the capital budget this year for legal bills to fight the border though. Local growth has taken place outside the city boundaries because of city incompetence, mismanagement and lack of leadership.
11:02 Chris Vander Doelen: Bob, the strike doesn’t HAVE to end. The city is coping just fine.
* Did he say the city is coping just fine?
11:02 (cont’d) It would be smart, however, if both sides found a way to sidle out of the fight. Existing CUPE employees keeping everything they currently have seems like a pretty big victory to me.
* This is exactly what the union has been saying: it’s not just about future employees: the give on PRBs sets the stage to take away from existing employees (we wouldn’t want them “keeping everything they currently have”); thanks for the clarification VD
…and just so we’re clear:
11:02 (cont’d): Ask CAW members who have lost everything recently what they have chosen, if offered a deal like that?
* Is this an admission that the city has been mismanaged to the point of ruin too?
11:10 Chris Vander Doelen: The issues aren’t neutral. We have to pick a side, decide what kind of city we want, and how much we are willing to pay for it. Newspapers are obligated to reveal the debates of the day to its readers, which means both sides. Why can’t today’s unions handle public debate any more?
* Yes. Let’s get rid of the negotiators for both sides (who is the purported negotiator for the city anyway?) and duke this out in public with the Windsor Star providing the “facts”.
11:14 Chris Vander Doelen: The solution to the strike is the strikers decideing to go back to work. We can’t make them.
* I think he meant “deciding” and “we don’t want to let them”
(as an aside, this is an interesting slip of media bias exemplified here: who is “we”? think about it)
11:31 Chris Vander Doelen: I earn far less than people in public sector jobs doing comparable work. I know the guy at city hall who does a similar job, and I believe he makes at least $25,000 more per year than I do, with far, far better benefits.
* Herein lies the essence of what is poisoning our city right now. How utterly pathetic.
Oh, that was rather long…I must have gotten carried away.
11:31 Chris Vander Doelen: I earn far less than people in public sector jobs doing comparable work. I know the guy at city hall who does a similar job, and I believe he makes at least $25,000 more per year than I do, with far, far better benefits.
* Herein lies the essence of what is poisoning our city right now. How utterly pathetic.
____________________________
The Culture of Entitlement in reverse – if I can’t have it you can’t either.
Chris…Please offer whatever clarification you can here: On the flip side does the Mayor’s wife write for the Windsor Star?
An email from a reader:
Hi Chris……..Another term with Eddie Francis, Norma and Jon?
Don’t make me laugh!
People in this city are quietly waiting for Eddie and Norma and Jon to be over…If Eddie, Norma and Jon manage to pull the strike iron out of the fire, it will not make them heroes…It will just make very tired voters and taxpayers say “It’s about time you cleaned up your mess.
The triumvirate of Eddie, Norma and Jon never appears as a single entity at Council because only one of them will actually fit in the Mayor’s chair.
“On the flip side does the Mayor’s wife write for the Windsor Star?”
What is the question based on? But I do not believe she does.
No big deal. Every ‘editor’ has an opinion. Every newspaper reflects a certain political slant – the National Post for example is considered somewhat conservative for agreeing with Rash Limburger and crazy Anne Coulter more often than not. A great thing about the internet is, I can read news papers online from all over the world, the other day I was having a laugh at some Castro rants. The Windsor Star is basically Liberal, leaning toward NDP and all the pot smoking hippy Marxists, tree huggers and environmentalists.
I think Coleman has been a pretty even handed city editor. If he tends to pimp a bit for the mayor it’s probably because he sincerely believes government squandering money on moats and bridges to nowhere are good things for this struggling city.
Thanks, I didn’t know they had an online chat thing. Edited, of course. Funny how the “free press” has brought censorship to the internet. In the early days there was zero censorship, I read all about Paul and Karla trial on newsgroups even though there was a publication ban in Canuckistan.
Now you gotta have a password for every stupid thing. You know, for “security” and all that.
“Edward” sounds like the guy thinks he’s King or royalty. Ed is okay. But “Eddie” is cool. Think Eddie and the cruisers, Fast Eddie Felson, Eddie Vedder, Eddie Money, Eddie Van Halen.
