A copy of the new Ontario budget introduced this week.CARLO ALLEGRI/Reuters
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Try to keep letters to fewer than 150 words. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com
..................................................................................................................................
Votes. Bought, sold?
Judging by the multitude of government media releases cranked out by Kathleen Wynne’s overworked PR department, and the amount of our tax money that she and her ministers are throwing at almost every sector and corner of our population in the budget, Ms. Wynne must be deathly afraid of losing power.
She must also be afraid of the organizational mess and unbelievable public indebtedness the next government and all Ontarians will discover after the election. In March alone, the announcements have been staggering, not only in the costs these measures would incur in a province saddled with debt, but in their arrogance.
Ms. Wynne must think Ontarians are very gullible, telling us just how much, all of a sudden, her government “cares” for us – so much so that it will direct more of our money into home care, mental health, addictions, pharma care, dental care, even free child care for pre-schoolers (just another $2.2-billion over three years), and so much more.
Most of these “promises” will be forgotten quickly, should we be foolish enough to give the Wynne Liberals another go at bankrupting this once proud province.
The Premier is not giving voters much credit for brains, to think she can bribe them with their own money – and with an amount so staggering, based on last-minute “promises” to win votes, that Ontario would never regain fiscal integrity under her watch.
Simon Guillet, Sudbury, Ont.
............
Re Adult Tax Talk: Alberta (letters, March 29): After the collapse of oil prices, then-Alberta premier Jim Prentice tried to start an adult conversation about taxes in his province. The attempt was not well received. Before undertaking a mature discussion about taxes, it’s necessary to ensure that everyone in the room is an adult.
Agostino Di Millo, Toronto
Role model? Stormy days
Re A Pot And A Kettle (letters, March 28): Feminists have long fought for more powerful roles for women in the work world. In the absence of moralistic judgments about Stormy Daniels’s chosen profession as an adult entertainer, one could applaud her rise to prominence, not only as a performer, but as a director and producer.
Is that not what many actresses have been calling for?
Feminism has also fought for the right of women to have control over their own bodies. Apparently, choosing to perform in adult films or strip shows doesn’t qualify.
Yes, many women who work in these professions are abused and treated as objects. Stormy Daniels is clearly not one of them. She is taking advantage of an opportunity to enrich herself, while not accepting abuse.
Perhaps her aggressiveness is not “feminine” enough to qualify as the stuff of female role models in some people’s minds. That is just another form of discrimination.
Donna Rosenthal, Tillsonburg, Ont.
AI, AI, owe ...
Re Deep Learning (March 24): Catherine Stinson barely tickles the issue of ethics in artificial intelligence and every other spark and keystroke of technology.
The “darkest of science fiction” became reality when Einstein’s discovery of relativity was applied to Hiroshima. Technology is born pure and innocent before being expropriated for power and profit. AI is surely next.
Ethics is as global an issue as climate change, yet most of us still dither, feigning naivety, tolerating abuse, and hoping for better. Our brilliance for technology must breathe the air of deep learning and respect for all humanity, our sustainability and our universal affluence.
Our brilliance for technology should surely be superseded by a greater brilliance for caring.
Suzanne Wiltshire, Brantford, Ont.
............
Re What Kind Of AI Future Do We Want? (March 26): Physicist and author Max Tegmark asks, “What will the role of humans be if machines can do everything better and cheaper than us?”
Simple. We will play all day long. We have work and play backward. Play is for self-fulfillment, while work is for survival.
As AI takes over all human work, the goal of global politics is to figure out how to replace a person’s paycheque in an equitable way, while preventing a slide into violent conflict.
Historically, humans have addressed inequities in their societies through revolution. The problem with revolution as a means of redistributing resources is that revolutions tend to be nasty, long and brutish.
We have the resources to transition peacefully to a non-work society in which humans engage in play, supported by our AI workers, or we can choose a violent response to the massive and wonderful changes we are living through.
Just because we are living in the dying days of the industrial revolution does not mean we must respond in an orgiastic paroxysm of mindless violence.
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood …
Geoff Lee, Thunder Bay, Ont.
Canada’s carbon
Two interesting articles in the Report on Business to be read together: Ottawa To Require Heavy Industry In Provinces Without Carbon Plan To Slash Emissions Or Pay Tax; China’s Key Economic Advantages That The World Can’t Afford To Ignore (March 28).
The second notes that “China is the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses (GHGs), and its emissions are not projected to peak until the early 2030s.”
Globally, some 1,600-plus new coal-fired power plants are being planned or built. If Canada shut down, if it vanished under the tundra, one could not measure a significant change in global carbon levels, yet our governments are determined to load additional taxes on our industries.
Better to get taxes from the income generated by successful companies, than tax them into insolvency or drive them away to less-demanding jurisdictions.
J.T. Reid, Oakville, Ont.
#protectmyknees
Re You Think Airline Travel Is Bad? Try Being Tall (Life & Arts, March 28): After travelling weekly by air for business for 20 years, like Christopher Elliott I made all the changes I could to limit the need to fly (more staff, using cars, trains).
The airlines have surely gained by cramming more passengers into my former seat, but at least they haven’t done it on my dime. It’s time for the vertically endowed to stand tall and lobby the federal government for legislation – no small task given the toothlessness of their Air Passenger Rights bill.
Jean Deschenes, Toronto
............
Back in the day, I campaigned to get airlines to change their policies about smoking. I think I’ve just discovered my next project: space between seats.
#longlegsmatter
#protectmyknees
#donteventhinkaboutleaningback.
Steven Bager, Toronto (6’3” with long legs)