Cancelling the weekly flyer stuffed weekly

Dear Victoria News, Please stop delivering your paper to 558 Sumas Street (all suites). The obscene amount of print advertising you include with your weekly may be beneficial to your bottom line (and indeed your very lifeblood) but we find it offensive. We do not want to contribute to environmental degradation just so you can get paid. The amount of paper and ink you waste on flyers we have absolutely no interest in is astonishing. I am very sorry that new technologies are killing your industry and I know you are doing what ever you can to survive, but creating more useless waste is an ultimately futile practice. It is absolutely bad business to deliver these products en masse, any benefit you are delivering to the community in the production of your news must be weighed against the amount of waste you are generating. Think about it.

Reading Response to Harold Entwistle's: The Relationship Between Educational Theory and Practice

(I've been too busy to blog for quite a while, so here's my first philosophy paper. Plenty o' reading here ladies and gentlemen, though perhaps not as entertaining as some of the other stuff.)

Summary:

In this essay Entwistle attempts to come to an understanding of how educational theory informs practice. As a former practitioner Enwistle is well aware of the reticence many educators feel to applying academic theory, in his own time teaching he shared this opinion. Now, as a theorist, Entwistle has a different perspective. Here he sets out to devise a compromise between the two concepts he once found to be completely incongruent. His argument centres around the position that whereas practitioners misunderstand the application of theory and theorists often abet this misunderstanding through obtuseness and idealism there is value in a theoretical view of education, if only it can be properly construed.

Entwistle begins with his personal connection to the subject. He has been on both sides of the argument, and after significant reflection about the contradictions he has come to believe that an elemental difficulty in the debate is that the problem is often framed incorrectly. He agrees with practitioners’ claims that theorists ivory-tower outlook is often lacking in the specific details that apply to daily life in the “real world,” but then suggests that practitioners also are at fault for expecting too much of theory.

Entwistle's first task is to delineate the misconceptions that exist on both sides. He starts with the assumptions of theorists. Theory, he contends, often idealizes the classrooms and learners that teachers know to be far from flawless. He raises the example of the “perfect learner” a curious, innocent and highly motivated student with a thirst for knowledge and an enthusiasm for learning. Some theoretical concepts use this model of students despite its distance from the reality most teachers know. To the contrary, he explains, man's distaste for organized learning is as old as organized learning itself. The utopian view of education is a “moral fiction” and is not at all reflective of the public school system where most practitioners toil.

He then explores the theorists' propensity for treating learners as individuals, for focusing on the needs of the single student when a teacher's job revolves around engaging and managing groups of students. Further, he identifies socialization as one of the fundamental goals of schooling; why else, he argues, would people who have the resources to educate their children individually choose to expose them to institutional learning. Although a focus on individual learning is logical and in many senses highly desirable, the exclusion of the social context can be seen as a fault of theory.

The third point he makes about theory's removal from the realities of practice is its failure to address the complexities of the systems of schooling. Theorists, he claims, tend to view teachers as independent actors when the truth is that they are beholden to many outside influences. Theorists seldom account for the impact of economic, legal and social restraints on education in their treatises. Entwistle provides the example of a teacher who must prepare students for testing. In some kinds of testing rote learning is the most effective strategy although it is known to be a dubious practice with little long-term value. The measurable goals that external overseers have for schooling can be very different from what theorists and practitioners envision as the aims of education.

Entwistle then turns his attention to the misconceptions of practitioners. The first point he makes here is that practitioners must realize that theorists are often aware of the problems of public education, even if their work does not always indicate such a sensitivity. A theorist does not claim to speak to individual cases but to generalities, and the practitioner must adapt theories to his or her circumstance. A successful merger of theory and practice can only take place when there is compromise. Even the most well developed and logical theories, according to Entwistle, must be applied with discrimination. Wholesale adoption of theory is bound to create problems because theory by its very nature is unable to predict the highly individual nature of classrooms and learners. A theory needs to be applied with creativity, reflection and a willingness to adapt. Theories are not designed to be magic cure-alls, but are prescriptions that must be weighed carefully prior to being administered. The critical thought of practitioners is key in the application of theoretical concepts.

Entwistle proposes that teachers must develop a wilful praxis of reflection on the value of theory in practice. They must enter into the realm of theory without viewing it as idealism or dogma, but rather as an essential tool in their ability to grow and adapt to new challenges as practitioners. The wisdom offered by theory can help practitioners to see a larger dimension to their profession than pure reliance on experience and one’s own beliefs. He cites the example of an Alberta teacher who may have been competent as an educator but made the fatal mistake of teaching hateful subject matter to students to give an extreme example of how an unreflective practitioner can get his role horribly wrong.

Entwistle agrees with Peters' assessment that Liberal Education is not a destination but an opportunity to see the world in a different way. Educated people are not just men and women with a set of practical skills and knowledge but individuals with the ability to enrich their lives through reflection. In this sense theory is not a practical mechanism for achieving specific ends, but a tool to allow practitioners to make finer distinctions, analyze situations critically, understand moral implications and adapt to evolving ideas within their worlds.

He ends his treatise by mentioning some of the ideas of Schön. Schön says that teachers think in terms of individual situations and learners, therefore their strategies are crafted to serve individual needs. Further, Schön argues, teacher’s reflections will always be in conflict with the aims of bureaucracy and will conclude that practice is not compatible with public education. Given these objections one can give up entirely on reflection or settle for compromise, wherein teachers adapt thinking to suit the situation at hand.

Critique:

It is apparent from the language, as well as the content, that this essay is written for teacher candidates or novice practitioners. Entwistle aims to enlighten the reader as to the value of theory because as a teacher turned academic he sees the importance of reflection and wisdom in the profession. He is attempting to speak to this mostly young and sceptical crowd his essay and succeeds in making it accessible to readers without a background in Educational Philosophy. Because Entwistle assumes limited knowledge of the debate on the part of the reader he takes pains to describe the most salient points of contention, especially as they apply to the novice practitioner’s opinions of theory.

