This happens every time an innocent person is killed in a stupid, callous or malicious manner.
This time the victim is an 8 year old girl named Victoria Stafford. Do the details matter? 8 year olds are, by definition, innocent of anything that could possibly deserve such a fate. Does it matter how she was led away by a person she recognized? Does it matter what was done to her? She was innocent. She was treated horribly and now she is gone.
And so it begins.
Let's kill the murderers!
I suppose I'd agree to capital punishment under two conditions:
a) we can be absolutely sure we have the correct guilty party
b) killing the murderer would bring the victim back to life
Because as I understand it, we can not achieve "justice" for Victoria Stafford with our present technology. The innocent eight year old is gone and we can't get her back. Even if you could, beyond any doubt, establish who killed her, what benefit is there to putting killers to death?
You can trot out all the arguments you want: not wanting to pay for the housing and feeding of the murderers while in jail; the deterrence factor for future potential killers; preventing these murderers from striking again.
None of those arguments (even though only the last holds up under scrutiny) make anything but a mash of the concept of justice. There can't be justice for Victoria Stafford. Nor for Kristen French or Leslie Mahaffy.
And what we have in this country is a system of justice, not a system of revenge. Other cultures have had revenge based systems. An eye for eye meant malice was answered with malice and the descent to madness was ensured.
Killing these murderers wouldn't accomplish anything except to demonstrate that we can kill them. We would not be a safer nation but a more brutal one. We would be a nation admitting that we can't defeat dangerous people except by sinking to their level. We would be surrendering to our bloodlust and bankrupting our moral fiber in the process.
Why shouldn't we put Victoria Stafford's murderers to death?
Because we're better than they are. That's reason enough.
Don't let an innocent child be an excuse for barbarism.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Sanity with Bullying
There's never been a good system for dealing with bullying. Out of sight and out of mind until the victim fights back is the current policy.
So I was glad to see that the Asian kid who was suspended for fighting back against a racist bully has had his suspension canceled.
Victory, of sorts, although I think this is the funniest part:
Error? What kind of error is that?
"We meant to say that your son could be smelled from all schools in the region. Hygiene issue. Simple spelling error."
Or maybe: "We send out so many of these Regional Expulsion Letters that they go out by accident to the wrong people on occasion. Our bad."
One could only hope that they frequently come down this hard on actual bullies, but I doubt it.
Meanwhile, I dance the Happy Victory Dance. Hurrah for justice.
So I was glad to see that the Asian kid who was suspended for fighting back against a racist bully has had his suspension canceled.
Victory, of sorts, although I think this is the funniest part:
He also would like to know why the school board sent a letter saying it would recommend the 15-year-old be expelled [from all regional schools], only to say three days later that the letter was sent in error.
Error? What kind of error is that?
"We meant to say that your son could be smelled from all schools in the region. Hygiene issue. Simple spelling error."
Or maybe: "We send out so many of these Regional Expulsion Letters that they go out by accident to the wrong people on occasion. Our bad."
One could only hope that they frequently come down this hard on actual bullies, but I doubt it.
Meanwhile, I dance the Happy Victory Dance. Hurrah for justice.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Systems for Bullies
The way we handle bullying in schools has always been archaic. In the rest of our civilization, we are not expected to put up with threats of violence. Threats of violence are considered "assault" and the perpetrators can be arrested and jailed. In school, though, local authorities have long expected victimized students to simply suck it up. Victims should either roll with the punches (i.e. capitulate to violence) or stand up for themselves.
Of course, they'd better not stand up for themselves too much, because then they get arrested. For example, we have this 15 year old Asian kid in Keswick, Ontario. He faced off against a racist bully. The bully punched first. The Asian kid punched last, breaking the bully's nose.
It'd be as well at this point to explain why I'm taking the story at face value. Why do I believe that, as written, the white kid was an aggressive, racist bully? Why do I believe that the Asian kid acted with the absolute minimum force at the last reasonable moment? Because I read the story. Keswick has a racism problem with documented assaults. 400 students came out to protest the Asian kid's suspension. The Asian kid has a 90% scholastic average. All relevant implications lead me to believe that the story is accurate.
I also believe the story because it is absolutely par for the course.
