On The Couch With Arethusa- Special Edition

This is a special edition of 'On the Couch with SC&A,' for a number of reasons. We were fortunate enough to have had Arethusa, of No Stalkers Allowed, spend some time with us.

Arethusa has a blog we like, a lot, for many reasons. It is fresh and refreshing, unpredictable and thoughful, all at once. On it can be found movie reviews, book reviews and eclectic music that spans all genres (when you play David Soul's (of Starsky and Hutch fame) ''Don't Give Up On Us," you earn the title 'eclectic'). More than that, we like Arethusa, a lot. She is, by any standard of measurement, an exceptional young woman (we would be less than honest if we didn't admit that we hoped HRH would turn out like her. We are convinced she is NG, redux).

As you know, as of late, we have been talking about education and morals . Arethusa has an interesting take on these matters- she was home schooled. She is an accomplished student, musician and dancer. She has read- and studied the classics, and it shows. Shw opines in a manner and style well beyond her years. We are not exaggerating when we say she is someone special. To fully understand where she comes from and where she is, we urge you to read her series of posts on being home-schooled. There are four posts- each a worthy and important read- they add greatly to the discussion on education. They are, Home Schooling: The Years of Study, Socialisation, Entering the "System" and Concluding Thoughts. If you are a home schooling parent, or are thinking of becoming one, these posts are a must read.

We know we have made her uncomfortable- Arethusa seems happiest in the middle of the pack, but in reality, we are only describing what is evident to all.

Do you 'fit in'? You're young, but unlike most people your age, you have achieved a level of maturity. How does that affect your relationships with your peers?

I've never been the "popular" girl but I've had to become better at adapting to different group dynamics because of my service club work. A grooming & etiquette program I was once enrolled in (don't ask), has also allowed me to be more comfortable with persons who are simply on different wavelengths and try to find some sort of common ground. (And get them around to my way of thinking.) I've never had a problem making friends among my batch-mates, but I do find that a majority of them share a similar background that I do not. Most of them have at least one or two jobs while attending university, are serious about their school work and were always involved in community or school activities of one prominent sort or another. Many find my affinity odd as, typically, someone like me should be hobnobbing with the socialite crowd. Then again I am in a sorority.

How much of that do you attribute to your home schooling?

I attribute a lot of it to home schooling, not just because of all the things I was involved with outside the home to compensate, but for toughening me up. :) However I think it was just my particular trial of fire; my other friends all had their own kind that led us our current place in life.

You have more than a passing knowledge in the classics, literary and artistic-something less common today. How has that influenced you?

It's what made stick with the Anglican church for as long as I did and what makes the services enjoyable (when I accompany my mother to them at home). The classical music and poetry of the hymns and the liturgy, and the history self-evident in the Eucharist is what makes it enjoyable for me. It's also made more interested in history, and how people viewed things then. Outside of that I cannot say. I never thought about it much.

What expectations do you have from your university education? Are those expectations being met?

I expected university to be the place where I'd fall in love with learning again. The courses would be satisfyingly varied, almost foreign to me in terms of the intellectual challenge, and I'd sit and talk with professors and classmates about all sorts of deliciously juicy topics. Basically I could comfortably be a nerd without the petty high school drama.

This has been met to varying degrees. More often than not one doesn't have the luxury of course choices: once you've picked your major and specialisation the school only provides enough courses to fulfil that. Home schooling has spoiled me in that respect. Professors are not always as available as I would like, often shuttling me off to various TA's. However the quality of the courses is consistently high in most cases. Thankfully there is usually more wriggle room when picking the other courses needed to fulfil an Arts Degree. I am also quite comfortable in being nerdy as it is that kind of university.

How would you improve your education, if 2 hours with the school provost would lead to the school adopting your suggestions?

i) I would like more attention and money spent on and promoting the Arts at school. At the moment the Sciences/Math have a larger presence on-campus despite the fact that the Arts departments have significantly more students. They have a stronger alumni and stronger administrative support, from heads of dept. to academic advisers.

ii) Improved relations between admin and student body. I won't go into any details but through my time and own experience here, it often seems as if the admin prefers to keep its distance and rule from on high. They're not as responsive as they could be to students and seem primarily concerned with maintaining their illustrious rankings. At the same time the student association needs to appear more reasonable and less eager to jump at the gun.

iii) Gawd, we need a better student newspaper but that's really our problem. It's one of the things I wish I had tried to help with. I'd ask him for helpful tips at the least.

Where do you see yourself in 5 years?

I should be finishing up a joint-degree program at some respectable university where I hope to be leaving with a J.D. in Corporate law and a Masters in Poli Sci. That's the plan at any rate. I have one more year of undergrad left, and after that I'm taking a break from school to brush up on my French and Spanish in Europe.

In 10 years?

I really can't say, I haven't looked that far ahead. I hope to be happy or at least content with the present lot in life, working with a small to mid-size law firm perhaps and still actively involved with community service work.

What do you want to see of yourself?

I'd definitely like to see concrete results from my community service work. I've mostly abandoned the idea that I need to see big guaranteed results of whatever team effort I've participated in. Sometimes, probably most of the time, one's efforts won't be felt outside of a small community that no one else cares about.

What do you hope never to see of yourself?

Indulgent self-pity, the complete loss of my idealism, penuriousness and lack of regard for family.

Without invoking religion per se, describe your faith. Do you believe in God? Do you want to believe in God?

At this point in time, I don't have a faith. I did a post on my blog where I concisely conveyed my gradual disenchantment with Christianity (sorry had to invoke it), personally speaking. I never had a strong faith to begin with-I just believed what I was told-and when I began to question things the answers I got weren't satisfactory. So presently I don't believe in God and I'm not sure that I want to.

Which three people most heavily influenced you?

My Mother - She had me at a young age and with the supportive network of close family members, has gone to significant lengths of self-improvement in order to be the best Mother she could be for me. She is one of the kindest and fairest persons you could ever be lucky enough to meet and a very loyal person. She is also quite responsible, incredibly intelligent, productive and dedicated. We've had our differences through the years but I've never felt that she doesn't love me. Not once. I'm trying to reflect her influence in my life, although it's a bit difficult as my temper is more easily provoked.

My Aunt D. - She is my second mother, the one who took care of me when my mother couldn't be there. She combed my hair and made my meals more often than not (she's a much better cook than Mom) and tutored me on some subjects right up until I left for Senior School. To me she is the quintessential home-maker, all warmth and comfort, and quite self-less to sometimes vexing degrees IMO. Still she is dependable and resourceful to a fault and she has shown me through her own actions, how satisfactory and...well GOOD serving others can be.