One of the most elucidating comparisons that Entwistle makes in this essay is the correlation he sees between the relationship of teacher to scholar, and that of student to teacher. His point is that a lot of what we learn in classrooms can seem esoteric or useless to us, despite the fact that it seems valuable enough to the professor/teacher to impart. Although he is speaking in terms of school teachers who become Education professors it is possible to see his point from the public school student/teacher perspective. This creates a very interesting juxtaposition because it shows the practitioner―who constantly hears complaints from his students about how his lessons have no practical application―that his objections to theory are quite possibly as mistaken as his students' are about the value of his teaching. This assessment instantly gives the reticent teacher grounds to reassess his stance on theory because in it he must acknowledge his own bias, while recognizing that he may be unaware of the value of what he rejects.

Entwistle’s candid discussion on the faults of theory also gives the reader food for thought. As Simpson mentions in his essay The Relationship of Educational Theory, Practice and Research Entwistle’s willingness to dismiss bad theory invites the practitioner to view theory with a critical eye. He advocates for a measured and mature response to theory, placing the onus on teachers to become reflective rather than reactive. As Simpson relates, just as some practice is bad, so is some theory. One does not cease to practice because his methods are ineffective, rather one reevaluates, and this is precisely the time when a bit of theory becomes a valuable asset.

An important and perhaps overlooked aspect to theory that Entwistle entreats practitioners to consider is to what extent it can ever be personalized. Teachers, he says, are apt to dismiss theory that does not pertain to their particular circumstance, complaining that it is too general or dismissive of the context that they may find themselves in. However theory can never hope to specify a method for every particular educational setting, because if it were to do so its application would be extremely limited. For this reason it is not the job of theory to predict every contingency, rather it is the work of the practitioner to ask questions when things go wrong and then to seek guidance from theory. This is a very sensible approach, especially if one considers how a person with problems might address them in other professions. For example, if a responsible physician has a patient who is not responding to a particular medication he does not continue to prescribe it, he seeks other remedies to the problem. If the advice of his colleagues bears no fruit he delves deeper into medical literature and continues to ask questions. He may, if all else fails, try an experimental procedure, but he will only do so after having applied his judgement to the situation and taken the patient's medical history into consideration. Similarly, a teacher must be willing to stop using methods that are ineffective and be open to exploring other approaches. A foundation in theory allows the teacher to seek new remedies, whereas a wholesale dismissal of it yields nothing.

Entwistle does not do a very good job of selling this point however. The examples he uses are not particularly useful, and he seems to lose the focus of his argument somewhat. The elementary teacher his friend observed seemed to be preoccupied with everyday things rather than big-picture theories on education, but one can hardly blame her. For one thing the observer is explaining what the teacher is like during school hours a time when she is in the midst of trying to manage the very things Entwistle chides theorists for being dismissive of (i.e. the day to day worries of a teacher confronted with multiple individual needs in a highly bureaucratic environment.) To use another metaphor, if one hopes to gain insight into the intellectual processes of a soldier he does not ask questions in the midst of battle. His characterization of teachers being unreflective based on these observations is unfair, and quite possibly inaccurate. Most schools mandate (or at the very least make available) a certain amount of professional development and there are probably a good number of teachers who take this opportunity to reflect and to grow. Likewise, his mention of Jim Keegstra is a bit of a head-scratcher. For one thing it assumes a knowledge of the case which younger practitioners or candidates will not possess. One has no way of knowing if Keegstra was, as Entwistle suggests, someone who was “reflective according to his own lights.” He may have been a complete kook, the uninformed reader has no way of knowing. Ironically, in raising these examples Entwistle exhibits the danger of applying specifics to a general point, he is stepping outside of the theoretical realm to present concrete examples that seem to bare little relation to his central arguments. These examples undermine the credibility of the article because they do little to amplify his points, and to the contrary, create a seed of doubt about his thought process.

A more useful set of examples might have attempted to describe some situations where a reflective teacher, armed with theory was able to face a major challenge to his profession or career, that would have been difficult to address with self-reflection alone. For example, a brief discussion of desegregation in the United States. How would a teacher, trained and experienced only within a racist framework adjust his teachings and address his students prejudices based only on his past practice? This is an extreme case to be sure, but the point is educators have been forced to address radically different conditions during their career, and the odds of it happening again are very good. The political world outside the classroom is constantly adjusting its assumptions and expectations with respect to the realm of public education. A contemporary example of this would be the adoption of standards testing across the United States and in many (if not all) Canadian provinces. These measures are intended to hold teachers accountable in a very strict fashion and go against the model of Liberal Education that most teachers were schooled in, whether or not they have a clear conception of that model. The educator with a foundation in theory is in a much better position to understand the forces that have shaped this new dimension, and also is more capable of adapting to the new order that it imposes. Entwistle’s work would be enhanced by providing some historical and contemporary context for the role of theory in education.

Entwistle does offer some words of advice for theorists as well as practitioners. His primary complaint is that theorists tend to overlook the need for compromise in the field of education. He goes as far as to suggest that this should be a separate area of study. Everyday life, he explains, is full of compromise and creating theory that does not account for this basic reality is bound to chase away practitioners who must make concessions daily. This too is highly sensible. A theorist who cannot modify his thinking to account for some of the realities of the classroom is doomed to be disregarded. After all, one hardly needs to consult a theory if everything is perfect. Theory must be devised for the situations in which it is the most useful. A private teacher of a small group of ideal students does not need theory as much as someone who has a large group of unruly kids who would rather be anywhere but in school. Although he does not say it outright, one gets the impression that Enwistle is suggesting that a theorist may become insulated and egotistical, that he may forget that his job is not to prognosticate from on high, but to use his wisdom to inform the practitioners who will benefit most from it.

