This is an unpublished letter to the editor sent to the Winnipeg Free Press.
I was disappointed to read that Stephen Fletcher indicated housing projects for homeless people should be dry because “a majority of Canadians would agree that homeless people should be clean before they're given somewhere to live" (Booze battle over Bell Hotel, Apr. 23).
Whether or not public opinion is as Mr. Fletcher contends, it clear from his statement the federal government is morally opposed to allowing homeless drunks to live off the public dime.
I have a problem with this because real evidence suggests that giving addicts a home can, in many cases, help them turn their lives around. The ancient practice of moralizing, on the other hand, has never done anything but fill the streets with more despair. I realize that there is a very sizable segment of sanctimonious people out there who don’t care a whit for the drunks that populate Winnipeg’s downtown, but it saddens me to know that a federal representative would endorse their ill-founded righteousness so publically while committing funds to this initiative.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Raw Milk is not Poison
This Letter was Published in the Victoria Times-Colonist print edition, but for some reason did not make it onto their website.
Minister Chong’s response to a recent editorial about over-regulation of food production refers to a “widely recognized” threat of illness and disease represented by raw milk, using the image of children dying as a defense.
What she does not bother to address in her haste to arouse fear is the reason why people would choose this “dangerous” product over the widely available pasteurized variety. People choose raw milk because it has not been subjected to the negative effects of making milk “safe”. The process of pasteurization kills the good bacteria along with the bad, making milk a far less healthy product than it has the potential to be.
Similarly, governments that issue blanket edicts about what is safe to consume based on the opinion of a few “experts” remove choice from the market and demonize wholesome, centuries-old ways of living for the sake of political expedience.
Minister Chong’s response to a recent editorial about over-regulation of food production refers to a “widely recognized” threat of illness and disease represented by raw milk, using the image of children dying as a defense.
What she does not bother to address in her haste to arouse fear is the reason why people would choose this “dangerous” product over the widely available pasteurized variety. People choose raw milk because it has not been subjected to the negative effects of making milk “safe”. The process of pasteurization kills the good bacteria along with the bad, making milk a far less healthy product than it has the potential to be.
Similarly, governments that issue blanket edicts about what is safe to consume based on the opinion of a few “experts” remove choice from the market and demonize wholesome, centuries-old ways of living for the sake of political expedience.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Grading Schools
This is an unpublished letter to the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press.
It may be that the provincial government is pandering to the Manitoba Teacher’s Society and protecting schools from public scrutiny, as your editorial “Schools need to be graded” states. Yet in your vehement rush to condemn you fail to acknowledge that the kind of accountability that can be measured in standardized testing only validates a fraction of what public education is and is meant to be.
Publishing scores focuses the public attention on a school's ability to teach concrete facts and figures—the reasoning, critical-thinking and deeper understanding we expect of students is harder to test. On the important but impossible to test end of the spectrum we have things like: the spirit and dedication (or lack thereof) of the school’s staff, the capacity to transmit and inspire genuine feeling and the ability to help students develop a positive sense of community and self.
Public discourse tends to devolve into a shallow dialogue about academic achievement when accountability is raised in the media because that is the only thing we can reliably measure. However, a good education is not just about the A, B and C’s.
It may be that the provincial government is pandering to the Manitoba Teacher’s Society and protecting schools from public scrutiny, as your editorial “Schools need to be graded” states. Yet in your vehement rush to condemn you fail to acknowledge that the kind of accountability that can be measured in standardized testing only validates a fraction of what public education is and is meant to be.
Publishing scores focuses the public attention on a school's ability to teach concrete facts and figures—the reasoning, critical-thinking and deeper understanding we expect of students is harder to test. On the important but impossible to test end of the spectrum we have things like: the spirit and dedication (or lack thereof) of the school’s staff, the capacity to transmit and inspire genuine feeling and the ability to help students develop a positive sense of community and self.
Public discourse tends to devolve into a shallow dialogue about academic achievement when accountability is raised in the media because that is the only thing we can reliably measure. However, a good education is not just about the A, B and C’s.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