Mrs. B (Grade 11 & 12 English teacher) - Mrs. B is the teacher who convinced me that I wanted to be a teacher at some point in my life. Senior School for me had been less than what I had hoped, and the intimate, dynamic, mutually rewarding give-and-take relationship between teacher and student had mostly disappeared for me. This was an expensive and well-respected prep school but for me that didn't matter if I didn't feel as if the teachers loved the subject, loved imparting it and looved it when a student was fully engaged. Mrs. B showed me with her work ethic, her enthusiasm and her utter dedication and care to and for her students that teaching is, in many ways, a higher calling. I still keep in contact with her.

Thinking of home, who do you miss most?

My family of course: mother, aunt, cousins and grandfather! I would say my close friends as well, but only one of them attends school there now, we've all moved out. One is studying in India, another doing a year in Colombia (she wants to be a Spanish teacher), two in the USA (Cornell & UPENN) and one in U of Toronto.

We knew her when...

One of our favorites, Beth, of My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, has managed to get her name in lights! More about that in a moment.

Beth has become a (deserved) big wheel in the Cotillion, a group of like minded bloggers. They offer up a terrific spectrum of ideas and thoughts. You may not always agree- but they will make you think. In the wild world of the blogosphere, that speaks volumes.

Now, back to those lights on Broadway. The Barking Dingo, another favorite read, (who would not know decent pizza if it hit him in the face) informed us that Beth and My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy made CNN!

We could not be happier for her. If you were not aware, Beth did yeoman's work in blogging for Terri Schiavo on her own blog and on Blogs for Terri. Her passion, dedication and efforts speak for themselves- and her blog reflects that.

Congratulations, Beth.

More More On God and Values, Courtesy Of Albert Schweitzer

We received an email earlier today, from a regular reader, Mango, discussing our post below, Schools And God: An SC&A Proposal.

Sometimes I swear you include extraneous phrases in your posts to get everyone all riled up. In fact, I'm positive you do. As promised, I wanted to respond, after taking some time to think about this.

This post wasn't about God at all.

Or, at least, I didn't take it that way. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in my assessment.

You raise an excellent point. I also believe that the function of schools should be to furnish children with the necessary skills to function in society.

Given what has transpired over the past few years, the situation appears to be deteriorating. Now, I don't have facts and figures to support this assertion, but it clearly does appear to be deteriorating. I come from a long line of educators, and they all point out the same thing. Children today are disrepectful (children were back in the day, as well), but what is scary is the increased violence shown towards teachers and other students.

This increased willingness towards violence appears to point to a lack of moral behavior.

The question becomes, who's job is it to instill these morals?

I don't necessarily agree that they should be taught in school, or that the lack of moral education in school is the cause for this behavior.

In this case, you are attempting to put a band-aid on a broken arm.

In many instances, parents are to blame for their bastard children. For many reasons, and I don't need to necessarily point them out to you.

If we don't fix the root of the problem, it will not go away.

Schools are supposed to teach children how to function in society, but they are not supposed to be the only voice. Parents (should) shoulder a good portion of the responsibility as well. Parents need to take an active role in their children's development, and they need to show interest in their child's growth. All the teaching in the world will not help these children, if they aren't encouraged to continue their moral education at home.

We can't have parents take an aptitude test prior to conception, nor can we regulate how they raise their children. But, we have to give them tools, support and encouragement. Money, time and other resources would be better spent on teaching parents how to be good parents.

But, you and I both know that this will not happen.

So, we are left with doing the best we can with what we have.

I don't necessarily agree that using religion in school will help build a stronger moral character, nor do I agree that private schools that are religiously based do a better job of teaching children than other private schools. But, you raise an interesting question.

It is a question that I think was lost due to your inclusion of God and creationism.

Exactly HOW do we teach these children to behave responsibly?

We responded in part, as follows:

You're right- it was never about God or Creationism. The post was about something far more important.

While we may disagree on a few issues, I believe that if the shortest distance between 2 points is straight line, then so be it. If it takes teaching religious values, then thats what we do.

Boomr (a reader whom we respect enomously), in a recent comment to our post below stated,

...why does this discussion need to occur in public schools? Such exposure can come from so many different places outside of school, subject to the parents' and the kids' personal desires and beliefs. There's no need to homogenize these beliefs in teaching for everyone in public school. We say that in principle, he is right. Teaching values should be done at home and outside the school.

However, as Mango says, it just isn't going to happen.

Albert Schweitzer said that the 'principle of of reverence for life rejects relativism.' That is to say that only good preserves and benefits life. He goes on to clearly say that there is indeed evil. Schweitzer further says that there are not a lot of compromises between ethics and necessity and says rather succinctly,

In every case we must decide ourselves to what extent we may remain ethical and to what extent we have to bow to the necessity of harming and destroying life, and thereby incurring the guilt of such actions. The more we act in accordance with the principle of of reverance for life, the more we are gripped by the desire to preserve life.

These are moral matters and truths. Reverance for life is reverance for society- that is, the way we interact with each other- and as any educator will tell you, can also be defined by how well we pass these values on. Finally, Schwitzer says,

Three kinds of progress are significant for culture: progress in knowledge and technology; progress in the socialization of man; progress in spirituality. The last is the most important.

When it came to values, morals and ethics, one would be hard pressed to find anyone of late more qualified to speak on the subject than Albert Schweitzer.

*UPDATE* Schools And God: An SC&A Proposal

We believe the following is one of our most important posts.

SC&A have discussed schools and education for a while now. We have heard from our readers as well as educators. We have heard from those of you that have been through the system and those that currently have children in the system, or will, in the near future.

Now, SC&A will put forth our beliefs and opinions on what ought to be done to improve what is a clearly deteriorating situation. We will talk about religion and science, discipline and freedom. Some of you will agree and applaud or ideas, and others of you will be offended and disagree with our ideas, vehemently. That said, if our opinions and ideas cause the conversation to be reignited, then we have accomplished what we set out to do- talk about what is a fundamental pillar of society.

We believe that the primary mission of education, is to equip students to with the skills they need to function within society. That means that prior to filling a child’s (or parents) head with the notion that they are so ‘special‘, so as to stand out from everyone else, the principal role of an education is to make sure the child understands they are part of something bigger.

Ask any teacher about the state of child rearing and discipline today. Students assault teachers, each other and rules endorsed by parents, PTA’s and school boards, effectively hamper teachers from keeping control of their classrooms. How has this come to pass, in only one generation? Simply put, we have changed the nature of the relationships we have with our children and with society.

