Ontario’s education system

Sent to Citizens Coalition on May 22, 2014

By Frank Gue

You’ve solicited suggestions.  Herewith one re education, into which successive governments have poured additional billions for may years without the least impact upon the sad fact that:

 ONTARIO’S EDUCATION RESULTS, MEASURED BY EQAO OR ANY OF SEVERAL INTERNATIONAL TESTS, CONTINUE DOWNWARD FROM MEDIOCRE TOWARD POOR, AS THEY HAVE DONE FOR YEARS.

 An important part of this problem is the Ontario curricula, which guarantee poor results; the more faithfully followed, the poorer the results.

 Alternative education paradigms, in which money follows the student and parents have choices, would quickly abandon Ontario’s failed “Constructivist” model that actively strangles good principles, and adopt the model that has yielded good results for centuries, i.e. Direct Instruction.

 Will you grasp this nettle?

 Frank Gue, B.Sc., MBA, P.Eng.,

Burlington, ON 905 634 9538

Value added jobs

Editors, The Economist,  London, U K
Re:   Jobs – May 3 edition page 64
 

Dear Editors:

 
In this article we see again the uncritical, undifferentiated view of “jobs”, “financial industr[ies]”, and “liquidity” as if all were unreservedly Good Things.  In fact, however, some elements of some of these are unreservedly Bad Things and need to be given proper names, such as No Value Added (NVA) and Value Subtracted (VS).
 
Example:  By no stretch of any imagination does a few milliseconds dwell time of some lump of capital in any economy add any value to anyone anywhere except to the High Frequency Trader (HFT) himself. Such “jobs” are somewhere between NVA and VS, and the the economy would be better off without them, their occupants set to work in some VA occupation – market gardening, perhaps, if they are VA-trainable.  
 
Perhaps the Chinese are still deliberately delaying capital movements by some small amount.   This, without elaborate and impractical worldwide agreements and the collectibility upon which you comment, is a simple and effective means of denying the HFT the opportunity upon which his equality-destroying unearned millions depend, i.e. quick turnover.  If such a policy selectively harms some elements of some industries in some countries and eliminates some jobs, that would be to the long-term good of those countries, because it would prevent NVA and VS capital from churning their markets and would eliminate the unproductive so-called jobs that go with it.  A responsible investor intending to apply his capital productively for years (by building a factory, say) could shrug off a small delay at the front end; an HFT could not, would have to go elsewhere, and God speed.
 
Cheers,
 
Frank Gue, B.Sc., MBA, P.Eng.,
2252 Joyce St.,
Burlington, ON Canada L7R 2B5
905 634 9538
  

Muslim takeover

Date:  3 May 14
By:       Frank Gue, B.Sc., MBA, P.Eng.,
             2252 Joyce St.,  Burlington, ON Canada L7R 2B5
             905 634 9438
To:        Editors, The Economist,  London, UK
Re:       “Religious studies”, April 26 edition, p. 55
cc:        Ombudsman, CBC  (please forward as appropriate)
 
Dear Editors:
 
As you say, “ … zealots can spy an opportunity to take over.”
 
They not only can, but they have done, for at least 50 (if not 1700) years.
 
Decades ago a Muslim teacher was interviewed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as she stood on the steps of an Islamic school in Montreal.  “[Assimilate?]” she said in reply to the interviewer’s question, “We’re not here to assimilate.  We’re here to take over.  The laws of Canada are not the laws of God.”
 
How much clearer a message do we need?  I waited anxiously through the next few days to hear on the same radio station or see in a newspaper that she had been in some way called to account for such a seditious statement.
 
Not a word.
 
The CBC had self-censored and the authorities had neither seen nor heard, and certainly weren’t about to speak, any evil.  That would have been racist, you know.
 
There is a clear and present Islamist/Sharia threat, as documented with masses of meticulous research in books like “Shadow World”, by Robert Chandler.  In the face of this threat, we are our own worst enemy; and the weapon we use on ourselves is complacency.
 
Were we to use half the energy to ward off this threat as we seem willing to use with, let’s say, our sometimes-misguided Human Rights tribunals to safeguard  the tender feelings of self-interested social misfits, we might be able to sleep a little better.
 
Frank Gue