As far as authorities - police as well as school administration - are concerned, bullying is not a problem. The bullies only perform their assaults and batterings out of sight. There is rarely obvious bloodshed or broken bones. The victims are frightened in to silence. If the victims don't fight back, authority can blithely pretend that there is no violence in the school, that any rumours are just boys working things out for themselves, and fill out reports to that effect.
When the victims fight back, the problem is different. It is rarely effective for a smaller boy to wrestle or idly punch at a bully. Small amounts of pain are rarely a deterrent to large, aggressive people. To stop a bully, you have to stop a bully. And at that point, you often have blood, a broken bone or a concussion. Now the administration's "boys will be boys" ignorance falls on its face. They have an obviously damaged kid and another who damaged him.
So punish the kid who did the damage. Ignore all historical facts, torment and accumulated damage in the opposite direction. Wipe your hands and walk away. Done.
So that's what they did. They not only suspended the victim, they also had him arrested for assault. How ignorant is this? Let us take the punch completely out of context. Let us pretend that this Asian kid just whaled on the white kid for no reason. The Asian kid isn't bleeding, right? His nose isn't broken. So it must be his fault.
Kudos the kids at the high school for walking out and protesting on his behalf. I never saw the likes of that when I was growing up. If there's hope for the future, it's those 400 kids right there.
Of course, they'd better not stand up for themselves too much, because then they get arrested. For example, we have this 15 year old Asian kid in Keswick, Ontario. He faced off against a racist bully. The bully punched first. The Asian kid punched last, breaking the bully's nose.
It'd be as well at this point to explain why I'm taking the story at face value. Why do I believe that, as written, the white kid was an aggressive, racist bully? Why do I believe that the Asian kid acted with the absolute minimum force at the last reasonable moment? Because I read the story. Keswick has a racism problem with documented assaults. 400 students came out to protest the Asian kid's suspension. The Asian kid has a 90% scholastic average. All relevant implications lead me to believe that the story is accurate.
I also believe the story because it is absolutely par for the course.
As far as authorities - police as well as school administration - are concerned, bullying is not a problem. The bullies only perform their assaults and batterings out of sight. There is rarely obvious bloodshed or broken bones. The victims are frightened in to silence. If the victims don't fight back, authority can blithely pretend that there is no violence in the school, that any rumours are just boys working things out for themselves, and fill out reports to that effect.
When the victims fight back, the problem is different. It is rarely effective for a smaller boy to wrestle or idly punch at a bully. Small amounts of pain are rarely a deterrent to large, aggressive people. To stop a bully, you have to stop a bully. And at that point, you often have blood, a broken bone or a concussion. Now the administration's "boys will be boys" ignorance falls on its face. They have an obviously damaged kid and another who damaged him.
So punish the kid who did the damage. Ignore all historical facts, torment and accumulated damage in the opposite direction. Wipe your hands and walk away. Done.
So that's what they did. They not only suspended the victim, they also had him arrested for assault. How ignorant is this? Let us take the punch completely out of context. Let us pretend that this Asian kid just whaled on the white kid for no reason. The Asian kid isn't bleeding, right? His nose isn't broken. So it must be his fault.
Kudos the kids at the high school for walking out and protesting on his behalf. I never saw the likes of that when I was growing up. If there's hope for the future, it's those 400 kids right there.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
McGuinty: Chrysler's Problems are the Union's Fault
Early Friday morning, a letter was published in which the Chrysler executive demanded, in public, that the union accede to its demands in order to save the company. As I explained, the real problem was that Chrysler had never put aside any money for the pensions it had promised its employees. Instead, it now includes the cost of those pensions as part of the current employees' labour cost.
The effect is to make the workers seem expensive relative to those at neighbouring plants when, in reality, they make about the same amount of money.
Now the Premier would like to chime in with this helpful comment:
Now once you've read Chrysler's original letter and the article linked above, don't you ever, ever try to tell me that the Globe and Mail is a left wing newspaper. Never.
We all have to make sacrifices, Mr. Premier? What sacrifices are the executives making? Are they giving up their life insurance? Have they already surrendered semi-private hospital coverage? Have they acknowledged the "reality of the time" by nixing their own extended health care coverage?
That the newspaper has not answered these questions is answer enough. If the executives had made such sacrifices, it would have been written. That the newspaper fails to point out that the executives are not so heroic tells me all I need to know about the Globe and Mail.