Children today believe they are very important. They are so important, that they have a right, to demand, they be seen or heard at every opportunity, by whomever they deem needs to hear or see them. Anything that might muffle their voices or obscure them so as to make them unrecognizable, is a challenge to their ‘rights.’ How did this come to be? Mommy and Daddy of course. In their quest to find life ‘meaningful’ for themselves, they placed an even bigger onus on schools than just education. They needed the schools to raise their children. How did parents explain to their children that they would not be there for their children, like grandma and grandpa were for them? By telling- insisting- that they were special, and would be treated in a special way- that they were at the front of the line always, that were special and better than everyone else. In one fell swoop, parents could feel OK with abrogating their responsibilities; teachers got saddled with the princes and princesses of the proud parents who recognized the uniqueness and hidden talents so rarely found. Parents believe they each have a Picasso, Mozart or Barbra Streisand on their hands. The parents of any child that does not manage skills and talents that are world class, indignantly blame an inferior school system, venting their outrage on teachers and administrators that are ‘preventing’ their child from exercising the world class potential that only they can see.

Like it or not, this the reality that is played out everyday, in every community and in every school.

We propose someone do the unthinkable: Tell the truth. Not every child is star and none are that special. Further, children need to learn that a) they cannot do it on their own, and b) they do not have the right to walk all over anyone they please on their way to the top.
One of the characteristics that distinguishes man from the animal kingdom is that man has the ability to change the nature of his relationships. Animals of course, do not care about ‘relationships,’ per se. They operate on an instinctual level only. While they may belong to a herd, they care only for themselves and their turf. They may fight each other (the young bucks fighting each other or the herd ‘elders’) to assert supremacy, even if that means weakening the herd.

Notwithstanding the definitions of the Darwinian/Freudians, that we are no more than an evolved animal, the fact remains that we are more than driven by the self preserving Id. Put a crayon in the hands of five year old and watch that child create- for him or herself of course, but more importantly, for others to appreciate.

Society functions on teamwork and the idea that there are rules that are applicable to all. Society cannot make room for exceptions based on relativism of any kind. If this needs further explanation, don’t waste your time reading the rest of this- because in a bit, we are really going to get you going.

We are going to talk about values. We are going to talk about God, creationism and morals, all ideas that seem very elusive today.

There is noting wrong with teaching about God and creationism in schools.

As a matter of fact, we don’t see what the big deal is. The argument that the government should not be in the teaching religion business is absurd. Atheism and secularism are as much religions as anything else. There are some religious conservatives that teach hate, you say? Well, there are some atheists and secularists that do exactly the same thing. Why is some ‘hate’ less hateful and more acceptable than others?

Do the possible downside of teaching religion and values outweigh the benefits? Lets examine that.

Suppose we teach Creationism in schools (and all that implies- purpose, meaning, community, etc). Does that mean our scientific standards will diminish? We don’t think so. Darwin, Newton and Einstein, for example, all believed in God. All over the country, the Loyola University system has produced some of the most cutting edge work in both the Arts and Sciences. In the Northeast, Yeshiva University, Albert Einstein Medical School, Brandeis, Beth Israel hospital and a myriad of others, are all institutions with a distinct religious character. Some outstanding research is done all over the world by religious people. Science it seems, has not been compromised by institutions that accept and embrace those who are religious. In Europe and Israel, for example, world class institutions of higher learning are chocked with religious people, from the Louis Pasteur Institute in Paris, Oxford, Cambridge and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Are their contributions to the advancement of science somehow diminished because they are religious?

What exactly is the harm in teaching Creationism? What exactly is the harm in teaching morality? In truth, the schools that offer a religious agenda instill moral principles in their students- a direct affront to the anything goes culture that drives an anything goes economy.

Make no mistake about it- private schools exist because they too, offer a moral agenda. They may not couch in religious terms but in fact, that which is taught is remarkably similar to a religious curriculum. Here’s another truth you might not wish to hear: The more religious a private school is, the more successful it is and the better track record it has.

Whether in private schools or not, most parents want their children to be protected from the problems that are now evident- and are out of control. Most parents want to instill moral values in their children. They understand that to do that, schools need to have a moral and judgmental (yes, judgmental) curriculum. Without it, society will implode. It is nice that little Ashley is encouraged to ‘create’ and ‘express herself’ with her own ‘original’ modern dance, but even little Ashley’s parents have to understand that there are other, more important priorities for Ashley’s development.

Further, we adamantly maintain that democracy itself demands a moral foundation. There is a difference between right and wrong and there is good and evil. Those truths become blurred when there is no moral anchor and compass. Truth takes a backseat to agenda. Darfur, anyone?

Secularism is no guarantee of truth. Much of Margaret Mead's work has been thoroughly discredited. Her 'research,' extrapolated, that men and women are interchangeable, and that sex roles in particular, can be manipulated, for example, is an outright lie, yet those ideas are taught and promulgated because they fit an agenda. Why is that mythology more acceptable than the Genesis story?

We are not advocating the imposition of a religious agenda anymore than we advocate imposing a secular agenda. We are advocating a moral agenda.

The non moral agenda of secularism hasn’t worked.

We are by no means done with our ideas. Now however, we want to hear from you.

*UPDATE*

SC&A want to be perfectly clear. Our post was not about Creationism, per se. What we choose to believe- as what you choose to believe, is a matter of faith, and as such, should be kept private.

Further, we wish to reiterate an important point: Belief in God does not negate or belittle a believer's value to scientific research. To imply otherwise is a red herring issue. Legions of Catholic, Lutheran, Jewish, Buddhist and Islamic believers- that attended religious parochial schools- are scientists of the highest order.

We did not post to pit Evolution against Creationism. The entire point of our post was to foist the idea that teaching morality and values, via a Judeo-Christian vehicle is an idea worth discussing. As we pointed out in our post, we believe it is a lack of values and meaning that have contributed to a 'dumbed down' educational system and by extension, a dumbed down society and culture. We believe that the values that a Judeo-Christian based education can teach, can be of immense value. It should be noted that our system of government and most of our laws, are based on those very same values.

Food For Thought

We've been doing a bit of looking around today and found a few posts worthy of attention, because they accentuate the meaning of the this day.

No Oil For Pacificts (a blog we like and need to read more) has two excellent posts. The first, is about the EU constitution referendum. The author, Carl, provides an in depth and cogent look at Europe at a crossroads in history. There are excellent references and resources. A bit of time on the blog post will reward readers with a clearer understanding of what the EU is really all about and what seperates Europe and America.

His second post, A Tale of Two Arabs is an interesting look at current events and how they are perceived from a Arab point of view. We have our own opinion of the state of current affairs in the Arab world and admittedly, we are not as understanding of certain things- but that is for another post.

A good Memorial Day read can be found here.

