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

Evolve!

Feb. 12th is Darwin's birthday!

Spontaneous Order

One of my favourite "media guys" is John Stossel. From years ago he did information programs on ABC's 20/20 about Junk Science, that I frequently used as a teaching tool. Today, alas, I can't watch him on television because my cable company does not carry the Fox Business channel (it is a government plot).
Stossel and I have much in common, we share exactly the same birthday (dd/mm/yyyy), ethnic origin, sort of close on religion, and we are both outspoken libertarians. OK, I'm not even close to his level of "outspokenness," but I'm certainly annoying to friends and family. But I digress, the purpose of this posting is to present a clip from a recent STOSSEL about something that is poorly understood by most people who have been schooled by the collectivist educational system in Canada and the United States: Spontaneous Order in economics.
Stossel interviews Larry Reed of FEE and its great stuff, simple, clear and to the point. 

Drugs? - "There's too much money in it!"

Some people say the dumbest things.

The price of democracy?

Muslim Brotherhood logo

"The dark ages are staging a comeback via the age of enlightenment." So begins a column in the National Post where George Jonas muses about the Egyptian Crisis. In Opening a back door to theocracy, Jonas suggests that it may be goodbye Hosni, which leads ultimately to hello Hamas.
Democracies have done this before, yielding to religious or non-religious dictatorships, especially when limits are not adhered to. Yes, Mubarak's 30 years have been dictatorial, but the implication is be careful what you wish for.
Jonas suggests that recent comments by Obama have not helped. Actually it was the comments that Obama didn't make that might lead to problems. Obama didn't say how the current uprising would lead to an orderly transition. He didn't say how the past and present unorganized opposition would suddenly get organized. Most importantly he didn't say how these protests would prevent handing over Egypt to the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood.
Of course we would say that is the price of democracy, the people may choose and sometimes those choices are not wise. In limited democracies where there are checks and balances, where orderly transitions can and do occur, mistakes can be corrected. Just remember, the Muslim Brotherhood needs only to be elected once.   

Unrecorded History?

One reason people find history so boring and difficult to relate to, is that those people, who are portrayed in history books, were the movers and shakers of the world in their time. They were the leaders, the monarchs and nobles, the presidents and prime ministers, the explorers and discoverers, and the dates of their achievements were recorded and transmitted for posterity.
But what was everyone else doing? You know, the common folk. Did they not play a role in shaping their present and their future. Of course they did, but few of them were taking notes, so much of that history - interesting history - is lost.
In the following ReasonTV video clip, author Thaddeus Russell attempts to recover some of that lost history. His new book A Renegade History of the United States could be very interesting. As he says, these people did not write pamphlets or manifestos, they were not explicitly political, they were just living and often "doing things they were not supposed to be doing." In doing that, they have left us all a legacy of freedom, far greater in many cases, than was achieved by the leaders. Of course by extrapolation similar stories were not written every where else.  

Hey Canada, what's a Bieber?

Forget the football game. This is what you missed if you live in the Great White North. The wonderfully creative, and hugely entertaining commercials, that the Yanks get to see between the downs. For me they are the "ups", have a look, they are all here.

A loveable libertarian?

I can't recall the last time I watched a TV sitcom regularly. Was it Seinfeld, All in the Family, I Love Lucy, I'm not sure?
My wife showed an article in MACLEAN'S magazine the other day, I guess she thought it reminded her of me. The MACLEAN'S article titled The Lovable Government Hater refers to the character played by Nick Offerman in the NBC sitcom Parks and Recreation.
The character played by Offerman (Nick Swanson) is a "libertarian, government-hating bureaucrat," which sounds like a contradiction in terms. As the MACLEAN'S article points out, most government-haters on TV are portrayed as militia fanatics, but Nick Swanson is - a nice guy. What a relief, TV is breaking out of the practice of stereotyping, although not entirely. Nick Swanson is still portrayed as being religious, gun-loving, humourless,  a throw-back to the '70's and "virulently anti-government." The good news? He is conflicted, which makes him seem real, almost human. That's a good thing, we don't need one-dimensional government-haters, we need caring people with better solutions.