Nov 242011
 

Pink Floyd The Wall“Give me the child until he is seven years and I will give you the man.” Jesuit maxim.

A recent report by early childhood educators has called for the introduction of two year old toddlers to the public school system.  The authors of the report cite studies by their colleagues demonstrating the supposed benefits to the child for such an early introduction into the structured institution of the state-run school but they have also cited ancillary possible benefits of keeping women in the work-force rather than staying at home rearing their children.

The real benefit, of course is neither seen by the mothers nor the children.  It is realized by the educators.  Not simply in their financial gain from the estimated $1 billion in federal funds necessary for the program but in the propagation of the ideology of the vast majority of public system educators today.

“Give us the child for eight years and it will be a Bolshevik forever. “  Vladimir Lenin

It is no secret that the political ideology of the public education system is one that differs greatly from many if not most of the parents who find no alternative for the education of their children.  From the newly hired supply teachers fresh out of teacher’s college to the veteran Directors of Education to the Ministers of Education themselves the ideology of the system can be properly defined as being on the far left of the political spectrum.  There is no doubt in my mind that the purpose of previous governments in making it possible for children to attend half-day junior kindergarten to all-day junior kindergarten to now toddler kindergarten is the promise of molding the child’s mind into one that is amenable  to the ideology of the left.  Few intelligent adults fall for it.

If we take a look at the schooling of previous generations we find many positive results.  Our forefathers were intelligent and socially adjusted people.  They are the people who made the world what it is today and yet many of them did not even finish high school.  Many didn’t have the advantage of kindergarten and yet they thrived.  How can this be? This is flying in the face of all of the current research on early childhood education.

The monolithic public education system has been, and continues to be the source of many social conflicts. In Toronto we have the accommodation of the children of Muslims who leave class to pray in the school gymnasium while no such accommodation is afforded any other religion.  A place of learning the truth of nature such as math and science has been reduced to a mosque.  Can you imagine the conflict going on in the minds of the children when the teacher, after perhaps instructing his students in science then dismisses half the class so that they can pray to some super-natural imaginary deity?

Also in Toronto we see the vilest form of ignorance rear its ugly head after decades of silence; the establishment of schools based on race.  These afro-centric schools, designed to teach black-skinned Canadians about the history of a continent they have never visited rather than the history of the country they were born into are an affront to reason and an insult to the very children they are segregating on the bases of their distant ancestry.

Not too long ago there was a tussle between the parents who preferred their children to be taught how to read using a method of systematic phonetics rather than the “whole-language” method.  The illiteracy rate under whole language was up to 17% of high school graduates.  That’s right, 17% of graduates were illiterate.  It naturally begs the question how could they have graduated.  When I was a trustee on the Board of Education for the city of London I asked the same question to the Director of Education.  His answer was that the Board has never failed a child.  All children graduate under the child-centered learning system otherwise it would be an admission that the system was a failure.

There is the on-going debate of how young a student must be before the teacher shows him how to put on a condom.

There are debates on the teaching of evolution to children of parents who believe that the world is only 6,000 years old.

There the never-ending debates on class sizes, standards of dress, standards of conduct, standards of punishment, standardized testing, group instruction verses individual instruction.

There are the parents who can only shake their heads when their child has to stay home for several Fridays each year because his teachers are taking part in professional development even though these same teachers have two whole months in the summer to keep up with their profession.  Not that such professional development has been seen to improve their teaching skills one iota over the decades.

And while on the topic of teachers we have the teachers’ unions which can and have held every student in the province hostage when they strike to increase their already overinflated salaries.  Given the poor results of their teaching I would think that most of them don’t deserve half of what they get.

What galls many of us though is the political indoctrination of our children into a destructive ideology.  All children in our school system have seen the Michael Moore documentaries calling for such things as gun-control, socialized medicine, and welfare statism.  All have been inconveniently inconvenienced by the propaganda film of Al Gore.  Many of the schools turn their lights off for one day of the year and study in the dark as they worship “Earth Day”.  Many promote “Buy Nothing Day,” perhaps the most destructive instruction that they can get; the idea that consumerism is evil.

All of this overt and unapologetic manipulation of our children’s minds, much of it out of our control, combined with the poor learning results has led me to the conclusion that given the choice of no formal education at all or 20 years at the hands of these so-called educators I would recommend no formal education at all.

It is my opinion that a child will be better off intellectually, spiritually and emotionally if they stayed at home and played on their computer rather than submit to the daily dose of lies they receive at the hands of our publicly funded educators.

It is no secret, at least to those who have studied the matter that teaching a child to read takes very little time.  In a matter of months a child can be taught to read anything.  Over time their vocabulary increases and comprehension comes naturally with experience.  It is this natural propensity for children to learn that these early childhood educators wish to take credit for.