This essay itself is essentially a theoretical attempt at compromise. Entwistle, in admitting the limits of theory and outlining the responsibilities of the reflective practitioner, is mapping a route for convergence―creating a space where the seemingly separate realms of theory and practice can co-exist. He is presenting himself as a humble theorist, not an ivory tower academic with a reputation to uphold. Theory, he admits, will never walk hand in hand with practice, it is an impossible wish. But that does not absolve theorists from attempting to wed the two, nor does it excuse practitioners from gaining a knowledge of the concepts that underpin their profession.

Words to Consider

“No nation can donate liberation to another nation. These values must be fought for and won by the people themselves. They can only grow and flourish when they are planted by the people in their own soil and watered by there own blood and tears.”

“Dust has been thrown into the eyes of the world by your governments. You have not been told the truth. The situation now is as catastrophic as it was under the Taliban for women. Your governments have replaced the fundamentalist rule of the Taliban with another fundamentalist regime of warlords. (That is) what your soldiers are dying for.”

“There is no difference for ordinary Afghans between the Taliban and the equally fundamentalist warlords. Which groups are labeled ‘terrorist’ or ‘fundamentalist’ depends on how useful they are to the goals of the US. You have two sides who terrorize women, but the anti-American side are ‘terrorists’ and the pro-American side are ‘heroes.’”

~Malalai Joya Member of Afghan Parliament

Today's Comment

Here is a link to the editorial that this comment was submitted to.

So what you are saying, oh nameless one, is that a chemical addiction is the only real addiction? And that people who resort to other non-substance based highs, such as gambling, adultery, binge eating and the like are not addicts but ordinary "self-indulgent" people who make excuses for themselves based on the diagnosis of overly liberal psychologists?

I understand your point that the meaning of the word "addiction" has been stretched, but you take it way too far. Unfortunately the English language has a way of adapting a lot of words whose definitions some might wish were more succinct, but you have lost your way in trying to rein this one in.

Give your head a shake sir (or madam). It doesn't matter how we get there, if we are endangering ourselves and our families because of addiction, habituation or whatever you want to call it, we have a mental health issue. Calling sick people self-indulgent and diminishing their disease does nothing but create a world where sick people refuse to seek help, or worse still, are not offered it. Do you want to tell a 14 year old girl that her anorexia is self-indulgent and that she should just get over herself?

Wake-up bub.

Subsidizing dual-flushers is wasteful and pointless

RE: City may credit toilet replacement (Sept. 18).

Offering people rebates to people to junk perfectly good toilets in favour of dual-flushers is wasteful and unnecessary. There are already effective strategies that can greatly reduce water consumption at no cost to consumers and taxpayers.

Two obvious tactics come to mind: 1) place a brick or two in your tank so you are flushing with less water; 2) flush your urine less often.

A public education campaign would be a better way for the city to promote conservation without putting a greater burden on landfills and the pocket-book.

Rebuttal to an Editorial

Re: Do the Math

To argue that all one needs from school is the three "Rs" is disingenuous to the max, and I can only hope that it was meant ironically. People who have "mastered" the three "Rs" are then placed in a world where agendas (ex. marketing) underlie every bit of literature they read and every bit of math that they are presented with (ex. subprime loans). They need to write intelligently, not just to score the job at the local Payless that will feed and clothe them until retirement, but to be capable of organizing and expressing their thoughts.

Although it is certainly true that we don't all need university educations it is equally true that we do need to have an ability to understand context, as well as content, and that this is something that most people cannot grasp without some form of advanced education.

The point of education, at least in Canada, is not just to produce smart shoe salesmen but to nurture citizens so they are capable of participating in our robust democracy. Our national life is full choices and challenges that only an educated body politic is adequately equipped to address.

Another comment to the Freep: Education must address the roots of failure

A new comment, and a link to the article it refers to:

The problem is not "social promotion," but a one-size-fits-all solution to education. We assume that children of a certain age should be able to perform at a certain academic level without taking into account the vast differences children experience in development and environment.

Social promotion is an attempt to rectify this by hoping that children will eventually catch-up developmentally to their peers. It is a deeply flawed ideolgy, but so is the one that states that failing kids and making them do the same coursework over again will be beneficial (because it punishes children for something they often have very little control over.)

A better strategy would be to intervene in a "failing" child's schooling before s/he is so far behind that failure is inevitable. Counselling, one-on-one time with educators and redesign of course material so it better reflects the learning styles of children are what is required, not a complete "do-over" of teaching the material in the same ineffective fashion.

New Comment

The WFP has way more comments than the Victoria paper, so I still check in to get my debate on. Here's my most recent comment and a link to the page it came from.

SeeTheOtherSide,

Rules change only because people oppose them. Many very good, upstanding (and yes, responsible) people regularly break senseless rules. The point of stop signs in some places (as Doreen quite correctly states) is to slow traffic, and (as she humourously adds) bikes seldom need slowing. Fining people for breaking such laws creates ill will among the citizenery (if the letters to this paper be any judge) and accomplishes nothing in the name of public safety.

People who blindly cede to illogical rules live unhappy lives, those who challenge them sometimes live to see change.

Another comment to the Freep

Here's a second comment (see post below) from this article.

I'm afraid Mr. Katz makes at least one very compelling point, and that is: what is to be done. All this money the Global Warmers would have us spend on new technologies may not solve the problem. Should we bet our futures on unproven solutions in order to evade unproven scenarios? There is too much momentum, climate changers, to change the human race's desire for all the prosperity and comfort that cheap energy buys. So buckle up, because what will happen will happen, and all your so called solutions are pie in the sky.

Still reading the Free Press

Here's a comment I sent today based on this article:

All the tickets issued to cyclists at this intersection should be protested, and the laws regarding cyclists at stop signs revised to reflect the realities of bike riding. There is no practical reason why a cyclist should have to stop at a three way stop if he or she is not planning to turn (or in this case, to turn without having to cross over). The purpose of three way stops is to often to slow traffic. Bikes do not need to be slowed in the same way cars do. In the absence of other vehicles bikes should be permitted to pass through the signs.

