Transparency Canada

Elizabeth May pleads for realism on Energy policy

2012-01-11T12:38:00.000-08:00

By Elizabeth May, Green Party Leader on 9 January 2012 - 3:10pm (from her blog: http://greenparty.ca/)

An Open letter to Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources Minister of Natural Resources

“Unfortunately, there are environmental and other radical groups that would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade. Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth.
No forestry. No mining. No oil. No gas. No more hydro-electric dams.

These groups threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda. They seek to exploit any loophole they can find, stacking public hearings with bodies to ensure that delays kill good projects. They use funding from foreign special interest groups to undermine Canada’s national economic interest.”

- From your open letter of today’s date, January 9, 2012.

Dear Joe,
Your letter caught my attention. I respect you and like you a lot as a colleague in the House. Unfortunately, I think your role as Minister of Natural Resources has been hijacked by the PMO spin machine. The PMO is, in turn, hijacked by the foreign oil lobby. You are, as Minister of Natural Resources, in a decision-making, judge-like role. You should not have signed such a hyperbolic rant.

I have reproduced a short section of your letter. The idea that First Nations, conservation groups, and individuals opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline are opposed to all forestry, mining, hydro-electric and gas is not supported by the facts. I am one of those opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline. I do not oppose all development; neither does the Green Party; neither do environmental NGOS; neither do First Nations.

I oppose the Northern Gateway pipeline for a number of reasons, beginning with the fact that the project requires over-turning the current moratorium on oil tanker traffic on the British Columbia coastline. The federal-provincial oil tanker moratorium has been in place for decades. As former Industry Canada deputy minister Harry Swain pointed out in today’s Globe and Mail, moving oil tankers through 300 km of perilous navigation in highly energetic tidal conditions is a bad choice. In December 2010, the government’s own Commissioner for the Environment, within the Office of the Auditor General, reported that Canada lacked the tools to respond to an oil spill. These are legitimate concerns.

Furthermore, running a pipeline through British Columbia’s northern wilderness, particularly globally significant areas such as the Great Bear Rainforest, is a bad idea. Nearly 1200 kilometers of pipeline through wilderness and First Nations territory is not something that can be fast-tracked.

Most fundamentally, shipping unprocessed bitumen crude out of Canada has been attacked by the biggest of Canada’s energy labour unions, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, as a bad idea. The CEP estimates it means exporting 40,000 jobs out of Canada (figure based on jobs lost through the Keystone Pipeline). They prefer refining the crude here in Canada. (The CEP is also not a group to which your allegation that opponents of Gateway also oppose all forestry, mining, oil, gas, etc is anything but absurd.)

The repeated attacks on environmental review by your government merit mention. The federal law for environmental review was first introduced under the Mulroney government. Your government has dealt repeated blows to the process, both through legislative changes, shoved through in the 2010 omnibus budget bill, and through budget cuts. In today’s letter, you essentially ridicule the process through a misleading example. Your citation of “a temporary ice arena on a frozen pond in Banff” requiring federal review was clearly intended to create the impression that the scope of federal review had reached absurd levels. You neglected to mention that the arena was within the National Park. That is the only reason the federal government was involved. It was required by the National Parks Act. The fact that the arena approval took only two months shows the system works quite well.

Perhaps most disturbing in the letter is the description of opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline as coming from “environmental and other radical groups.” Nowhere in your letter do you mention First Nations. (I notice you mention “Aboriginal communities,” but First Nations require the appropriate respect that they represent a level of government, not merely individuals within communities.)

The federal government has a constitutional responsibility to respect First Nations sovereignty and protect their interests. It is a nation to nation relationship. To denigrate their opposition to the project by lumping it in with what you describe (twice) as “radical” groups is as unhelpful to those relationships as it is inaccurate.

“Radical” is defined as “relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough.” (Merriam Webster).

By that definition, it is not First Nations, conservation groups or individual opponents that are radical. They seek to protect the fundamental nature of the wilderness of northern British Columbia, the ecological health of British Columbia coastal eco-systems, and the integrity of impartial environmental review. It is your government that is radical by proposing quite radical alteration of those values.

Your government has failed to present an energy strategy to Canada. We have no energy policy. We are still importing more than half of the oil we use. Further, we have no plan to reduce dependency on fossil fuels, even as we sign on to global statements about the need to keep greenhouse gases from rising above 450 ppm in the atmosphere to keep global average temperatures from exceeding a growth of 2 degrees C. The climate crisis imperils our future – including our economic future – in fundamental ways which your government ignores.

By characterizing this issue as environmental radicals versus Canada’s future prosperity you have done a grave disservice to the development of sensible public policy. There are other ways to diversify Canada’s energy markets. There are other routes, other projects, and most fundamentally other forms of energy.

