Recently the NDP (New Democratic Party) government of Daryll Dexter stated it could not give rural government employees the same 2 and 1/2% rise given to Halifax public employees doing the same jobs. This policy will affect CUPE (Canadian Union of Public Employees) workers - who do hospital support worker jobs with patients, and school support work aiding disabled children. The reason given by the province was the dire provincial financial situation. The unfairness of trying to solve a management problem by penalizing the lower-paid line workers doing the hardest work is clear. It is an additional smack in the face to women, who make up 80% of these unionized public health and educational employees. The following letter was published in today's Halifax Chronicle Herald:
Dear Editor,
The province's fiscal crisis should not be cured on the backs of the rural health workers and school aides. They did not cause this crisis, which resulted partly from poor management of past governments, and partly from the U.S. recession which affects Canada. The crisis should be met by raising taxes. No one wants their taxes raised - my family, least of all. We paid lots of taxes while working and in retirement we continue to have our income cut through taxes. Yet we want the services, and we have to pay for what we get. Judicious cutting the fat off provincial spending is appropriate, but cut the fat and not the muscle. The hands-on staff who provide patient care and classroom aid to disabled students are the muscle which keep our society going. We must not try to solve the crisis by making this group, predominantly women, suffer pay inequity, but rather the whole 900,000 of us must chip in - when the pain is spread among us all, it will not be too much for any one group.
Maida Follini
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Sunday, January 10, 2010
The Letter and the Spirit
Our music teacher at Recorder Group January 9 was showing us how to create necessary rhythm in the dances we were playing, a Rondo and a Waltz. She instructed us to change a quarter note to an eighth, and to make certain notes staccato to provide the bounce necessary for dance. The light went on in my mind as I saw that she was detaching us from the written-down form and returning to the original heard-and-played music. Written music only imperfectly represents the spirit of the music - which must be interpreted and re-created - in this case by a talented teacher.
So it is in other written texts:
"For the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." -St. Paul, 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians, ii,6.
Quaker founder, George Fox, took issue with a preacher who held scripture and the Bible to be the last word, by which all doctrines, religions and opinions should be judged. He said to the preacher, "Oh, no, it is not the Scriptures!" and he told what should be basis of judgement of these things, namely "the Holy Spirit, by which the holy men of God gave forth the scriptures, whereby opinions, religions and judgements were to be tried." (Fox was thrown into "a nasty stinking jail" for arguing with the preacher). His words are no less relevant today, when fundamentalists use the Bible as a literal guide to truth , rather than seeking the meanings that gave rise to the words that people wrote down. The words of the Bible have been used to justify slavery, gender oppression, various taboos for eating and dressing, as well as to resist the evidence of observation and science. The intent and meanings of the biblical stories must be interpreted in the spirit in which they were written, and in the context of their time. Washing the feet of a traveller come to visit makes sense when the person has walked across the dusty desert. Coming in from a snowstorm, the welcoming action might be to help a person off with his boots and let him warm his feet by the fire.
The Quaker testimonies need to be interpreted in the spirit - The Society of Friends has a Testimony against taking part in War. This has been held to by most Friends in the face of punishment by authorities. Yet the reason for opposition against war is surely that war is the willful harming and killing of people. Some Friends have always questioned whether there were times when engaging in war would help and defend people, and reduce the harm and killing. My great-great uncle, a Quaker, joined the Union Army to help end slavery. The Testimony of Friends against War was, he found, in conflict with the Testimony against Slavery.
For other Friends, although War should be avoided if at all possible, it may be seen as a last resort in defending one's community or country, or another weak and helpless nation, against an attacker.
Although this is not the view of most Friends, there have always been Quakers whose conscience led them to this conclusion.
In Constitutional decisions we see the split also between responding to the letter versus the spirit. The U.S. Supreme Court contains Strict Constructionists who take a literal view of the U.S.Constitution. According to them, it means no more and no less than what the Founding Fathers wrote. The Liberals believe in re-interpreting the 18th Century document to find what the meaning would be for our times. So when the Constitution states in Article II of the Bill of Rights states that "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed," many argue that this should prevent laws from being established to control and limit the possession of guns. Others interpret the law, in the context of when it was written, to mean that the States could defend themselves from, for example, invasions from Canada, or attacks by Indian Tribes, by calling out State Militias to defend the community; and that it did not mean guns should be allowed to flood into peaceful communities so that unstable and uncontrolled people could have access to weapons such as assault rifles and hand guns to terrorize and kill innocent men, women and children. This controversy continues, and has its parallel in Canada, between the gun lobby and those against gun violence.