Although I am in complete agreement with having bikes obey the laws of traffic there are circumstances where these laws are written with cars in mind and do not take into account the realities of cycling (i.e. that stopping for every stop sign reduces a cyclists momentum and adds considerably to the effort required to ride).

The WPS's predatory actions in this instance show that they are out to target the cycling community and send a message, but they chose a really stupid place to send this message, because skipping this particular sign does not endanger anyone. The cyclists of Winnipeg should stand up and demand that laws be re-written to avoid such a scandalous use of police enforcement in the future.

Gang Violence and the War on Drugs

I was going to submit this to the Free Press, but they had an editorial today in a very similar vein, so I don't know that I will.

The gang violence this city has witnessed in the last several years has contaminated some of our city’s most vibrant and diverse neighborhoods—good and bad people alike live in fear of the random bullet that may be coming their way. The status and money offered by a life of crime are a powerful lure to the naïve, underprivileged and morally oblivious inner-city youth who see their elders suffering in perpetual poverty while their communities sink into disrepair. Some believe the answer to this dilemma lays in greater law enforcement, but ironically it is the misguided aims of the law that have created such a powerful gang environment, if not the indigence it preys upon.

The lifeblood of the gangs is the drug trade. The war against illicit drugs has never diminished the demand for them to a significant degree, even after nearly a century. What we see today in our city, and even more strikingly in places like Mexico, is that prohibition creates drug militias that cater to the realities our governments refuse to acknowledge. The obscene profits generated by the demand for drugs fuels the aggression and pays for the weapons that protect the territory coveted by the suppliers.

There is no doubt that illicit drugs destroy lives. One can hardly condone the sale of crack cocaine or crystal meth, but at the same time allowing unprincipled street urchins to become the sole purveyors of chemical euphoria creates a situation where bad drugs proliferate. Gangs are entrepreneurial enterprises interested in maximizing profits and highly addictive substances that are cheap to produce are pure gravy for them. They do not care about the destruction they wreak on individual lives or communities, they are selling a quick fix to the problems of our society, and there are a lot of people out there who are buying.

The enforcement of drug prohibition is by necessity scattershot because there can never be enough resources to commit to the problem. Taking down a major cartel is like cutting a head off the Hydra: two more will grow back. In the case of some substances there is such an abundance of supply that even a major bust is merely a drop in the ocean. Ironically, what enforcement does is justify the outrageous amounts consumers are willing to pay for these products, and the ends that cartels are willing to go to to protect their racket.

Unfortunately jail-time is hardly a deterrent to the people who make their living selling drugs. As the example of the United States makes perfectly evident stiffer sentences have little effect on the problem of drug trafficking. What it creates is a culture of incarceration that is extremely expensive to administer while offering little protection to the public.

Laws against drugs are generally a burden on society that provide no benefits, but the case against marijuana prohibition presents a particularly compelling example of their ineffectiveness. Marijuana is an easily grown plant that produces a relatively mild effect depending on the strain and the individuals experience with the drug. The only people who would consider it more dangerous than alcohol are those who have never tried it. It is hugely popular among all age groups in this country and almost always available from somewhere. It is a major source of revenue for some of the biggest, baddest gangs in Canada. Legalizing marijuana tomorrow would divert a major source of gang revenue to our government without causing a significant threat to public safety.

The demand for narcotics has not abated since drug enforcement became the international juggernaut it is today. Whereas the music of the sixties glamourized the use of drugs as mind-expanding, the music today glamourizes not just the drugs but the violence and big payouts that accompany a gangster lifestyle. It used to be that the pusherman was reviled; now he is a hero.

The moral superiority that drives the continued prohibition of certain narcotics while generously prescribing others is hypocritical beyond belief, meanwhile the war on drugs is a costly exercise in futility. The way forward is to legalize the least hazardous illicit narcotics immediately while finding ways to make the deadlier ones less desirable to would-be users.

Allowing people to use illicit substances to the tune of their consciences will not create more of an epidemic in public health than already exists, it will however permit scientists to study drug use more effectively, let help agencies attempt more controversial methods for rehabilitation and give governments access to a fair share of the profits. Perhaps the greatest benefit of all though will be that the lives of countless peace officers, military personnel and civilians will be saved by starving the drug armies out of existence and denying street gangs access to easy money.

Letter to my dentist

Dear Dr. Lekic,

I am writing to inform you of my disappointment at the tactics employed by your current office assistant. I have been a good client of yours for the past several years and I have always been satisfied with your work and the work of your hygienists and previous office staff. However the aggressive and unwarranted methods of your current office help deserve mention.

A few months ago I booked a tentative Saturday appointment with your office. The condition of this, to my understanding, was that I would respond with a verbal confirmation when your assistant called me back later in the week. I did not respond to the message left by your assistant which to my mind means I was not prepared to make the appointment. Your assistant insists that this booking was already confirmed when in fact we agreed otherwise.

Following this the assistant claimed I owed $50 for a missed appointment, a fee she later said she was willing to waive if I booked another appointment. The fact that she was willing to waive the fee shows me that she either feels a certain degree of culpability, or is deviously attempting to retain my business through coercion. Either way I fully intended to re-book, despite the fact that I was in a sense being blackmailed, but circumstances made that difficult for me, and I no longer have the time for a cleaning.

I am planning to move very shortly and so I called again to ask for my records. When I made the request your assistant reasserted the claim that I owe you a fee of $50 and said my records will not be released without it. Dr. Lekic, this is an unjustified fee in light of the understanding between myself and your assistant with regard to the appointment in question. It raises concerns about your practice in my mind and I am tempted to raise these problems with your association. Furthermore, despite the fact that you are very talented dentist and employ a really good hygienist I cannot recommend your services to any of my friends and associates in the future based on the actions of your office help. I urge you to resolve this issue by allowing me to access my records without having to pay the $50 your office claims I owe.