What can be the cure for these grievous miscarriages of education?  Ultimately it is the complete abolishment of the public education system.  But, of course we all realize that isn’t going to happen so how do we proceed from here?

First we reject en masse this report that two year old children go to a state-run school.  It is not necessarily objectionable that toddlers go to school as many are already in competent day-care at that age.  In fact, Montessori and other private schools offer excellent educational instruction for toddlers; far superior to any which could be offered by over-paid government bureaucrats, which is what public school teachers are.  Every one of them, you may ask?  No, but the vast majority of them.

After we reject toddler kindergarten we can push to roll back the junior kindergarten program.  We can simultaneously demand that the government offer tax credits to those who choose to send their children to private schools.  Today, only the Catholics are afforded the opportunity to see their tax dollars go to the school system of their choice.  This same choice should be given to all parents.  If you choose to send you child to a private school you should be able to list that school as the recipient of your education taxes.  If you prefer the state to teach your child you could have them direct your taxes, not just to the public system, but to the individual school which your child attends.  It is simply unjust that you must pay for the education of someone else’s child against your will, as we do now.

But what of the poor neighbourhoods, and the children of poor parents?  If we are to continue with a public education system it is not out of the realm of possibility that rather than funding a system we fund the student instead.  This notion that because some small percentage of us can’t afford to educate our children makes it necessary that we fund a monolithic bureaucracy of a school system is like using sledge hammer to push in a thumb tack.  It is overkill.  Help the child who needs it but not the child who doesn’t.

The public education system has gotten away with their incompetence for far too long.  It has become a sacred cow.  The two platitudes the educators will spout if we dare to complain of their ineptitude are the following:

  1. “It’s for the kids’ sake.”  To which we reply; No it is not.  It is all about you, you overpaid, overbearing, bureaucrat with delusions of self-importance.
  2. “You’re just a teacher basher.”  To which we reply; Yes, and deservedly so.

The notion of “teacher bashing” is a bromide quickly spat out by the teachers’ union bosses who feel that their gravy train is being threatened so they retaliate, not with reasoned, cogent argument for why they are destroying the minds of our children but with schoolyard styled name-calling.

Teachers have to be held accountable, but at the root of the poor teachers and their methods are the teachers colleges.  Who teaches the teachers is the question which must be asked.  What are the teachers being taught and by whom?  I lay the blame for most of the problems of the public education system on the institutions of higher learning.  For the rest of the blame just look in the mirror.

When we continue to joyfully accept the nanny state’s offer of “free” day-care in the disguise of education we have only blame ourselves when our children graduate unable to read or write, or when our children find only contempt for us as parents for the years of mindless boredom and macaroni artwork we put them through.

The bottom line is that education is far too important a value to leave to the government.

(Originally broadcast on Just Right #227, November 24, 2011)

Apr 072011
 

A capitalist in Canada is faced with no candidate he can support in this election.  Just as with every other federal election prior.  Some might think that the Conservative Party is the party favoured by capitalists but may be because either 1) they don’t understand the definition of capitalism or 2) they don’t understand the Conservative Party of Canada.

A capitalist is one who seeks the abolition of force from society and the separation of government from the economy.  He would not advocate any law which would tax any of his fellow citizens.  He would not expect the government to bailout businesses with loans or grants.  He sees as the only purpose of government the protection of each citizen’s individual rights – nothing else.

There are no parties in Canadian federal politics which fit this definition.  All three of the main parties are socialist.  All three hold policies which vary only slightly and only in degree not substance.  For example, all of the socialist troika are in favour of universal, government run and financed health care.  All three favour to one degree or another corporate largess such as with the recent bailout of the auto industry.  All favour deficit spending with the Conservatives recently racking up a deficit of $53.8 Billion in 2010.  All favour business regulations which prevent foreign competition lowering our standard of living.  All favour so-called ‘stimulus spending’ which destroys one person’s job to create another person’s job.  The list of agreement between the three is endless.

What complicates the matter is the deliberate misconceptions by the media who often portray the Conservatives as capitalistic.  The recent CBC Compass poll which has been taken by over 1 million Canadians to-date has incorrectly positioned the Conservatives far from the other parties both fiscally and socially.  It ranks the parties by their stated rhetoric and published policies rather than on the actual actions of each party.  Here are a few examples from the 30 statements and questions on the poll:

For the statement “The federal budget deficit should be reduced, even if it leads to fewer public services.” The CBC stated that the Conservative Party’s position is “somewhat agree” while in reality the Conservatives are responsible for some of the largest deficit spending in Canadian history.

For the statement “Canada should adopt a carbon tax.” The CBC says the Conservative Party position is “strongly disagree” and yet Prime Minister Harper has, on several occasions, indicated he supports government enforced reductions in CO2 emissions, having bought into the left’s climate change scheme.