*UPDATE* Memorial Day And The EU Vote For Dummies

Memorial Day 2005. Another year where what this day means will pass, and the day will be only meaningul to those who have a loved one in the military or those of us that have chosen to somehow identify with the meaning of this day.

We know what we are supposed to be grateful for. We have- and have had- freedoms most of the world has yet to experience and know. All freedoms we take for granted because more than one generation of young men and women died defending the ideals we believe in. As Andy Rooney said on '60 minutes,' (listen here, if you missed him this week) they did not give their lives in defense of those ideals- their lives were taken. All so we could lives our lives, without interference and in the way we see fit. We are free to vote as we see fit, read and write as we see fit and pray as we wish to to. We are free to assemble and voice our beliefs.

Our freedoms are the embodiment of our belief in the elevation of freedom. We believe that man will excel, even beyond his own perceived capabilities, if given the chance to exercise his potential, free of interference from those things that would limit or hinder his efforts.

Yesterday, in a referendum sponsored by the government of Jacques Chirac, France voted with a resounding 'NON!' to a unified EU constitition. The voters rejecting an pan Europe constitution were comprised of the left, the right, and everything in between. Why did the French reject a constitution that was, from the beginning, written so that everyone 'could just get along'?

In a nutshell, "the charter represented "a Europe of the lowest common denominator."

What does that mean? Simply put, it is the complete opposite of those things we believe to be essential for freedom to flourish. We believe that freedom , at it's best, inspires our best. Others believe that freedom is about homogenized society, none excelling so that all are equal.

It was that vision and idea that the French resisted in the EU constitution vote- and it is against those ideas that others in the EU will vote to reject.

How will the proponents of the EU constitition react? As expected, they are dismissing the voice of the people. Jean-Claude Juncker, the current EU president (from that mighty state of Luxembourg), declared that if the French said ‘oui’ European integration would proceed, and if they said ‘non’ European integration would proceed. And what does 'consulting the people mean'? In the EU, not much. It is the powers that be, that know best what you need, what you need to know and what you need to believe- and you will vote again and again, until you get it 'right.' That's what M Chirac said, or threatened, last week.

In other words, nothing as irrelevant or meaningless as the will of the people will be allowed to derail the EU project. To the politicians of Chirac's ilk, the EU proponents will have their way- that is to say that what was once freedom will now be replaced with the EU version, whether anyone wants it or not. In other words, the EU has become a fully functional, anti democratic apparatus.

The French government, in concert with the EU, might best be described as a semi-functional Salvador Dali painting- surreal, and out of touch with reality. There was a fantastic belief that asupra state EU- a mammoth social welfare state, would be able to compete in a free-market, against truly free market states.

Then there is the assault on the free marketplace of thoughts and ideas- as in 'if your ideas aren't met with approval, they are not acceptable.'

Just a few thoughts on this Memorial Day.

*UPDATE*

Jennifer and MaxedOutMama, in comments, 'got' what it was we were trying to say- and said it even better than we did. Jennifer remarked,

I am of the belief that the root of everything that is wrong in America today can be traced to our gradual exodus toward pandering to the lowest common denominator. From schools to government. From political correctness run amok to denying gays the rights to adopt a needy child. From the drivel that passes for entertainment to the willingness to accept less than the best to spare sensitivities. All of it. It's scary. It needs to stop. When excellence became a dirty word, equating with ego or all manner of negative stripings, we began the pattern of settling.

It's not good enough, dammit.

MaxedOutMama said,

...All one has to do is realize that the French people would never want to join an army and fight for that Constitution, and then one realizes why they had to reject it. They have the right to be French - to pursue their own dreams.

SC&A are of the firm belief that our readers are a lot smarter than the average blogger/blog reader. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

SC&A Gives To Pet People

Via Beth (of course).

Can you resist puppies? Of course you can't

Can kittens be far behind? Nope, they're right here.

In honor of Memorial Day, consider this a gift to all you pet bloggers, pets, mothers to pets, fathers to pets, aunts, uncles, cousins and grandparents to pets. If you blog as a pet, believe you are a pet, dance with pets, dress pets, undress pets, buy pet jewelry, subscibe to pet magazines, make special homemade pet food, sing to pets, write music for your pet, converse with pets, discuss pets incessantly, obsess about pets, write poems to your pets, ponder pet haiku or write journals, articles or books about pets, these links are for you.

Yes, we care about our readers.

Blogging Between Burgers

It's Memorial Day. We don't have to be witty today. We will just be our regular, brilliant selves and make sure nothing burns.

The Piano Man saga continues. Just who the heck is this guy? No pants, no brains. Another Jennifer Wilbanks-like story, only this one features nudity.

More no brainers. I mean, how stupid do you have to be? Might explain road rage. Do you feel as if you're frozen in place at work? That may depend on where you work.

One more. You can suffer through it. For those of you that thought SC&A were a bit too tough on pets and their owners, see this. We care, really, we do.

We'll just be staying and eating at different establishments.

Sunday School Reader

School buss rides aren't what they used to be. There's been a rape on a Massachussetts school bus (a judge, in his infinite wisdom- well, read it all...). That follows a first gand grope attack. We used to get into trouble for spitballs.

Nothing like leaving decision making to academics with no experience in the real world.

What's a bit of sodomy between non consenting adults?

From the PC run amuck department: Toronto unveils statue of one of Canada's first openly gay public figures.

So far so good. Canada has long had a progressive, liberal and socially sensitive and aware policies.

The article takes a decidedly strange turn when describing Alexander Wood (seriously, that was his name. We wouldn't make that up), the gentleman in whose honor the statue was erected.

According the article, Mr Wood

"established himself as one of Toronto's leading merchants and was appointed as a city magistrate in 1800.

Wood became the centre of a gay sex scandal 10 years later when he was accused by several young men of fondling them during a rape investigation.

A woman who claimed to have been attacked by a group of men told Wood she had scratched the penis one of the assailant, so Wood took it upon himself to investigate the suspects' genitals.

He was soon forced to flee to Scotland in order to avoid potential sodomy charges. At the time, homosexuality was an offence punishable by death."

Apparently, Mr Wood was oppressed because he was gay- and not because he may have assaulted rape suspects and committed sodomy. That was fine. The journalist saw no problem with that.

What's a bit of sodomy between non consenting adults?

For some reason, the community of journalists (that impressive lot of idiots) cannot understand why they are so poorly regarded.

As an afterthought, we are quite sure Mr Wood is remembered for being an oppressed minority in Ontario schools. If any of our readers have any knowledge of that, we'd like to hear about it

Like we said, PC run amuck.

New Coke Redux And Classic Idiots

Remember the morons that wanted to give us 'new' Coke? Well, they go their come-uppance and 'new' Coke is no more than a really bad trivia question.