Sincerely,

Letter to The Walrus:Second-person perspective=pretentious

Dear Walrus,

In the last few months I've read a couple of articles in your magazine written from a second person perspective. I don't know if the authors of these pieces (Mark Kingwell, Does Obama Change the Game and Chris Turner, An Inconvinient Talk) think this is a clever device, or novel way to approach their subject but from my point of view writing in this manner is extremely distracting. Although some excuse can be made for Kingwell's piece, wherein he is imagining the thoughts of another person, the article by Turner simply replaces the "I" with a "you" for no apparent reason. I found both of these articles extremely pretentious, an adjective that sadly is becoming an apt descriptor for your magazine more and more as time goes on.

The English language is an extremely malleable beast, and that's part of what makes it so fascinating to use and to study, but when one is writing journalistically it is important to be clear and to use direct language. Replacing the more accepted first and third-person perspectives may seem like a good idea to a writer who is seeking a unique voice, but in the end it is a meaningless contrivance that ads an unwarranted layer of confusion and affectation.

EI Fails Seasonal Workers

As published in today's Free Press

One of the major issues facing our national government in the most recent session of Parliament is the need to reform the Employment Insurance scheme. This need arises mainly due to the massive layoffs in manufacturing in Eastern Canada and the resource-based jobs that have suffered in the West due to a worldwide recession. But equally important is the need to establish a new set of guidelines for seasonal employees like myself, who because of the nature of our work are sometimes forced to play it fast and loose with Employment Insurance regulations.

For the last two years I have worked as an educational assistant at a local high school. The work itself is difficult at times, but also highly rewarding. The primary problem with it is that it is not paid like a full-time job and therefore it can be a difficult way to make a living wage. Fortunately, the government recognizes the value of this work and allows EAs and other seasonal school employees to collect EI benefits; but because the EI system is a one-trick pony our group of workers, once laid-off, are considered to be job-seekers. We are required to pretend as though we are actively looking for work lest we have our benefits denied, or worse, face prosecution. But this provision is entirely unnecessary given that we already have good jobs. The only thing it accomplishes is creating a big hassle for everyone: employers must shuffle through insincere resumes, claimants are barred from conducting other useful pursuits over the breaks and enforcement of these regulations creates a strain on the resources of HRSDC.

I don't have a problem with looking for part-time work over the summer, or even seeking a regular part-time job to supplement my income, but that should be strictly my choice. I am capable of improving my lot in life through hard work if I care to, but I find it illogical to insist I be looking to replace a job I enjoy and am highly qualified for simply to satisfy a mandatory requirement that blindly disregards the nature of my employment.

I wish it were possible to receive a decent full-year contract for my work. My teacher colleagues get monthly paycheques whether or not school is in session. But school divisions are always looking to cut costs and have managed to cook up a good deal with the feds whereby my salary is supplemented by Employment Insurance once the work runs out.

This situation, though far from ideal, ensures that my employer can retain an experienced and professional staff without having to constantly replace workers from a less-qualified base of applicants, for an annual income that would be otherwise far less palatable.

Workers in other fields may or may not have sympathy with my cause, but I would argue that the value of the work EAs produce, though it will not appear as an immediate gain to the GDP, is integral to the smooth functioning of our school system and the children we are preparing for work and life tomorrow.

A major component of our job is establishing relationships with students and creating a consistency in our approach with them so that they can grow and achieve with proper guidance. The idea that we should be out looking for another job over the weeks of Christmas holidays or spring break is completely absurd given these conditions. Perhaps the notion that we seek work over summer is more logical, but the market for summer jobs is dominated by (and often subsidized strictly for) students, and most jobs have already been awarded by the start of our layoff period in July.

A more constructive approach to the dilemma posed by Employment Insurance's regulations would be to allow workers like myself to pursue some kind of volunteer or community work rather than going through the charade of looking for a job we have no intention of undertaking. As a person who works with emotionally troubled and developmentally delayed kids, I have a wealth of skills that could be otherwise employed over the summer months. If I were freed from the demand that I be searching for work I don't need, I could be continuing to contribute to society rather than having to answer bi-weekly questionnaires designed to test whether I deserve the stipend I require or waiting endlessly to talk to an agent when I unintentionally failed to cross a "T" or dot an "I."

The government must create more flexibility within the EI system and provide recipients with more options for receiving benefits than currently exist.

The system itself was developed with a very singular set of assumptions that are often contrary to the circumstances of seasonal workers and even to the workers who do need career change assistance.

The bad news is that this seems like a monumentally difficult task given the great diversity and unpredictability of paid employment within the Canadian economy; the good news is that this is one bit of work that all major federal parties seem intent on tackling.

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition July 20, 2009 A11

An appeal letter to HRSDC about my EI claim

Today I opened a letter from the government telling me that my claim for benefits over spring break (actually, this is time I would use as part of the two-week "waiting period") had been denied because I was dumb enough to admit that I hadn't looked for work, instead of just B.S.ing. Here is my response:

To Whom It May Concern,

I wish to appeal the decision of HRSDC regarding my ineligibility for benefits for the week of April 30–May 4, 2009. The basis for this appeal rests on information provided to me verbally from an agent at your office, and on the illogic of the rules of Employment Insurance as it relates to seasonal employees of school districts.

I was informed by a source in your office (sorry I didn’t write down the name) that the core issue for qualification was whether I was available to be contacted and/or accept a job offer and return to work within 24 hours. As I explained to this person I most certainly could have made this hypothetical move if it were to arise. I had a cell phone with me the entire time and was near enough to an airport to return to Winnipeg, or any city in Canada for that matter if the need arose. However, as I shall explain below, there was really no need for this because I was set to resume work within the week.

The purpose of my original letter was to clarify the guideline that I must be actively looking for work in the period wherein I was laid-off, an action I was planning on, but failed to accomplish because I spent the time looking after my nephews instead of making phone calls. If you feel the need to deny me because of this I feel that you should do so with a better understanding of my situation because frankly your system was not set-up with workers of my kind in mind and I feel like this is just one example of how you fail to represent our interests.