For the statement “How much of a role should the private sector have in health care?” The CBC states the Conservative’s position as “somewhat more” and yet the Conservatives have categorically stated that they support and uphold the Canada Health Act which limits all private involvement in the administration of health care and outlaws any private health insurance; the identical position of the other two socialist parties.

The poll correctly grouped the Liberals, and NDP together in policies but the separation of the Conservatives from the group is contrived and dishonest and perpetuates the myth that Conservatives are fiscally responsible when the opposite has been demonstrated to be true.

If there is any difference in the parties at all it may be in what motivates them.  The Conservatives are motivated by faith and tradition, God and the Queen.  Something is good because it is revealed as such in the bible or because it what our parents did.  Contrarily the Liberals support a position based on science (mostly pseudoscience like climate change) or because it is new and progressive.  Neither party support a position because it is rational or right to do so but only because it is supported by priests, mullahs or scientists or because it is a conservative or a progressive position.  Note that regardless of the motivation of the Parties the position held is the same for all, that position will always involve government intervention into the lives and economy of the people.  It will always be statist and it will always be socialist.

(Broadcast on Just Right Show #194, April 7, 2011)

 

Jul 012010
 

1 – The Violence

We can learn a lot from the recent G8 and the G20 meetings in Muskoka and Toronto.  Not only did we see the violence we come to expect from the Left but we saw an exceptional amount of violence, deceit, incompetence, and rights violations from the police and the McGuinty government.

To begin with the protesters it was interesting to see the make-up of the rabble and we had a good eyewitness account from John Thompson of the McKenzie Institute.  In an e-mail he sent to us he describes the following…

OPSEU and CUPE passed a lot of their flags out, mostly to students who don’t seem to be union members; Greenpeace hauled in a number of children, but there were aging Hippies a-plenty strewn through the march. Iranian Communists, some honest-to-god Maoists and plenty of other political fossils were shuffling along under banners of Marx and Engels.

He also described a rather disgusting disruption of the ceremonial repatriation of a fallen Afghan soldier in Toronto by OCAP – the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty.

Amongst the thousands of mal-contents were a few hundred “black-bloc”.  The black-bloc are not necessarily a single organization but a mix of like-minded fools who have taken lessons from the violence of past world meetings and employed the tactics of the most effectively violent demonstrations.  A black-bloc is a tactic for protests and marches, whereby individuals wear black clothing, scarves, ski masks, motorcycle helmets with padding or other face-concealing items and often carry some sort of shields and truncheons. The clothing is used to avoid being identified, and to, theoretically, appear as one large mass, promoting solidarity or creating the illusion of a larger group.

Make no mistake, the type of people employing black-bloc tactics are dangerous people and responsible for great property damage and person injury.  They are the reason there is a need for the massive security measures taken during these world meetings.  Such people should be dealt with very severely by the law and the courts.  If caught and convicted they should do considerable jail time.  Unfortunately that is almost never the case.

On the other side we have Dalton McGuinty and Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair.  On a request from Chief Blair McGuinty extended, in secret, the provincial Public Works Protection Act to take in part of the area inside the G-20 security barrier.  In this area police would be given the power to ask for anyone’s identity papers and to search anyone without cause or warrant.  Chief Blair either mistakenly or intentionally announced that the act applied to 5 meters outside the perimeter fence as well.  When it was discovered on Friday before the G-20 meeting that the Act only applied to inside the fence Blair told his officers but nobody else and his officers continued to violate the rights of people outside the fence.  What did McGuinty do?  Nothing. In fact he praised Chief Blair for his actions.  So it would appear that both McGuinty and Chief Blair were complicit in clear violations of people’s rights to a gross degree.

Over 1,000 people were arrested and detained at the G20, and while certainly some of those deserved to be the majority did not.  People who lived in the area were arrested while out walking their dogs, or returning home from work.  One journalist from the Guardian newspaper was beaten up by police even though he identified himself and apparently offered no resistance.  Many personal items, which were in no way a threat to peace, were confiscated by police.

Just as the black-bloc should be held to account for their actions those few over-zealous police should as well.

Currently when a police officer violates your rights it mitigates any charges against you.  I think this is not enough. When an officer of the law knowingly violates your rights, unlawfully detains you, steals your property, and beats you up they should be arrested and brought before a judge and if found guilty they should face appropriate sentencing up to and including time in prison and dismissal from the force.

As for Mr. McGuinty we can only hope the electorate holds him to account for his callous disregard for our rights.

2 – The Anarchists

One of the glaring over-sights by the media in the G20 protests was the incorrect labeling of the demonstrators as “anarchists”.  While it is true that a few like the “Southern Ontario Anarchist Resistance” think themselves as anarchists, descriptions I have found for them clearly indicate that they are not, nor are any of the other protesters. Some call themselves anarcho-communists which means Communist  and while it was the ideological intention of the Communists to have a stateless and classless society they tried to achieve this bizarre goal by creating the biggest, most brutal, and deadly state of all, the Soviet Union.