" The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."
So it is in other written texts:
"For the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." -St. Paul, 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians, ii,6.
Quaker founder, George Fox, took issue with a preacher who held scripture and the Bible to be the last word, by which all doctrines, religions and opinions should be judged. He said to the preacher, "Oh, no, it is not the Scriptures!" and he told what should be basis of judgement of these things, namely "the Holy Spirit, by which the holy men of God gave forth the scriptures, whereby opinions, religions and judgements were to be tried." (Fox was thrown into "a nasty stinking jail" for arguing with the preacher). His words are no less relevant today, when fundamentalists use the Bible as a literal guide to truth , rather than seeking the meanings that gave rise to the words that people wrote down. The words of the Bible have been used to justify slavery, gender oppression, various taboos for eating and dressing, as well as to resist the evidence of observation and science. The intent and meanings of the biblical stories must be interpreted in the spirit in which they were written, and in the context of their time. Washing the feet of a traveller come to visit makes sense when the person has walked across the dusty desert. Coming in from a snowstorm, the welcoming action might be to help a person off with his boots and let him warm his feet by the fire.
The Quaker testimonies need to be interpreted in the spirit - The Society of Friends has a Testimony against taking part in War. This has been held to by most Friends in the face of punishment by authorities. Yet the reason for opposition against war is surely that war is the willful harming and killing of people. Some Friends have always questioned whether there were times when engaging in war would help and defend people, and reduce the harm and killing. My great-great uncle, a Quaker, joined the Union Army to help end slavery. The Testimony of Friends against War was, he found, in conflict with the Testimony against Slavery.
For other Friends, although War should be avoided if at all possible, it may be seen as a last resort in defending one's community or country, or another weak and helpless nation, against an attacker.
Although this is not the view of most Friends, there have always been Quakers whose conscience led them to this conclusion.
In Constitutional decisions we see the split also between responding to the letter versus the spirit. The U.S. Supreme Court contains Strict Constructionists who take a literal view of the U.S.Constitution. According to them, it means no more and no less than what the Founding Fathers wrote. The Liberals believe in re-interpreting the 18th Century document to find what the meaning would be for our times. So when the Constitution states in Article II of the Bill of Rights states that "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed," many argue that this should prevent laws from being established to control and limit the possession of guns. Others interpret the law, in the context of when it was written, to mean that the States could defend themselves from, for example, invasions from Canada, or attacks by Indian Tribes, by calling out State Militias to defend the community; and that it did not mean guns should be allowed to flood into peaceful communities so that unstable and uncontrolled people could have access to weapons such as assault rifles and hand guns to terrorize and kill innocent men, women and children. This controversy continues, and has its parallel in Canada, between the gun lobby and those against gun violence.
" The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Economic Crisis of 2008-2010
This morning CBC had an interview with an author who has written a biography of Maynard Keynes. In very clear terms that even this laywoman could understand, he explained the difference between Keynesian theory and that of "The Chicago School" of economics. "The Chicago School" theorized that the market would regulate itself without intervention, by inherent economic forces. Keynes believed that government intervention would be needed at times because market self-regulation was inadequate, and would not prevent booms, busts, and crises.
The only thing I knew about Keynes previously was that he was in Virginia Woolf's circle of friends. With all the talk of "Keynesian economics" versus free market forces, it is helpful to have at least an introductory key to what the dispute has been about. Thank goodness Canada's banks have been more strictly regulated than the U.S. banks, making the 2008-09 crisis less intense up here. Of course since Canada depends greatly on exports to the U.S., Canada is affected by the U.S. downturn. Nova Scotia lobster fishers, for example, export the largest part of their catch to the U.S. and the reduced demand has dropped wholesale prices below the cost of fishing. Lobsterfishers are trying to make up for that and by-pass the middleman by selling their lobsters at a reasonable price from the backs of their pick-up trucks. Anyone want to order lobster for Sunday dinner?
The only thing I knew about Keynes previously was that he was in Virginia Woolf's circle of friends. With all the talk of "Keynesian economics" versus free market forces, it is helpful to have at least an introductory key to what the dispute has been about. Thank goodness Canada's banks have been more strictly regulated than the U.S. banks, making the 2008-09 crisis less intense up here. Of course since Canada depends greatly on exports to the U.S., Canada is affected by the U.S. downturn. Nova Scotia lobster fishers, for example, export the largest part of their catch to the U.S. and the reduced demand has dropped wholesale prices below the cost of fishing. Lobsterfishers are trying to make up for that and by-pass the middleman by selling their lobsters at a reasonable price from the backs of their pick-up trucks. Anyone want to order lobster for Sunday dinner?