I am an employee of a school division who experiences regular, predetermined layoffs due to the nature of my job. The government has graciously allowed people of my class to collect benefits during these periods, making what I consider to be a very important job a viable career alternative for a lot more qualified people. Without EI benefits our jobs would be harder to fill because we are paid on an hourly basis and do not get enough hours in a year to maintain a decent standard of living. Although summer jobs and part-time work are a possibility for some there are many employers who cannot work around the pre-existing commitment school workers have to their permanent “seasonal” jobs.

Despite the fact that I have a job I will be returning to in very short order I am expected to be looking for work over the brief periods in Winter and Spring where I experience mandatory lay-offs. I can’t think of any reason why I would leave a secure job I love half-way through the school year to work somewhere else, but your system is set up to assume that I would and should be considering this. The stipulation that I be: “ready, willing and capable of working each day, Monday through Friday during each week of this report” is irrelevant because there was no work available for me to engage in at that time.

I wrote to you to confess that I hadn’t the time to participate in this charade mostly out of fear that you would somehow discover that I hadn’t done it and fine me for it. But honestly do you want to punish me because I should have been out pounding the pavement over the March break knowing I’d be back at work in a week?

With the approval of your department our group of employees has been allowed to use the school breaks in December and March towards the waiting period we must serve before collecting benefits. In my mind this approved way of getting us onto the roles is a tacit admission that the nature of work is important to Canada economically and socially and that we are deserving of EI benefits. The stipulation that we be actively looking for work during these periods make no sense given the value of the work we produce. Would you want experienced Educational Assistants who have formed relationships with vulnerable students moving out of their jobs midway through the year to be replaced by people who may or may not be qualified?

You must grant me an exception for the week of April 30–May 4, 2009 because the stipulation you would use to deny my claim is counter to the spirit of the agreement held between your department and workers in my field. The fact that these stipulations exist in law can be traced to the impossibility of drafting legislation that can predict and protect the complex nature of seasonal work across our economy. Although the intent of the condition that workers actively continue their search for work is laudable it is an inherently illogical provision for workers in my circumstance. Most commonly school workers like myself simply agree to the statement with our noses held and hope not to get hassled about if a review of their claims should occur. We all know this requirement is a canard in our case, and quite frankly, so do you.

Please do not deny me the benefits I need and deserve because I was unable to look for work during the week I was off from a job that I had was expected to return to after a five day break, it is cruel and unjustifiable in light of the facts.

Bike scofflaws vs. car culture

As Published in Today's Free Press

5/07/2009 1:00 AM

There's been a lot of discussion lately about just where bikes belong in Winnipeg's future. The provincial and municipal governments have promised to add a corridor for cyclists along the new bus-way being built in south Winnipeg. Activists are upset that the route will be spliced by a dangerous four-lane underpass, but overall the inclusion of such amenities for cyclists shows that our city is forward-thinking. Or does it?

Currently, the idea of cycling in Winnipeg remains a risky proposition for the majority of would-be bike commuters. They are afraid for their lives because some drivers claim the road as their inherent right, and use intimidation to enforce their opinion. As a cyclist I have been cut off, told off and nearly sideswiped on numerous occasions -- not to mention the time I was dangerously assaulted with an ice-cream treat hurled from a vehicle at high speed. That incident might have caused permanent paralysis if the force from the projectile had not been absorbed by my helmet.

Recent comments online have provided some insight into why drivers feel as though their rights to the road are predominant, but for the most part their justifications are built on ignorance rather than fact. For instance, some drivers claim that their insurance and licensing premiums are paying for the roads and that permits them greater entitlement. But according to Manitoba Public Insurance, none of the licensing and insurance fees go toward infrastructure; rather, the fees are used to pay out claims and maintain reserve funds.

Other drivers believe the gas taxes they pay are the reason they should be given exclusive use of our roads, but this rationalization is indefensible. Would anyone argue that a person who smokes should be given greater access to hospitals because he contributed more to health care through tobacco taxes? When it comes to community property, we are all granted equal access with no regard for individual contributions. A cyclist is still a taxpayer and has every right to use the roads in all seasons without fear of retribution.

However, I must admit that some of the arguments made by indignant motorists are justifiable and point to areas where cyclists must accept the criticism and act to improve their behavior.

While every year sees more and more cyclists who follow the laws on Winnipeg streets, these individuals are still the exception rather than the rule. The majority of cyclists act as though the laws of traffic were written for someone else. They insist on the right to use the road only to blatantly abuse it, or seek amnesty on the sidewalks only to terrorize pedestrians.

It is unfortunate that cyclists cannot be held to a higher standard with respect to the laws they regularly violate. With cars we have the disincentive of impoundment, fines, increased insurance premiums and even imprisonment if the vehicle is being operated dangerously.

Bicycles are cheap to acquire, easily repaired without a claim and can be quickly ditched if they become a liability. There is simply not enough law enforcement available to really patrol bikes, especially since they constitute such a small threat to public safety in comparison to motor vehicles. Nonetheless it is essential that cyclists do obey the laws of traffic because it is the only way to claim true equality on the street.

Arrogant riders who regularly goad drivers and pedestrians make the streets more dangerous for all of us. Most drivers are annoyed to some extent when cyclists dart wantonly through controlled intersections or pass them along the curb at stop lights. To some people this is a clear indication that cyclists cannot be trusted on the streets and therefore are not welcome. Sadly, others use this disrespect for the law to justify the treacherous games of terror that they engage in when confronting riders on the streets.

It is no longer acceptable to cling to the tyranny of the motorized majority that has created such a powerful and presumptuous car culture in Winnipeg. Times are changing and drivers must recognize the right of cyclists to exist in Winnipeg in all seasons. But cyclists cannot demand equality without concessions of their own. Riders must grow up and acknowledge it is their responsibility to show the same manners on the road they demand from drivers.