Well, losing their jobs wasn't enough of a dressing down. It appears as if these geniuses were not only run out of town, but out of country as well. Where do idiots like that end up? Can they ever be reformed? Well, SC&A have the answer to that question- and that answer is a resounding NO!

It appears as if the marketing gurus didn't let one of the century's great screw ups get in the way, no siree. Obviously, these fools ended up in the United Kingdom (Why we would allow that to happen to allies of ours is beyond our comprehension, but that is a whole other post).

In any case, see what these great minds are up to now.

I takes a whole lot of effort to screw up a classic.

It's Official: We're Out Of The Closet

Basil has 'outed' us, sort of. It's not that SC&A have anything to hide, but there are times we like to keep our therapy to the blogging stars, private.

Naturally, we are approached almost daily and asked to be of help. Sadly, we cannot respond to the many that seek us- we only help in instances where we know we can be of real help (that means, the bastards pay full fees. Full fees also elicit 'symapthy' and/or 'empathy.').

In a recent post, Basil has opened a door. We are not amused. (Full fee paying client) Therapy is a private matter.

Below The Fold, Beneath The Radar

There has been an interesting conversation going on in the comments section of our post, 'Well, What Am I Supposed To Do???, ' our piece on nannies and childrearing of the rich, famous and at times, incredibly stupid.

Boomr starts off,

"With due respect for the intent of the post, the people in the "I need a nanny 12 hours a day" position probably won't be sending their kids to public schools. Those parents aren't the ones making our PUBLIC schools crumble -- although in their own way, they are contributing to the decline of western civilization..."

Kenju adds,

"...Why do people have children if they can't be bothered to raise them? I was a SAHM back when it began to be fashionable to work. I realized that the most important thing I could give my kids was not more $$$, it was time and attention. Kids like that will populate our prisons and detention centers in the future."

Goldie has plenty to say on the subjects of the mommy wars and child rearing- and she can back it up. Her post is an interesting read at the very least and an eye opener for sure.

"I asked working moms of underage kids, or their husbands, to respond. I pictured a hypothetical situation where the family somehow comes into a lot of money – enough to meet all their needs during their lifetime and leave some behind for the kids too. Retirement, medical care, top-of-the-line assisted facilities, everything is covered. In this situation, would the wife/mother continue to work outside the home or not?"

Read Goldie's post here.

Of course, no conversation on this topics is complete without Mamacita's input and insight:

I saw stuff like that all the time. It's not just rich people and nannies and private schools, it's everywhere...My old school served breakfast, lunch, and if the parent signed up for the afterschool program, supper as well. Some kids were in the building from 7 a.m. till 8 p.m. And we still had to wait for their parents to get there to pick them up. Parents complained because they HAD to pick them up by a certain hour; it was 'inconvenient.' Her best point, we believe was made in passing: "...They don't want to deal with their children now, either, but you can bet they've got rules for all the other poor suckers who have to deal with them. Poor kids. Stupid parents. Stupid, stupid parents."

If there is anyone who can say it better than Mamacita, let us know.

Square1 makes an interesting, important- and poignant- observation:

...A sane parent is much better than a burnt-out one. I was more emotionally detached staying at home. Now I'm physically detached for a short period of time and emotionally attached at all times...The child isn't a priority in mind when it comes to planning the career, but rather the child is seen as a hindrance. That's what I think most of us here are upset about. The job/career should be there to support the family...Not vice versa. Some people just have their priorities out of whack..."

We have only selected a few remarks from the comments to our post. Carson and Anniebird add a great deal of texture and depth to this conversation, with comments that are nothing short of thought-provoking.

We've been following along, just listening, so to speak. You might wish to consider reading and joining in.

Holy Crap! Preparing For The Worst

There are some things that remain sacred. Access to the soft and scented is one of those things.

Finland is preparing for a disaster of the worst kind, a shortage of toilet paper. The Finns are taking the impending crisis seriously, hoarding that which they hold so dear.

Shoppers in Finland have raided shelves for toilet paper in fear of it running out as a lockout of workers keeps the Nordic country's paper mills shut.

"As soon as we get a delivery, the packages vanish off the shelves," said Hille Laine, manager of a central Helsinki shop that had no tissue paper products left.

This is serious. We can see all kinds of crap on the horizon.

Amnesty International And Other Matters: The Author of SC&A Speaks

In a recent post on Amnesty International, it appears as if I left some readers with a mistaken impression about my position on human rights reporting. The ever thoughtful Boomr, said as follows, in a comment:

"Whether AI skews its stats to make the US seem worse is one thing, but for SC&A to say that neither the US nor Israel has committed violations of human rights is mere partisanship that flies in the face of facts."

I wish to address the issues Boomr raised and clarify our own position on AI. While I do question some of the 'facts' (we suspect that many are allegations) Boomr is referring to, I do realize that human rights violations are a reality whenever one person controls another's destiny. Some violations may be minor, some less so, but in effect, human rights are violated everyday, in most places. Now, I have no objection to having human rights violations pointed out. Indeed, that is a thing, when done with the best of intentions. What I do object to, however, is the cavalier way in which AI refers to those violations- in other words, good context. That AI referred to Guantanimo Bay as comparable to the 'gulag' of the past is at best, absurd and at worst, a deliberate distortion of the truth. I have visited what was the 'gulag' and I have talked to people who survived the 'gulag.' In the Gulag Archipelago,' Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote of the reality of those places and of the conditions and severity of treatment of prisoners of those places.

Not even in the wildest flights of fancy of former inmates, does Guantanimo Bay even remotely resemble the gulag. Not even in the eyes of the harshest Red Cross inspector, does Guanmtanimo Bay come across as the prison that picked up the baton and legacy of the gulag. Where does Amnesty get off talking about Guantanimo Bay in those terms? They are supposed to be impartial, they are supposed to be concerned with human rights only, and not push any agenda.

As I said yesterday, AI and the mainstream media are less than candid when they present their 'findings.' AI does not have free access in most countries it surveys, except those that are democracies. AI does not rely upon their own findings in most cases. They are presented with 'officially sanctioned' numbers and statistics from 'officially sanctioned' opposition parties. Let me be clear here: For the longest time, AI did not rely on Iraqi opposition groups in Europe or the US for their official report and information on saddens atrocities. Only when other relief agencies started reporting those atrocities and groups such as RSF, did AI step forward and acknowledge those atrocities, while at the same time, emphasizing the effects the UN embargo had on Iraq. At no point did AI acknowledge the Iraqi UN Ambassador admitting that the shortages of food and medicines in Iraq were a result of the regime refusing to distribute those needed items. Instead, AI insisted on blaming the 'US led sanctions.'

