Flag Day in Canada is not......

Today was another unheralded Flag Day here in the Great White North, the 46th since Feb. 15, 1965, barely a mention in the media. The fact that it is unheralded says something interesting about Canadians. I'm not sure what that something is, but I like it. It's certainly not that we aren't patriotic, just cast your thoughts back one year to the Vancouver Olympics and you will change your mind on that.
However, I do know what this day and the flag does NOT say.  It does not say 'country-first,' an irrational phrase often heard in the US. It does not say that we have socialized medicine, it does not say that we take care of each other, in fact when the flag was first introduced the government sector was much smaller, and the welfare state was just in its infancy.
I would hope that the flag says to the world that the individual Canadian is proud, responsible for him/herself, and stands alone like that red maple leaf on the white background (see the first line). Our flag represents a place on a map, where we the inhabitants should cherish a common law that includes protecting the rights of those individuals who live there. It also is an invitation sent to the world, come here and adopt our ways and you can to live in freedom.

Canadian Federal Election? Would anything change?

A Valentine's Day poll produced by Angus Reid and presented in the National Post today, shows the country is falling back in love with Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.
The recent noise coming out of Ottawa that a spring election was imminent, may have been squelched by the ad hominem attacks on Michael Ignatieff. Maybe the ads worked, maybe not.
I've been looking at "Education" with a jaundiced-eye in the last few days and I was intrigued by the poll graphic at left. Take a look at the bottom part: Which party would you support?
It has always been my contention that there really is no difference between the major parties in Canada (or the United States). Of course the main-stream media would never admit this because then they would have very little news to discuss on a daily basis, and polls like this one would be meaningless. Canadian main-stream media like to portray the Harper Conservatives as right wing, the Liberals as centrist, and the NDP as leftists. I think they ALL advocate statism: the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty. All the parties shown in this graphic would use the coercive power of the state to effect their particular pet policies. But I've digressed, back to the bottom of the graphic: Which party would you support?
The 18 to 34 age bracket, those that have most recently come out of schools, and so presumably are still most influenced by what they learned, they would vote quite differently than the rest of the population. This group is fairly evenly split between the three major parties, why is that? Does this mean that this group sees little difference between the parties? Does this mean that this group is not influenced by the mainstream media's portrayal of the three parties? Both of those questions may be true, but also worth noting is that the total shown for this age bracket is only 74%, so 26% of this demographic (a fairly significant chunk) would choose some of the minor parties or no one. Of course this age group (18-34) is the most apathetic in terms of voting. Apathy could mean disinterest, or it could mean resignation, as in it doesn't make a difference. Maybe they know something?

The School Sucks Project - Part 1

Our Prussian Education

I once worked for the largest school board in Canada. Over those many years, I was a part of several curriculum revisions, several attempts to change the way material was presented, other attempts to improve the system, and all sorts of tweaking and adjustments along the way. Always at the back of my mind I wondered why it was, that so late into the 20th Century, the education of our young people had not been perfected. Teachers and administrators were still tinkering with, and trying to perfect our educational model. Huge amounts of money were being spent (much of it misspent in my estimation) and still a significant proportion of our young people fell by the wayside, unable to cope within the system and often left with no other options but to leave. Where else would this type of incompetence be tolerated? Imagine if medicine or industry failed at the same rate as the school systems fails its clients? In Ontario, about 12% of the population do not complete high school, slightly less than the average for Canada. In the United States huge spending increases over the past 40 years do not translate to improvements in Math or Reading scores, according to charts like this one.  One can only conclude that somehow the original model IS the problem.
From a libertarian point-of-view the educational model in North America is wrong by its very nature. How can a system that is coercive at all levels, deliver a service that is tailor-made for individual children? Can our educational model produce individuals who are responsible and qualified to care for themselves? Are these individuals able to maximize their potential abilities and achieve their goals? Why do we tolerate a system that can't deliver that type of service? Can we change it?
All these questions need to be addressed, but first, its worth looking at the origins of the system of education that pervades Canada and The United States and proceed from there. The following video clip is also posted here.

Watch more videos like this at www.quantumshift.tv

The School Sucks Project

Atlas Shrugged Part 1

April 15, 2011