Yes, Mr. McGuinty, you corporate stooge, please refrain from giving the union advice. Why don't you go advise the executives on how to take a cut? Why don't you advise the executives on how to properly protect their workers' pensions?
Your comment, sir, that we "all" have to make sacrifices, is entirely disingenuous. "All" - to you - clearly means "the union". "All" clearly does not include the upper class people. What would happen if those people lost their gold-plated benefits? What horrors? We need top talent in the executive! We just have to overpay them! Don't you all understand!
If the executive of Chrysler want to keep their wonderful jobs, they first have to admit that they blew it. And by "it" I mean "the workers' pension fund". Then they have to volunteer to make the same sacrifices in terms of benefits that they ask of the workers. It won't mean as much, what with their salaries being so much higher, but it would look better. After that, they can admit that including the pension cost in the current labour cost is the height of hypocrisy
Then, with all of that admitted, perhaps the union and the executive can sit down and find a fair way to keep the plants open.
The effect is to make the workers seem expensive relative to those at neighbouring plants when, in reality, they make about the same amount of money.
Now the Premier would like to chime in with this helpful comment:
“I'm not going to provide specific advice to the union, except to say we all have to find a way to come to the table and make some sacrifices."
Now once you've read Chrysler's original letter and the article linked above, don't you ever, ever try to tell me that the Globe and Mail is a left wing newspaper. Never.
We all have to make sacrifices, Mr. Premier? What sacrifices are the executives making? Are they giving up their life insurance? Have they already surrendered semi-private hospital coverage? Have they acknowledged the "reality of the time" by nixing their own extended health care coverage?
That the newspaper has not answered these questions is answer enough. If the executives had made such sacrifices, it would have been written. That the newspaper fails to point out that the executives are not so heroic tells me all I need to know about the Globe and Mail.
Yes, Mr. McGuinty, you corporate stooge, please refrain from giving the union advice. Why don't you go advise the executives on how to take a cut? Why don't you advise the executives on how to properly protect their workers' pensions?
Your comment, sir, that we "all" have to make sacrifices, is entirely disingenuous. "All" - to you - clearly means "the union". "All" clearly does not include the upper class people. What would happen if those people lost their gold-plated benefits? What horrors? We need top talent in the executive! We just have to overpay them! Don't you all understand!
If the executive of Chrysler want to keep their wonderful jobs, they first have to admit that they blew it. And by "it" I mean "the workers' pension fund". Then they have to volunteer to make the same sacrifices in terms of benefits that they ask of the workers. It won't mean as much, what with their salaries being so much higher, but it would look better. After that, they can admit that including the pension cost in the current labour cost is the height of hypocrisy
Then, with all of that admitted, perhaps the union and the executive can sit down and find a fair way to keep the plants open.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Chrysler : Labour Rates and Other Obfuscations
If you were to read the news lately, you could be forgiven for thinking that North American auto manufacturers pay their workers more than Japanese auto manufacturers do - even the Japanese manufacturers that are located in North America.
This may be true, but it's a very small difference if it is. What you are actually seeing quoted in the news are the labour rates. A labour rate is not what the employees get paid. It's the company's way of adding up the company's cost of labour - which includes actual dollars per hour, plus cost of benefits, plus the cost of pensions of workers who are retired.
It's that last one that makes it look so unrealistic. So when the Globe and Mail publishes a letter from Chrysler to its employees which says, "... the all-in labour costs at Chrysler Canada are $76 per hour while the Toyota Canada all-in rate is approximately $57 per hour" it's important to understand that much of that $19 of difference is actually Chrysler Canada's error in not maintaining a pension fund for its retired employees. Instead, Chrysler Canada promised the pension (presumably winning concessions from employees when it made the promise) and then simply declared the cost of those pensions as part of the present-day worker's cost.
Imagine the Widget Company. It has 100 retired employees who receive $39k per year pensions. Let's say the Widget Company has a staff of 100 workers who are making $39k per year ($20 per hour). Under the definition of "labour rate" used by Chrysler, the Widget Company would declare that its labour cost is actually $40 per hour because the company is putting the burden of the pension plan it promised but never managed on its 100 present day workers.