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Peace is a two-way street
The following letter of mine appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of Dec. 31.
"I note the Dec. 26 news item that a Nova Scotia postal worker will journey to Gaza 'to witness the devastation from last year's Israeli invasion.'
It might be more productive if she were to picket the headquarters of the Hamas terrorists who persist in sending hundreds of rockets aimed at Israel's civilian population. It is hard to sympathize with the thugs and murderers who use their own civilians as shields while they send rockets against civilians of another country.
Imagine a situation in which former Alaska governor Sarah Palin decided to attack Canadian villages with rockets. Would the Canadian Forces allow this to continue? But of course, such a fantastic situation would never occur, because Canada and the U.S. are stable countries with civilized populations that are subject to the rule of law.
Peace cannot be attained by one side alone. After Israel ended the Gaza occupation, the terrorists did not respond with peace but with more war. Peace will come when Palestinian extremists give up their attempt to reverse history and destroy Israel. Until then, armed defence by Israel, including attacks to destroy rocket bases, will no doubt continue and separation barriers will no doubt be strengthened."
For some reason, CUP-W, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, has decided to support Hamas-ruled Gaza by sending delegates there. Does the Union feel it is o.k. to fire rockets at Israel? Condemning one side of a dispute, rather than seeing the suffering of both sides does not assist in bringing about peace. On the contrary, it encourages the rocketeers to continue their deadly attacks.
"I note the Dec. 26 news item that a Nova Scotia postal worker will journey to Gaza 'to witness the devastation from last year's Israeli invasion.'
It might be more productive if she were to picket the headquarters of the Hamas terrorists who persist in sending hundreds of rockets aimed at Israel's civilian population. It is hard to sympathize with the thugs and murderers who use their own civilians as shields while they send rockets against civilians of another country.
Imagine a situation in which former Alaska governor Sarah Palin decided to attack Canadian villages with rockets. Would the Canadian Forces allow this to continue? But of course, such a fantastic situation would never occur, because Canada and the U.S. are stable countries with civilized populations that are subject to the rule of law.
Peace cannot be attained by one side alone. After Israel ended the Gaza occupation, the terrorists did not respond with peace but with more war. Peace will come when Palestinian extremists give up their attempt to reverse history and destroy Israel. Until then, armed defence by Israel, including attacks to destroy rocket bases, will no doubt continue and separation barriers will no doubt be strengthened."
For some reason, CUP-W, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, has decided to support Hamas-ruled Gaza by sending delegates there. Does the Union feel it is o.k. to fire rockets at Israel? Condemning one side of a dispute, rather than seeing the suffering of both sides does not assist in bringing about peace. On the contrary, it encourages the rocketeers to continue their deadly attacks.
Friday, January 1, 2010
"Why is a raven like a writing desk?" asked the Mad Hatter.
"I give it up," said Alice. "What's the answer?"
"I haven't the slightest idea, said the Hatter.
"Nor I, said the March Hare.
A riddle without an answer - an open-ended question which can lead anywhere - even to a writing desk - is what this blog is about, and ravens are a good place to start.
The black birds flap with strong regular strokes across the Dartmouth sky, which is pink now on this New Year's Day afternoon. Occasionally pausing their wings to coast in a wide arc, the Ravens pull up in the top of a spruce tree, from where they can survey their world - a much wider world from a bird's eye view than from inside my boxed-in human apartment. Let thoughts take wings, and reach unexpected corners, and echo back like the calls of birds.
"I give it up," said Alice. "What's the answer?"
"I haven't the slightest idea, said the Hatter.
"Nor I, said the March Hare.
A riddle without an answer - an open-ended question which can lead anywhere - even to a writing desk - is what this blog is about, and ravens are a good place to start.
The black birds flap with strong regular strokes across the Dartmouth sky, which is pink now on this New Year's Day afternoon. Occasionally pausing their wings to coast in a wide arc, the Ravens pull up in the top of a spruce tree, from where they can survey their world - a much wider world from a bird's eye view than from inside my boxed-in human apartment. Let thoughts take wings, and reach unexpected corners, and echo back like the calls of birds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