They were all boring, humourless louts that took themselves far too seriously – no mayor has had a sense of humour about himself since Frank Wansborough wandered with Bob Monks in a canoe trip down the Grand Maris ditch.
All right Chris, I admit that the result of Q&A thing was not some profound new understanding of the strike. But still it was an honest dialogue. Questions were asked and answered. The Star conceded some control of the message in an interest to engage their readers. I applaud that. I hope to see more of that in the future.
To the accusation of political bias to the coverage of the CUPE strike, I don’t see it. There is a bias but it is an ideological bias not necessarily a political one. It is the same bias that tilted the CAW-Chrysler coverage when no politics where involved there. The Star has a pro-business, rah-rah private sector, small government, low taxes idealogy. Not much can be done about that, other than to understand their coverage will always be tilted towards that idealogy.
Hey – dialogue is great – but what did it accomplish?
A better dialogue would have been to engage CUPE leadership and/or the city to clarify positions; etc. and get real answers as opposed to “opinion.”
Having a reporter and a columnist field questions accomplished what? Rather than saying I don’t know, smart ass remarks were given in response to some questions.
I got the distinct feeling the exercise was designed to entertain, rather than inform.
But I will say, the format was interesting and with refinement could go a long way to engaging the online community further.
Questions were raised, selectively answered, or in some cases not answered at all.
The Coleman question was answered. I’m sure that was not the direction they were looking to take.
Yes, including outside experts is the way to go. In fact that is how editorials should be developed too. A round-table podcast discussion with experts and editorial staff that is later followed by the editorial. It’s a win-win situation for everyone. It creates more multi-media content, it concedes more control of the message, it produces more accurate conclusions, and allows readers to better follow the formation of those conclusions and depart from them if necessary along the way.
But hey, they’re experimenting looking for the right model. I’m experimenting with different approaches looking for the right model. You’re experimenting. I just think it’s a step in the right direction.
If information is power:
-What happens if everyone has access to an unlimited amount of information?
-Is the power of information diminished?
-With almost universal unlimited access to information, is it easier to lift the vial of traditional information/power brokers and discover their biases and motives?
-What do the traditional information/power brokers do?
-Do they continue to fight change (try to hold on to the diminishing power of information) or adapt (become facilitators of information sharing)?
-In our bold new information age, are the Windsor Star and Jean Carlos de Leon equals?
The story of Jean Carlos de Leon, who lives in the rural town of La Yautia in the province of Monte Plata, Dominican Republic shows again that where there is a will, there is a way, as reported in Listin Diario.
Who would believe that there could be a Wi-Fi Internet connection in that remote farming region? Jean Carlos de Leon is a second semester industrial engineering student at the UASD state university.
Piecing together discarded parts, he was able to put together a computer using an old 2000 IBM at the house where he lives with his 80-year old grandmother, Dona Aurelia.
When there is electricity, he can connect to the Internet free of charge thanks to his home-made connection consisting of an old aluminum pot, a cable and a piece of copper. The antenna is on top of a 40-meter tall coconut palm, and receives the Dominican Telecommunications Institute’s Broad Band Rural Connectivity Project’s signal from Los Botados, several kilometers away.
To set up his connection, de Leon first asked the person in charge of the rural program how the signals were received.
Jean Carlos was used to repairing any old electronic or electrical equipment he could get his hands on, so he decided to rig up an antenna and did so in just one day. He explains that the pot works as a mirror and prevents the signal from going in just one direction.
His friend Wilfrido de Paula, also from La Yautia, made a slightly different antenna. His device is also located in his back yard and uses a similar aluminum pot, held up by a long stick of sugar cane.
http://www.listin.com.do/app/article.aspx?id=75379
No.
The Windsor Star is a for profit corporation that sells the consumer (subscriber) as a commodity to advertisers who support their primary function of disseminating news and information that supports their overall objective.
The Windsor Star is owned by CanWest which controls hundreds of daily newspapers across the country.
Google CANWEST along with “freedom of speech” or “lawsuit” and you’ll see what I’m getting at.
Read Chomsky and McChesney regarding their concerns over corporate controlled media and media consolidation.
Look – I don’t have a problem with corporate owned media IF THERE WAS competition.
And while “opinion” makes for great discussion, it is not to be mistaken for “fact.”