Again, let me be precise. I have been in many Arab countries. Tourists do not have the freedom to go and do as they please, in many instances. Do you think these regimes would give AI the freedom to 'peek under the rug,' unimpeded?

Further, my familiarity with AI is first hand. In the interest of full disclosure, I support AI financially, because the work they do on behalf of politcal prisoners is lauditory. That part of the work they do remains beyond reproach.

Boomr also states the following:

I think what gives me pause the most is that SC&A is SO against the modern form of Islam -- as evidenced by a dozen or more recent posts -- that any admission that the US or Israel has done wrong is seen by SC&A as support for the atrocities of people who are far worse. Isn't there a middle ground, where we can all agree that EVERY country on Earth has committed atrocities of some kind? Merely stating that the US has violated human rights is not anti-American, or pro-terrorist, or treasonous. It's a statement of fact.

Boomr, to that we say, your point is well taken. However, I do not now, or have ever objected to a fair assessment of the situation, either as it relates to the Middle East, human rights, or to our own realities in the world of realpolitik. What we object to are the differing standards of judgment as it relates to the Middle East, human rights or our own political interests. I have never said that Israel or ourselves were beyond criticism or reproach. I have, in more than one instance, reiterated that truth. That said, as a matter of course, the US and Israel are routinely subjected to the most vile of critique, for what are no more than at best, political agendas and at worst, unrestrained bigotry. The same voices that excoriate the US and Israel don't give a damn about Darfur, for example. I suppose 400,000 to 800,000 dead aren't enough yet- or, perhaps the fact that the victims are black plays a role. While the GIA was raping children in Algeria, these voices where nowhere to be heard. FGM continues unabated. There are estimates that up to 100 million women have been mutilated. That begs the question: What makes the US and Israel so special? Of course, I could go on and on. We live in a smaller world today. We know that in Mauritania, tens of thousands are murdered or are enslaved every year. We know that the Copts in Egypt are still being persecuted, as are the Bahai in Iran. In Rwanda, Canadian General Romeo D'allaire almost went off the deep end because nobody gave a damn as he watched hundreds of thousands die, because the UN didn't want him to 'get involved.' And where was AI? Focusing on Israel, of course and the big bad US.

Let's be clear- In five years of the Intifadah (called for by the Palestinians themselves), 3,000 Palestinians have been killed. In Rwanda, the number of dead tally to over 1,000,000.

Is it possible there are human rights violations in Guantanimo Bay? Yes, it possible. Is it possible the Israelis are violating human rights? Yes, it may be so (though after 50 years of what is essentially a 9/11 in terms of per capita deaths every year, the Israelis remain remarkably restrained). If true, those human rights violations must be addressed. However, in the great scheme of politics and human rights violations, the US and Israel are way down the list of priorities- unless of course, the critics don't really care about human rights.

As someone wrote (I can't recall who), the US has liberated more people from tyranny than all the countries of the world combined. Is that factual? I don't know- but the very fact that it may be true, speaks volumes. Lastly, as Colin Powell said, the US has no history of imperialism and imposing onerous dictatorships over great masses of peoples. All the land America ever asked of the countries it helped liberate and fight on behalf of, was a place to bury her dead.

There Aren't Enough Fingers To Plug The Leaks

Much has been written in the Ivory Towers of academia about the Islamization of Europe. For most of us, those studies and books leave us distant and unattached.

SC&A want you to see what the Islamization of Europe really looks like. First, see this. Be sure to play the video. Then, see this blog, DutchReport. The author gives the reader a clear view of what Europeans face. We urge you to start at the top and read the entries. They are eye-openers, for sure. Especially disturbing is the glorification of the murderer of Theo Van Gogh. Couple that with reality of how young Muslims (five year olds are taught to write 'Fuck you, Netherlands') view Holland and Dutch society.

This isn't pie in the sky, folks. This is Europe, in real time.

Unless and until a more moderate (read: reformed) Islam is promulgated by moderate Muslims, there is only one direction Europe is headed. That said, we also believe that there will be a European backlash- and that won't be pretty. In the meantime, the emigration out of the Netherlands is not difficult to understand- at least it isn't for people that have to live under increasingly intolerable conditions.

Crossing The Line

There is right and there is wrong. It is also true that there can be various shades of gray.

Nat Hentoff has a reputation for telling it like it is. He railed mightily against the efforts to starve Terri Schiavo to death and wrote about the MSM's poor performance in covering the story. Recently, he published an article on our own machinations in Sudan that are effectively hampering efforts to quell the genocide being committed by the Janjaweed, the Arab militias, against the Darurese (here is an earlier article).

If true, this is an outrage. We cannot allow the unrestrained slaughter of innocents for political gain. That is tantamount to supporting the janjaweed's slaughter and atrocities against the Darfurese.

SC&A don't care who is in office.

The Truth About Amnesty International: The Lies And The Whole Truth

Today, Amnesty International (predictably) slammed the US and Israel in a report on the state of global human rights. Notwithstanding the upside down nature of the report- somehow democratic states are portrayed as the worst offenders, with the mainstream media dutifully and gleefully playing along as the most egregious human rights violators barely are worthy of mention.

The media, in their response to the AI report are devoting millions of words excoriating the US, Israel and other democratic states. What the media and AI will not tell you is why there is an imbalance in the amount of words expended on the US, Israel and other states in the AI report. The fact of the matter is, outside of democratic states, AI is severely hampered in their information gathering. That's right- the worst offenders do not allow access to their countries. There is a dearth of information. In other words, AI is aware they don't know. AI can't be bothered to tell you that reality. If they did, their credibility as the informed source of human rights information would be compromised.

There is something else AI and the media won't tell you. What little access AI has to many countries is directly related to what they write about that country. Ask yourselves a question: Why would a country with a notorious human rights record allow AI back in, after a 'bad' report? The answer is simple. By playing down the severity of the human rights violations, AI guarantees itself the ability to return. Once again, it's about credibility. If AI can show 'access,' it is presumed they are reporting the truth. Notorious human rights violators are only too happy to be in 'middle of the pack.'

When the Arab world, for example, or China lecture us on human rights violations, we can be excused for a reflexive bit of laughter. Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt and Jordan are far more egregious purveyors of human rights violations, including religious persecution and the persecution of women. China, for years the standard bearer of political persecution, continues it's 'long march' of oppression (and the sale of human organs 'donated' by prisoners) during the current economic boom.

Do you suppose these Arab countries and China allow unrestricted access to AI investigators? We have been to some of these countries. Tourists are not allowed unrestricted access and movement. Why doesn't AI report that truth?

We are not questioning the need for vigilance in the protection of rights. We are questioning- actually, confronting- AI and the media and asking if their concern is really human rights or if in fact their agenda is political.