Mutual respect must be the code adopted by drivers and cyclists going forward. It is wonderful that our city is finally building the infrastructure that will support a greater cycling community, but even with a vast network of trails, bicycles will still need to access city streets regularly. A course of civility is the only way to ensure that future harmony is possible among the currently divergent groups.

I like to debate

This is my response to a letter published in today's paper. Here's the original letter:

How can you allow Gwynne Dyer to get away with false statements such as "by 1939 almost everybody agreed that the world had been wrong to blame the First World War on Germany."

It is genuine, recorded knowledge, that Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany approved "The Schlieffen Plan" in 1897. Look it up at the library; it's there for all to see.

The only problem with Germany's invasion of France, in 1914, was that the Schlieffen Plan called for German troops to march "unopposed, through Belgium" on their way to "invade and conquer" France, which Schlieffen had calculated they could do in two weeks time ifthey followed his plan. The recorded historical fact is that Belgium refused to comply with that request but the Kaiser and his boys ordered it to take place anyway, regardless of Belgium's opposition. That resulted in the 1914-1918 conflict.

Germany, most definitely, "started" the Great War of 1914 to 1918.

Ian C. Thomson

Winnipeg

RCK says:

Determining who started a war is not always as cut and dry as deciding who fired the first shot or mounted the first invasion. There were a complex set of factors that started WWI, and although Germany was responsible for it's fair share the rest of the Great Powers were also deeply committed to fostering the animosity that fermented into war. The statement that Ian C. Thomson labels as false is an opinion that is shared almost universally by historians—it's possible that he has been snooping around in the wrong part of the library.

Thought of the Day

This is a comment that came from the Winnipeg Free Press site on an article by Colleen Simard, and my rebuttal of that post.

Original Comment from an anonymous person:

Ms Simard, this column seems somewhat superfluous. Just another excuse to pick.

I agree there should be adequate education funding on the reserves.

But I don't agree we(government) should have to replace houses every time your people destroy them. We don't live in them, they do. If I destroy my abode, nobobdy's going to replace it for me.

Opportunities? Can nobody think on those reserves? Has nobody (aboriginal) got any ideas? How about building houses?

I agree there should not be a delay in implementing something as basic as hand sanitizers, but from what I've heard and read, even some of your leaders were concerned about the alcohol-based products being abused.

But let's just call a spade a spade. As far as you/your people are concerned, we(whites)/they(government) will never get it right.

I read a very interesting opinion a while ago, and I wondered why more isn't made of it. It was to the effect that first nations in fact don't (never did) 'own' this land, and shouldn't be demanding anything, treaties or no treaties. Why? Because, like us, their forefathers were settlers who immigrated from somewhere else too.

My Response:

Uh, nameless one? Do you really want to argue that First Nations have no right to this land because their forefathers settled here from somewhere else? All peoples from all nations settled their lands from somewhere else (except the very founding tribes of the human species who were themselves evolved from other pre-human groups). If you advance this opinion you are saying in essence that none of us has any right to our land.

Even without a written history of from where indigenous tribes originated and who (if anyone) their ancestors needed to battle in order to claim this land the fact is that THEY WERE ALREADY HERE when Europeans came to the Americas to resettle them. These First Nations possessed their lands as surely as any European nation owned theirs (although they mostly viewed this "ownership" to it in a completely different way).

This BS rationalization that you find "interesting" is untenable at it's very core and something only someone who wants to promote a racist agenda would dream up. It is bereft of reason and makes no logical sense, which is why no one has made anything of it and no one ever will.

A comment made on the WFP site

This is a rebuttal to an earlier comment I made on the WFP site here. My handle, in case it's too hard for you to figure out, is rck.

paket: The notion that the road is more yours because you pay for gas and licensing is ridiculous. First of all a lot of cyclists own cars and therefore pay for licensing (which in any case is used to pay for the bureaucracy of licensing and MPI, not, as far as I know, for infrastructure). As far as gas taxes go, some of them do pay for roads, but keep in mind that your vehicle is much heavier and therefore creates significantly more wear and tear than a bike. Cyclists are also tax payers and have the same rights to the road that you enjoy--the extra amount you pay for the privilege of driving is your choice, but does not entitle you to more of the road. If you are in a single passenger vehicle and I am one man on a bike we are, in my view, equals. I will do my best to speed you on your way, but I'm not willing to put my life at risk so you can beat me to the next stop light.

Like Diskdoctor I believe bike paths should be cleared year-round on a fairly regular basis. There are more and more Winnipeggers out there every winter who realize that it's not as impractical as it first appears to ride year-round (unless it is during or just after an intense snowfall). I've been doing it for years and see no reason to stop. Encouraging this behavior lessens the pressure on car traffic and crowded transit routes. An extended river trail would make particularly good (and cheap) sense because it is entirely free of traffic (and a wonderful ride!)

T-Rev: I too hate to see cyclists abusing the rules of the road because it gives people like you justification for taking my life lightly. Just try and remember that we are all people, but when we are on bikes we are especially vulnerable people. The games you play out of vengeance may end-up killing or mauling someone who was a courteous cyclist or otherwise innocent human, someone who may have children, or at the very least other living people who love them as much as you love the people in your life. Next time you feel the need to aggressively cut someone off to teach bike-rider-kind a lesson please ask yourself if it is really worth risking that person's life for.

Also: Bikes on sidewalks are much more likely to collide with vehicles because they don't stop at every street crossing and cars don't always either—it's a very dangerous and impractical solution, even in the absence of pedestrians. Bikes belong on roads, and until this city gets its act together to make safety a priority we are going to have to learn to live with each other.

Opinion on the Dominion Institute

This is a letter to the editors I submitted in response to today's Editorial "Manitoba among best of a bad lot at teaching history." The Dominion Institute is an organization that believes Canadian History should be a mandatory subject in Canadian high schools; every year it publishes a report grading the provinces on their curriculum based on a very loose set of standards.