The Star’s excercise was an excercise in opinion moderated/facilitated by individuals who could not be expected to provide all the answers.
Mr. Vander Doelen demonstrated that. Now his job is to offer opinion, but I’ll repeat – if the purpose was to provide information – it generally failed.
If it’s purpose was to create controversy it succeeded.
Chris, Chomsky is only looking at one side of the market, the advertisers and ignoring the other side of the market the consumers of media. Remember if you can’t attract the consumers the advertisers will not come either.
When information was limited the quality of the consumer side of the media product did not matter. Information was costly and inaccessible. For example, an encyclopedia put you back a small fortune. Thus, the choices for alternative sources of information were not there. Also the ability to critic the accuracy of the information did not exist. Media was all-powerful and could get away with being opinionated and biased.
Not so today. Today there is too much information. Today there is too much choice. Today biases and lazy uninformed opinions are easy to discern and topple. Today the power of media is greatly diminished. Today media cannot capture the entire market with biases even in a one-newspaper town like Windsor. Ah, I love competition.
Attracting customers is not a problem in a monopoly, Edwin.
http://ellman.iae-csic.org/media80.pdf
Who is one of the Windsor Star’s largest advertisers?
http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/200310–.pdf
Herman and Chomsky’s view is not read, understood and then
rejected: it is simply made incomprehensible or invisible by ideology due to their conception of an integrated political and corporate elite; of the subordination of academia as well as the media to that elite; and of that elite and that subordination as being fundamentally illegitimate due to their hostility to the interests of ordinary people within and beyond the United States.
The normative and activist position of Herman and Chomsky is beyond the bounds of that sanctioned by the US elite. They condemn media and academic subservience to elite interests, they work to expose it to the mass public, and they argue that it is the duty of academics to assist….
On the whole, social science research gravitates towards innocuous
work or directly anti-democratic work, that is, research which assists elite control of society.67 In a comment that applies to some of our own earlier work as well the work of others surveyed in this article, ‘part of the genius . . . of the higher education system is that it can get people to sell out even while they think they’re doing exactly the right thing’.68
The academics surveyed in this article are very committed to what they see as critical work. However, they operate without questioning or even acknowledging the existence of elite power or their own role in
buttressing it, never mind assisting those who are organising efforts to challenge it.
Such academics are neutralised and serve to mark the boundary of legitimate….
I’m actually sympathetic to the Chomsky ideology. There is quite a lot of truth or at least things to stop and ponder in his work. It is just that, I think, the corporate media model is currently under attack and being striped of its power and influence.
It’s not really a monopoly anymore. There is a growing list of different products that can substitute the Windsor Star. Sure the Star is the dominant player by far but my point is that they should not take their current leadership for granted. They need to continue to innovate and deliver the right product because the traditional “barriers to entry” that kept competitors away are disappearing.
In essences, the old corporate media model has a new competitor in the citizen media model. I like it. I think that the two competitors can actually compliment each other. But it requires more moves towards a dialogue like the Q&A.
In essences, the old corporate media model has a new competitor in the citizen media model. I like it. I think that the two competitors can actually compliment each other. But it requires more moves towards a dialogue like the Q&A.
Yes – I would agree as do many academics such as Chomsky.
The corporate media needs to realise this and implement to the fullest extent I think.
Your suggestion is right along the same lines as what has been experimented with around the world – I’ll have to find the source, but for now, one such experiment is to create a citizens editorial board working in tandum with the corporate editorial board.
Getting citizen involvement through a variety of means is a win-win for both.
A sense of ownership; pride etc., would evolve and the media would acquire more subscribers/readers.
Squabbles with ‘citizens’ on the picket lines, guerrilla lawn mowing campaigns, cops promising to ‘crackdown’ on the ‘lawless’ unions, not to mention the hatred thrown at autoworker unions by the media and the general public, watch out!… the socialists are coming!
I really admire the way the power-elites have managed to turn the dunces against each other – noting all the hatred for unions they’ve been able to generate among underclass halfwits. The proles are so predictable, like Machiavelli said.