Rip-off, you say? Of course it is. I would just call it lying, personally, but the world of finance is often full of such misdirection.
It would get even worse when the Thingamajig Company comes to town. Then the stockholders could get angry at the Widget Company and its atrocious $40 per hour workers. "Why look", they would say, "the new Thingamajig Company has a labour rate of just $22 per hour!" This is because it either has no pensioners yet or because it allows a 3rd party to manage their pensions with the extra $2 per hour.
"Egad", the shareholders would shout, "You workers must make concessions! The fault lies in your greed! Give up your hard won benefits! Cut your salaries! This is a recession!"
And so Chrysler publishes a list of things it feels should be taken from employees in order to make up for the fact that Chrysler didn't put money away to cover its promise of retirement benefits and pensions. Chrysler workers will need to have less pay and benefits than Toyota workers because of that pension cost in the labour rate.
So Chrysler makes a list of ways to bring down the labour rate. Please note that nowhere in that letter does it mention anything about cutting the benefits or salaries of executives. Should we assume that's already happened? I wouldn't assume anything of sort, personally.
Somehow, putting a cap on dispensing fees costs $2.16 an hour? That cries out for an explanation. Chrysler would like to take way your Life Insurance and your out of province health care coverage as well as your semi-private hospital bed. It wants to add to your health care premiums.
The list goes on, but the point is clear: it's the union's fault.
In a way I have to agree.
It is the union's fault. It is the workers' faults. They wanted a pension plan and they trusted a corporation to maintain, fund and manage it. Why would anyone, ever, trust a corporation to take care of a person? That's just not what corporations are good at. That's why we keep them out of health care and education.
This may be true, but it's a very small difference if it is. What you are actually seeing quoted in the news are the labour rates. A labour rate is not what the employees get paid. It's the company's way of adding up the company's cost of labour - which includes actual dollars per hour, plus cost of benefits, plus the cost of pensions of workers who are retired.
It's that last one that makes it look so unrealistic. So when the Globe and Mail publishes a letter from Chrysler to its employees which says, "... the all-in labour costs at Chrysler Canada are $76 per hour while the Toyota Canada all-in rate is approximately $57 per hour" it's important to understand that much of that $19 of difference is actually Chrysler Canada's error in not maintaining a pension fund for its retired employees. Instead, Chrysler Canada promised the pension (presumably winning concessions from employees when it made the promise) and then simply declared the cost of those pensions as part of the present-day worker's cost.
Imagine the Widget Company. It has 100 retired employees who receive $39k per year pensions. Let's say the Widget Company has a staff of 100 workers who are making $39k per year ($20 per hour). Under the definition of "labour rate" used by Chrysler, the Widget Company would declare that its labour cost is actually $40 per hour because the company is putting the burden of the pension plan it promised but never managed on its 100 present day workers.
Rip-off, you say? Of course it is. I would just call it lying, personally, but the world of finance is often full of such misdirection.
It would get even worse when the Thingamajig Company comes to town. Then the stockholders could get angry at the Widget Company and its atrocious $40 per hour workers. "Why look", they would say, "the new Thingamajig Company has a labour rate of just $22 per hour!" This is because it either has no pensioners yet or because it allows a 3rd party to manage their pensions with the extra $2 per hour.
"Egad", the shareholders would shout, "You workers must make concessions! The fault lies in your greed! Give up your hard won benefits! Cut your salaries! This is a recession!"
And so Chrysler publishes a list of things it feels should be taken from employees in order to make up for the fact that Chrysler didn't put money away to cover its promise of retirement benefits and pensions. Chrysler workers will need to have less pay and benefits than Toyota workers because of that pension cost in the labour rate.
So Chrysler makes a list of ways to bring down the labour rate. Please note that nowhere in that letter does it mention anything about cutting the benefits or salaries of executives. Should we assume that's already happened? I wouldn't assume anything of sort, personally.
Somehow, putting a cap on dispensing fees costs $2.16 an hour? That cries out for an explanation. Chrysler would like to take way your Life Insurance and your out of province health care coverage as well as your semi-private hospital bed. It wants to add to your health care premiums.
The list goes on, but the point is clear: it's the union's fault.
In a way I have to agree.