AI has long had a political agenda. That agenda has long been endorsed and embraced by the media. The media does not question AI on access, content influence or on final recommendations. Suppose an organization of different kind produced a report on matters controversial and said, 'Here is the truth- we have no agenda.'

Do you think the media would be so accommodating and accepting?

Now, you may want question SC&A about how we know all this. Well, we do. Really. Neither AI or the media can dispute anything we have written. None of it.

Whores And Family Values

Yesterday, we posted on Hirsi Ali, the Dutch lawmaker now protected by the authorities, in response to threats made against her by Islamic fundamentalists. Ms Ali has made known her views on Islam and for that matter, those on the left side of the political spectrum.

A favorite read of ours, MaxedOutMama, posted on the matter as well. She has also provided some excellent background links and we encourage you to read her post and read the links provided.

It isn't often we take issue with MOM, but in this rare instance, we do. MaxedOutMama says the following about the death of Theo Van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker killed by a Muslim fundamentalist:

...She [Ali] collaborated with Van Gogh on the film about Islamic mistreatment of women that so angered a Muslim that he sought Van Gogh out and killed him in a rather horrible way. (I think the film was more than a bit inflammatory and denigratory of Islam as a whole in an unfair way, but you have to read her experiences to understand why she sees things as she sees them.) Left pinned to his body with a knife was a letter that promised a like fate to Hirsi Ali.

In fairness to MOM, we don't think she meant to imply there were any mitigating circumstances. Nevertheless, a casual reader might infer that there were grounds (for the perpetrators) to justify their wanton behavior. We want MOM to be very clear that is not at all the case.

So what if the film was inflammatory? Does that even remotely justify or explain away what happened? Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 was inflammatory, too, as was Mel Gibson's The Passion- and there are host of other films that might be described as inflammatory. Do we insist on allowing for different standards?

The same can be said for the whole Newsweek/Quran debacle. Let's for one minute say the story as reported, were true. So what? That we are allowing much of the Muslim world to dictate the nature of the debate is ridiculous. The outraged voices are nowhere to be found when churches (with praying parishioners in place) are shot up, blown up or burnt to the ground. The same voices are nowhere to be found as remnants of the Jewish communities in Arab countries (communities that preceded Islam) have been systematically destroyed. The Temple burnings in India are an ongoing problem, as are the destruction of Bibles in Saudi Arabia and the plight of Christians in much of the Arab world.

For the Islamic world to smugly insinuate that America hates Muslims is an outrageous hypocrisy. As Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan said to the media on his most recent trip to Washington, DC, Muslims are respected here. There are mosques and Islamic schools all over this country, that are unimpeded in their mission. Can the same be said for religious expressions of other faiths in most Islamic countries? Of course not.

The bottom line here is that the Islamic societies that so joyfully excoriate us are by no means moral equals. We are quite sure the parents of children raped and dismembered by the GIA in Algeria, for example, would have been delighted to flush their Qurans down the toilet themselves, so as to save their children. That of course, didn't happen- and nor were there any Muslim protests against the GIA's religiously mandated behavior. The list of hypocrisies goes on and on. Every day, much of Arab media portrays Jews and Christians in the most derogatory and vile of ways, while Muslim clergy spew hatred in legendary measure, even encouraging the rape of their enemies as a right and religious duty. Is that an overstatement? Well, for starters, the women of Darfur can answer that quite clearly.

We may indeed wish to censure ourselves in the ever present desire to improve ourselves and our society. Indeed, we should have that debate- it is after all, who we are. That said, however, we ourselves are the ones that need have a voice in that debate. Allowing the Muslim world (and their monumental hypocrisies) to have their input to our debate be taken seriously is like venerating a whore at the table, as we talk about family values. The Muslim world are not our moral equivalents, no matter what they say in English. The proof is in the pudding. See for yourselves.

'Well, what am I supposed to do ??? '

It's easy to blame the schools and lousy teachers for your kids problems. It's even easier to demand that the 'government' do something to make the schools better.

Here's a secret- there is nothing anyone can do to make the schools better when parents are not parents. In an article in today's Washington Post, a nanny provider to the rich and famous tells all. In this excerpt, she describes a parent's 'needs':

"Emily has a great deal of energy and needs to run free. She's in a daredevil phase and experiments with risky behavior, so watch carefully when she walks on the table or kitchen counter. Please gently stop her if she bites you or others. . . . We don't believe in punishment or time-outs. We never, ever use the word 'no.' "

How about this?

"Never disarm the security system, even when you're home, and check all cabinet and toilet latches as well as safety gates at all times. Clear all personal visitors to the grounds or in the house with us first. Do not sort our mail or touch our trash. Our offices are off-limits to you and the children. And don't forget #62 sunscreen!"

There's lots more insight into the truth that having money doesn't mean you can't be an idiot: often hears this:

"I leave my house before 7, and I absolutely cannot say I would be home before 7."

"And I say, well, it's going to be really hard to get a nanny to work 12 hours and then to commute back and forth. And they wail, 'Well, what am I supposed to do ??? ' "

The whole article can be found here- and we've just touched the surface. This one's a keeper, folks.

The HaloScan Hula

We seem to be having trouble with haloscan comments. It seems that more often than not, lately, comments are not being registered or there appear to be no comments when in fact there are.

Is anyone else experiencing this problem?

Ring Around The Literati, Round One

As SC&A have promised, our review of literary sites is here for you to enjoy, hate, or simply ignore. Our thanks to all of you that sent in suggestions and recommendations.

We do not expect you to agree with all of our reviews- after all, perceptions and ideas vary. Nevertheless, we believe our reviews are fair, accurate and take into account the bloggers intent. These reviews are by no means meant to be exhaustive, but then again, only relatives or obsessed significant other's would even attempt that.

We wanted to review literary/book sites because we find them fascinating exercises in brilliance, lunacy, hubris, pettiness or reasonableness- and those were just a few of the adjectives we could come up with as we write these reviews. There were too many blogs for us to do in one post, so we will be doing at least two or three others on the genre. In this post, we are going to look at some of the bigger book blogs. We will look at others and we will also look at the smaller book blogs- ones we find just as interesting and relevant. We will also review the certiable idiots. No, there is no other ways to describe that 'ship of fools.'

BookGirl's Nightstand is a worthy attempt at democratizing what is a notoriously self centered genre of blog(ger). In an uncharacteristically understated way, BGN's relates to her readers as friends. She doesn't talk down to them and she doesn't present herself in carefully scripted way to her readers. She comes across as natural and accessible. That alone sets her apart from most other literary bloggers.