I suppose part of the problem is, we have a whole generation of young people born into a culture of entitlement and excess, they’ve never had to fight for anything in their whole lives. Education teaches them the way to ’success’ is through total submission to authority. Unions are a threat to the status quo authority, in higher edu critical thinking is displaced by ‘professional’ thinking – so authoritarians identify with the house-slave mentality toward the Master, rather than the lower working slave class to which they really belong.
It’s pathetic to watch low class cement heads conditioned by conservative blather about the evils of unions and ’socialism’ (every western democracy is ’socialist’) turn on their fellow working class citizens.
They know not what they do.
“It’s pathetic to watch low class cement heads conditioned by conservative blather about the evils of unions and ’socialism’ (every western democracy is ’socialist’) turn on their fellow working class citizens.”
Yes, Jrlo – my ‘favourite’ has been thus far, is “I don’t have it, why should you?” mentality.
My dad and his dad (and probably his dad when they moved to North America) have/had the belief that if you work hard, your rewards will be great.
Except when working hard becomes taboo and efforts to eke out some kind of ‘independent’ living are squashed. I can only point to what my folks are now going through, which I’ll share at another time.
Gord Henderson’s column today – a retired journalist, probably with his own pension and some form of benefits – speaks of the independent spirit of small business owners struggling.
With government created red tape; taxes; licensing requirements, regulations etc., small business owners (the hard working middle class) are continually assaulted under the yoke of government control.
Sure, we are told, it’s for the “greater good.” Of course, the greater good is defined by those ‘elites’ interested in protecting their interests usually at the expense of the ‘lower classe’s ‘interests’.
This is not to say, there cannot be some form of law and order. One professor said, you don’t want your neighbour building an oil refinery next door to your home, to exemplify this.
Individuals, generally, are quite resilient and creative when permitted to be so. My parents and grandparents were part of generations that built countries; built railines from the east to the west coast; that built today’s successful businesses – without PHd’s, MBA’s or LLB’s or the extensive rolls of red tape that choke us; control us and chain us under an emerging authoritarian regime (some would argue totalitarian).
Today, if corporate north america screws up, they line up at the public trough – Pandora’s Box has been opened.
If you or I screw up – we have to partake in a three-ring circus in an attempt to seek help – if we even get it at all.
So, we fight over the table scraps those in power throw our way.
And they smile.
It is the perfect distraction from what is happening – openly before our eyes.
Forced dependency. Or more simply, control.
Please sir, may I have another?
I know this sounds somewhat ‘radical’ as defined by those in power; but they are thoughts that have been knawing away at me for some time.
The issue is confused and overly complicated so most people get easily distracted by mindless endless debate over “isms” of political ideology that have no meaning – our ‘Liberal’ and ‘Conservative’ opposed ideologies are really right and left wings of the same vulture, picking our bones.
There are only two classes of people – there is the ‘working’ class of people who produce real, tangible things and products, grow food, fish, work in factories, and then there is the parasite class of people who leech their nourishment and sustain their lives by feeding off the production of the worker class.
Marx and Ayn Rand would agree.
The parasite class has its collective jackboot on our collective necks, at present.
We need to lower wages.
We need to work harder. Longer. For less money. No benefits. No retirements.
We’ve had things far too good for far too long.
They have the middle classes believing the middle classes are the problem.
Although there is some truth to the environmental side of that argument, that we consume too much, blaming each other for wanting a medium standard of living for our families is not the solution.
In a nutshell we need some leaders who can think different.
But all we get is the same-old same-old big spending bonehead government solutions – the solution is always more bigger government, always growing the parasite.
They offer themselves as solution to the problems they create.
Following historical patterns of inequality reveals that inequality last peaked (around current levels) in the late 1920s before the great depression. The great depression, and maybe the social awakening that resulted from it, dramatically reversed the rise of inequality. In fact, it is the demarcation point of a long-term decline in inequality that troughed in the mid 1970s. Since then, we’ve been in a long-term rise in inequality. Some would argue that over the last 4 decades inequality has been institutionalized.
Is the financial crisis (failure of our financial institutions) caused by inequality reaching its maximum?
Is this financial crisis a healthy cleansing of our imbalanced system?
Are efforts to prop-up the failed system counter-productive?
Are we in a new era of middle-class gains (future demographics also suggest this)?
Inequality by the numbers
http://www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm#1