It is the union's fault. It is the workers' faults. They wanted a pension plan and they trusted a corporation to maintain, fund and manage it. Why would anyone, ever, trust a corporation to take care of a person? That's just not what corporations are good at. That's why we keep them out of health care and education.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Women in Afghanistan
There are certain occasions on which a coincidence of events would almost lead me to believe that some type of higher power is orchestrating the universe. This higher power is not benevolent, but rather some type of darkly humourous manipulator, content to make our lives in to some overwritten, overdramatized story line fit for a soap opera.
For witness, I give you a young lady, Karine Blais, recently killed in combat by a roadside bomb. We are to believe that she died for the freedom of an oppressed people and the new government that will set them free. We are to believe that we are fighting against religious tyranny in favour of moderation.
And so, we are to understand, this young Canadian woman gave her life for people yearning to breathe free.
And then we have this ridiculous law that the free, supposedly-less-religious, government of Afghanistan wants to pass. You know the one, where women - who often don't have a choice in getting married in the first place - can be required to have sex with their husbands with a specific frequency. 300 women came out to protest the law. Over a thousand people, men and women, came out to pelt those 300 with stones.
The articles says "small" stones, but this is relative term and we're talking about an area of the world where throwing stones at people is a form of execution. I can't help but wonder if this constitutes a threat of death in such places much like hanging someone in effigy would be here.
What of this? A young woman from Canada dies for the freedom of people who come out to pelt independent young women with stones for not wanting to be raped?
Irony so thick you can smell it.
No, wait, that's not how irony smells ...
For witness, I give you a young lady, Karine Blais, recently killed in combat by a roadside bomb. We are to believe that she died for the freedom of an oppressed people and the new government that will set them free. We are to believe that we are fighting against religious tyranny in favour of moderation.
And so, we are to understand, this young Canadian woman gave her life for people yearning to breathe free.
And then we have this ridiculous law that the free, supposedly-less-religious, government of Afghanistan wants to pass. You know the one, where women - who often don't have a choice in getting married in the first place - can be required to have sex with their husbands with a specific frequency. 300 women came out to protest the law. Over a thousand people, men and women, came out to pelt those 300 with stones.
The articles says "small" stones, but this is relative term and we're talking about an area of the world where throwing stones at people is a form of execution. I can't help but wonder if this constitutes a threat of death in such places much like hanging someone in effigy would be here.
What of this? A young woman from Canada dies for the freedom of people who come out to pelt independent young women with stones for not wanting to be raped?
Irony so thick you can smell it.
No, wait, that's not how irony smells ...
Sunday, April 12, 2009
The Pope's Hope
Dear Pope Benedict,
I heard about your address regarding the need for hope and I thought I would respond.
I guess I find it hard to be hopeful, despite your papal command that I do so. Even though everyone knows that the pope is always right, I find it difficult to simultaneously be hopeful while also acknowledging that I'm such a terrible sinner that I deserve to burn in the fiery pits of hell in endless agony.
Call me a party pooper, but that's just such a downer.
I'm also a bit conflicted about your desire for hope in Africa where, as you say, "... growing numbers of her sons and daughters who fall prey to hunger, poverty and disease". It seems like condoms and other forms of birth control would solve a lot of the problems in Africa - especially the "growing numbers" part and the "disease" part.
It seems like Africa might need more than "hope".
Maybe you could sell some of those gold relics you hide all over the Vatican and use the money to send condoms to Africa.
I'm just saying.
Greg.
I heard about your address regarding the need for hope and I thought I would respond.
I guess I find it hard to be hopeful, despite your papal command that I do so. Even though everyone knows that the pope is always right, I find it difficult to simultaneously be hopeful while also acknowledging that I'm such a terrible sinner that I deserve to burn in the fiery pits of hell in endless agony.
Call me a party pooper, but that's just such a downer.
I'm also a bit conflicted about your desire for hope in Africa where, as you say, "... growing numbers of her sons and daughters who fall prey to hunger, poverty and disease". It seems like condoms and other forms of birth control would solve a lot of the problems in Africa - especially the "growing numbers" part and the "disease" part.
It seems like Africa might need more than "hope".
Maybe you could sell some of those gold relics you hide all over the Vatican and use the money to send condoms to Africa.
I'm just saying.
Greg.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)