I'm not sure that by not teaching Canadian History in high schools we are "putting our country's future in jeopardy." It is an assumption made by this report without any substantial quantification. Clearly it is important to know some of the details of how Canada came to be, but it is equally, if not more, important is to know where it is going. I think a province that chooses to teach civics, and/or courses that take World History into as much consideration as Canadian History is probably as well off (if not better) than one that only mandates secondary instruction in Canadian History.

The methodology of this survey is flawed, and its annual, almost universally unchallenged presence in the Canadian media is regrettable. Does it really matter if people can identify the year of our confederation or Canada's first PM? Is it not more important for example that they have an understanding of our charter and the historical movements and ideas that gave birth to it rather than the dates and personalities of Confederacy?

Buying into GM a Huge Waste

The government’s plan to buy a significant percentage of a dying auto maker strikes me as a most irresponsible and idiotic gesture. GM has been proved, in the fierce arena of the Free Market, to be a loser—an arrogant loser who made cars people didn’t want and dumped workers to enhance profits. Their end has been long predicted, and many analysts already speculate that the money our government has so wantonly promised is only a brief stay to GM’s ultimate demise.

In the final analysis the government made a decision to bail out this fallen Goliath because of all the people who would be crushed beneath its weight. But the billions they tossed after the broken business model, in an attempt to resurrect this giant, would have been better directed retooling the car dependent economies of Southern Ontario.

Prime Minister Harper said: “I wish there were an alternative but the alternative to what we're doing today would be vastly more costly and more risky.” Perhaps, but this is a situation that calls for a bit of risk and some creative thinking. The problem with the government’s stance on this matter is that it is based expedience and political necessity neither of which will serve the interests of GM or Canada in the long run.

We are betting a very scary chunk of our future on the hope that GM will be able to restructure itself after decades of indolence. The government is confident that the cobwebs be cleared from the boardroom, inefficiencies fine-tuned out of the designs and malaise swept from the factory floor. But before such things come to pass, if they do at all, the government’s mandate may well have expired, and we’ll still be paying for this grand experiment in social capitalism.

What this decision exposes to me is the knee-jerk instincts of governments who’s primary objective is to keep winning elections. Mr. Harper said the decision to pay GM’s ransom was “regrettable but necessary.” I say a leader with real vision would say: “We are very sorry to the families and communities who depend on this industry, but it is now as dead as the dinosaurs. We will spend $6 billion (plus another $3.5 from your provincial coffers) to develop new industries. While GM spins its wheels down south trying to become more “environmental” we will fund solutions that are not wasteful exercises in want over need…” or some thing to that effect.

GM has contributed greatly to our spendthrift North American lifestyles. It created vehicles with shelf-lives in order to ensure new orders. It created demand for fuel guzzling behemoths even as “energy security” was becoming more of an issue for its national government. I hate to say it, but it deserves to die. It should be sold off to the sharks and the uneatable parts should be recycled into something that will serve the national interest to a greater extent than the gas-sucking, break-down buggies so cleverly marketed by the magnates in Michigan.

Who are the Barbarians?

solvent in righteousness

bankrupt of common sense

using emotion as your weapon

you wage a crusade of ignorance

you beat down the downtrodden

senseless with sentimentality

crying crocodile tears into puppy fur

and conveniently ignore the reality

animal rights bigots

with your lamb chops fricasseed

thinking your cause is humane

blind to the honest people you bleed

A thought on the seal ban

This is a response to an editorial published in today's Free Press.

Given the absurdity of Europe's ban on seal products our GG's actions were completely appropriate and showed the kind of grit that more of our Queen's representatives should aspire to. I know there a lot of PETA types in Canada, I myself love animals, but we consume the little critters, most of us, and seals have no more right to life than the fish you so fancily fry and the young cows that are slaughtered in the name of veal.

What I take from the GG's actions is that as Canadians we should stand up for the rights of our east-coast fishers, as well as our Inuit people, to make a modest living from the seal hunt; and that we should support them in the face of knee-jerk animal rights policies that are based on lies and misspent emotion.

They've Done it!

The big heads at Google have listened to my pleas and made it easier to access date specific searches (among other filters) via a handy "options" link that resides just below the masthead on the results page. Those changes and others are discussed further in this article from BBC technology:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8047076.stm

Some nerdy requests from an unhappy iTunes user.

Okay, I like to bitch about meaningless stuff on a Sunday sometimes. I dunno, it's cathartic I guess. I was working with my music library today and it's massive (about 12,000 songs). But I have to use iTunes because I have a Mac and an iPod. Sadly iTunes kinda sucks. It could be so much better but the good folks at Apple seem pretty happy with the status quo since they're still moving lots of units. Anyway, here's a letter I sent asking for some improvements:

Dear Apple, I am continually disappointed (but not entirely surprised) that newer releases of iTunes focus almost exclusively focus on ways to sell more product without making some simple but greatly beneficial enhancements to the overall usability of the application.

One thing that needs to be done is to allow people to have multiple columns available for the "Source" pane. If you have a lot of music and a lot of lists it is a real hassle to have to click and drag down an endless column. I use folders to organize my lists, but even then there can be enough folders to make navigation difficult (especially with my 80 GB iPod mounted.) I hate to say it, but you could learn a thing or two from WinAmp in this regard.

Allowing for the use of multiple libraries without having to Option-start iTunes would be another major improvement. With massive libraries of content now available it is more and more common to have information stored on a variety of removable/external media, and therefore it would be nice to have the capability to have iTunes recognize this media on the fly, especially if the start-up drive has limited capacity.

Finally, with the death of DRM I don't see why iPods should not be re-opened to allow users to manipulate their file structure manually on any computer like was possible in earlier versions of the iPod. Specifically, it should be possible for the user to use the iPod as a library that can be opened on any Mac (or PC) for creation of playlists, etc. as well as a playback device.