BookGirl's Nightstand is not the ideal book blog if you're looking for a deeper and more involved relationship with a book blog. Her reviews are short and lack a certain precision. That said, in her defense, she is talking to friends, and making referrals. We think BGN understands the nature of the blog- that her readers are more likely to be involved with her the less time they have to spend on her blog. We like her.

MoorishGirl isn't really a literary blogger- at least not in the classic sense. She talks about books, of course, but she seems to report on what others are saying about books. That said, she is an accomplished writer, and a better one at that. That gives her a certain credibility, of course and may explain her reluctance to 'dirty her hands' in what is essentially the slop pen that are literary blogs. It is one thing for readers to express thoughts and opinions about books. It quite another to be have the need to be regarded as the final word in what is and isn't relevant and au courrant. Serious published authors understand this and the best of them welcome critique and the opportunity to explain and express themselves. In fact, authors of note will tell you (often without being prompted) that their opinions have changed, or they see things differently and so on. We suspect MoorishGirl more than aware of that reality. We like her reviews, a lot- and her ability to express her admiration or being left wanting, for example, of a particular effort in a way that highlights and spotlights the works author and not herself. That may not give you a clue about her personality but it speaks volumes about her character.

MobyLives is a literary blogger of an altogether different stripe. He writes about books, book news and seems to actually ferret book news out himself. He's a smart blogger and doesn't attempt to curry favor or pander to anything or anyone. He is a published writer himself, but seems to have (refreshingly) kept his distance from the 'literary scene' and the Gauloise smoking 'literati.' Give that MobyLives a cigar. To top it all off, MobyLives has fun with it all. Mark Twain would be proud.

Bookslut is more than a blog, to be sure, but we aren't really sure if that distinction is noted by her readers. The ezine is a Disneyland of many things literary and the reader is sure to be drawn into an area of interest. SC&A believe that what makes the cornucopia of literary plenty work is the definition of the Bookslut site. While that definition and structure gets em through the door, it is the menu that keep them. The reviews are excellent, well written and on point. The site reviews fiction, non-fiction and even poetry. The interviews aren't quite as sharp, but then again, the subject of the interview has a lot to do with that.

We like bookslut, despite more than a bit of it's 'in' humor and Starbucks-like cache. The good news is that unlike that coffee house, even the Bookslut froth has substance.

So ends round one. Our next reviews shall be, as we say, more interesting.

Hirsi Ali And How The Europeans Really See Us

Remember Theo Van Gogh? He was the Dutch filmmaker gunned down because of a film he made about Muslims in Europe (Pointedly, that great bastion of free expression for all, Hollywood, said nothing of Mr Van Gogh's demise).

Well, Ayaan Hirsi Ali a Dutch parliamentarian has been under police protection since Mr Van Gogh's murder because she had the temerity to demand that Muslim women no longer be treated like animals, subject to 'honor killings' and FGM.

The Trans Atlantic Intelligencer is a must read if Euro-politics are an interest of yours. The author, John Rosenthal, has impeccable credentials. He has an excellent post about Ms Hirst Ali and an interview she gave L'express. Below is an excerpt:

Because the left is exactly like the Muslims! I wanted to give priority to the defense of immigrant women who are victims of domestic violence. They said to me: “No, that’s not a priority! The problem will take care of itself when the immigrants have jobs and are integrated.” It is exactly what the Imams say who demand that we accept oppression and slavery today because tomorrow, in Heaven, God will give us dates and raisins…. I think we need first to defend the individual. The left is afraid of everything. But fear of giving offense leads to injustice and suffering. The sexual revolution, the affirmation of individual rights, improving the living conditions of immigrants – these were once the great causes of the Dutch left. In their eyes, the simple fact of belong to a minority gives one the right to do anything. This multiculturalism is a disaster. All one has to do is scream “discrimination” and all doors are open to you! Scream ‘racism’ and your opponents shut up! But multiculturalism is an inconsistent theory. If one wants to let communities preserve their traditions, what happens when these traditions work to the detriment of women or homosexuals? The logic of multiculturalism amounts to accepting the subordination of women. Nonetheless, the defenders of multiculturalism do not want to admit it (emphasis-SC&A)

We Know You Missed This

Apparently, the link to the article on literacy in Canada requires registration to the Globe and Mail. Inasmuch as we know many of you will not register, here is the article in it's entirety.

Why Isn't Canada Widely More Literate

Canada is not ready for the information age. The literacy skills of its people are simply not strong enough. That is the only conclusion to be reached from a new survey of literacy in Canada and six other mostly well-off countries, co-authored by theCanadian government, the U.S. National Center for Education Statistics and theOrganization for Economic Co-operation and Development

Forty-two per cent of Canadians between 16 and 65 did not reach the level of literacy considered necessary to thrive in modern society. Depressingly, Canada scored about the same in 2003 as it did when surveyed in 1994. Despite the billions spent on public education each year, literacy scores are stuck. Literacy problems are most pronounced among young people whose parents did not go far in school (a measure that the authors use as a stand-in for poverty), but at all levels of parental education there were many struggling young people.

This is not to say 42 per cent are illiterate. The survey measured skills in four areas: reading prose (such as that found in books or newspaper articles); reading documents (such as charts and graphs); solving problems, which involves analytical reasoning; and using numbers. Answers were ranked out of five. To make a decent life, competing for good jobs and avoiding long stretches on social assistance or unemployment benefits, individuals need to reach level three, according to the survey's authors. So the roughly four in 10 Canadians who scored at levels one or two lack the skills needed to give themselves and their families a decent life. Those living on native reserves were excluded; if they hadn't been, this country might have performed even worse.

In its weakness, Canada is hardly alone. The United States, while it has the highest proportion of highly literate workers among the seven countries surveyed, also has the biggest gap between the most and the least literate, and between the children of university graduates and the children of high-school dropouts. To Canada's credit, it ranked slightly ahead of the U.S. on all four skills.

One might, then, argue that the cup is half full. Canada scored no worse than third out of the seven countries on all four skills tested, and in one case -- understanding documents -- came second.

But it isn't much consolation to note that weak literacy skills are endemic among rich countries. There is a great deal of room for improvement, and major gains to be had -- in wealth, health and happiness -- if Canadians can acquire reasonable proficiency with words and numbers. In all countries, the most literate were also the healthiest, and the least literate were the least satisfied and most unwell.

There's an obvious question. If literacy is so important to personal and national well-being, why aren't things gettingbetter.

The answer is not likely to be found in any particular teaching method. The problem is too fundamental for a magic bullet. The real answer lies in addressing the information age's ruthless demand that all who wish access to an affluent society's benefits become skilled with words and numbers. That will take a huge push from individuals, families, schools and governments. On the evidence, the push so far has not been nearly vigorous enough.