Anarchy comes from the Greek and means “without ruler”.  Taken to its conclusion it means no state, no authority, lawless.  None of the groups that were identified as taking part in the G20 protests could be described as that.

We have the various unions including OPSEU and CUPE.  The unions advocate a socialist state.  They are anti-capitalist.  Many prefer the mixed-economy of constrained capitalism which in actuality is socialism and in particular, fascism.  They advocate the confiscation of property and the redistribution of wealth by, guess what… the state.  They are not anarchists.  They use the courts and the state’s institutions daily in their efforts to control their employers and to take more from those who earn it and give it to those who don’t.

Members or supporters of Greenpeace and other environmental movements were demonstrating.  Their goal is not anarchy but the use of power of the state over business, capitalism and the regulation of individual behavior.  You cannot achieve these goals without authority, power, police and a state.

The various other brands of Maoists, Communists and Socialists demonstrating are far from anarchists; in fact a powerful, authoritative state is essential for their causes.  They need jack-booted thugs to impose their will on us and while they may be against the police and the courts today they are for the police and the courts when it comes time to enforce their laws and regulations on us.

The anti-poverty groups and anti-homeless groups are advocating robbing Peter to pay Paul.  Once again… socialists.

So why would QMI, The Globe and Mail and even the National Post incorrectly label the protesters as anarchists?  It is because to correctly label them would mean that they would have to try and explain how the goals of the protesters are the same goals of Dalton McGuinty, Jack Layton, Sid Ryan, Stephen Harper, Barack Obama, David Suzuki and a host of millions like them.   It is pure irony that the protesters are protesting the same leaders who are actually implementing their anti-capitalist agenda.

I scanned and read hundreds of news articles on the G20 protests and could not come up with a single one which correctly identified the protesters as left-wing, socialist, or even radical left.  This is by design.  If the skin-head neo-Nazis protest they are labeled as right wing, when in fact Nazi’s are socialists too.  Do we so soon forget what makes up the word NAZI?  National Socialism!

It is always the Left which is protesting.  It is always the Socialists who are violent.  It is always the Anti-Capitalists who break the store-front windows and loot and burn.

How often do we see the thousands of suit and tie business men and women team out of their office towers on Bay street take to the street with balaclavas on their faces and beat people up with bats and smash their favorite Starbucks windows?   Never.  How often do we see shop owners and small businessmen who employ more people in this country than any other sector take to the street in violence to denounce the banks and oil companies?  Never.  Because these people know that the institutions of this country are essential to creating wealth and prosperity and employment.

It is only the Left, the Socialists, and the Anti-Capitalists who are causing the grief we see at these meetings.  And the sooner we identify the root cause of the trouble the quicker we can deal with it.

3 – The Cost

I mentioned before that it was ironic that the left wing protestors are protesting the very leaders and institutions responsible for implementing their anti-capitalist agendas.  Let’s look at some of the conclusions of the G8 and G20 to see this in action.

Regarding wealth redistribution and foreign aid; At the conclusion of the G8 Summit Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that, the total Canadian contribution for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health foreign aid will be $2.85 billion over five years.

For the environmentalists….Harper said

Among environmental issues, climate change remains top of mind.  We recognize the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should not exceed 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels.  Achieving this goal requires deep cuts in global emissions.

We strongly support the negotiations underway within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.  We reiterate our support for Copenhagen.

With regards to the economy the socialists should be thrilled that Keynesian economics is alive and well and impoverishing us all.

An article in the Globe and Mail of yesterday by Report on Business Columnists and one-time Libertarian Party of Canada Leader Neil Reynolds correctly points out that not one of the G20 leaders is a free-marketer.  They all subscribe to the Keynesian delusion that governments can invest money more efficiently and more productively than people can.

None of the G20 countries has pledged to end deficits.  None has pledged to reduce its national debt.  All will rely mostly on economic growth and tax increases to do the lifting, however limited, that the Toronto Consensus proposes.

Even though Keynes himself, only weeks before his death, refuted his theories and longed for the invisible hand of Adam Smith to save Britain we still see the world’s nations clinging to the socialist ideal of government involvement in the economy.  A true Capitalist would advocate the complete separation of the economy and the State and would see the G20 summit as a yet another attempt by the socialist elite to redistribute wealth and thereby impoverish the world.

Rather than protesting the G20 every single one of those left wing, socialist, anti-capitalist protesters should have gone to the summit and cheered on their beloved leaders and encourage them to continue their march to the left.

(Originally aired on Just Right show #158 July 1st, 2010.  To download the show visit http://www.justrightmedia.org)