I urge you to protect your good name and refuse to sign such unworthy and inaccurate missives in the future.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth May, O.C.

Member of Parliament

Saanich-Gulf Islands

Leader

Green Party of Canada

Comment: Once again, in the use of loaded language - "radical", the deilberate misrepresentation of the intentions of environmentalists as threatening jobs, etc - we catch the Harper government stooping to cheap populist demogogy. This is the "politics of fear", a tactic employed in the 20th century by totalitarian governments at both extremes of the political spectrum (fascist, communist). Such language should be taken as an insult to the public intelligence. It is inevitably a smoke screen used to deflect public attention from the real issues at stake. In reality, green energy will produce the greatest number of stable, permanent jobs: virtually all the economic studies I have encountered conclude that green energies - not centralized, capital intensive fossil energy projects - produce the greatest number of jobs per dollar invested. Green energies are labor intensive, fossil energy is capital (infrastructure, financing) intensive. Populists though are interested in Power, not Truth..

Shedding light on Peak Oil

2012-01-05T11:32:00.000-08:00

            This is an important book on energy, how much it will cost in the future, what this will mean for our "way of life". The Harper government is in bed with the Oil corporations: they provide a very one-sided perspective on the energy future of this country. To counter this slanted presentation of Canada's energy future, we are reproducing a review of an important book on Peak Oil here.

Book review: Jeff Rubin: Why your world is about to get a whole lot smaller, Oil and the end of globalization (Random House, Canada, 2009) 265 pages; notes and index. Rating 8.5 / 10

HEADLINE: Summer, 2008. Spike in oil prices to $145 / bbl announces the end of the Era of Cheap Energy

             Economic insider, Jeff Rubin, former chief economist at CIBC World Markets, has written a very readable, accessible introduction to "Peak Oil" and its future impacts. Although we have doubts about Rubin's cheery "business (almost) as usual" prognosis, he does nail down the basic mechanics and, for this, he gets close to full marks.

             Peak Oil refers to human rationality: humans will pick the "low hanging fruit" first; they will first extract the most accessible, cheapest to exploit, reserves of a non-renewable resource (petroleum). This is logical: low production costs mean higher profits. Only later, when cheap reserves are depleted, will producers willingly switch to more risky, expensive reserves. To maintain profit margins they will pass on the increased cost to the buyer. Prices will rise, establishing a new market equilibrium of supply, demand and price.

             In extreme cases, such as the contemporary global oil market, supply may become so constricted - "tight supply" - that even exploding demand for oil in emerging markets (China, India) cannot conjure oil out of the ground faster than it's coming already. Supply curves flatten - before, eventually, declining - despite rising prices and demand. This peaking and subsequent flattening of oil production is colloquially referred to as "Peak Oil".

             In effect, the problem the globalized world economy faces today is simple: we've put all - or most - of our eggs in the basket called "fossil energy supply" and now that basket is falling (this is why granny used to say: don' t put all your eggs in one basket!) As easy to access reserves of fossil energy deplete, prices will rise, stiffling the economic growth our economic system requires in order to function - or merely survive.

            In theory, way back in the 1970s - when people began to realize that we had demographic / environmental problems, we could have "converted" our remaining reserves of cheap fossil energy (coal, oil, gas..) into green energy infrastructure. Waiting until production costs of newly exploited oil fields becomes prohibitive is obviously not an intelligent strategy. Paradoxically, this imbecilic, "wait till the free market provides price signals for green energy development" strategy - promoted by the fossil fuel lobby - has been the policy followed for the last 40 years in first world economies. As Rubin indicates, rising production costs of newly exploited reserves - offshore reserves, tar sands.., will stiffle the transition to a green energy economy. In addition, our margin of error has now shrunk to the vanishing point. We have neither the time, the money, nor the resources to make mistakes. If we had begun a programmed transition to green energy back in the 1970s, we could have avoided the urgency to "get things right the first time". Letting things go to the last minute is dangerous and stupid if you life depends on making right decisions.. In addition, it is more costly to convert to a green energy economy today: the energy "embodied" in the construction of renewable energy infrastructure is more expensive than 40 years ago.

           One of the main victims of cheap oil's demise will be the globalized economy itself. The analysis of the impacts of Peak Oil is indeed one of the strong points of Rubin's book.

            During the Golden Era of Deregulation - the Reagan / Thatcher era, international trade barriers fell. Blue collar - and eventually white collar - jobs were exported overseas to 3rd world sweatshops, call centers and software writers. When energy is cheap and tariffs non-existent, this makes (short-term) economic - if not moral or strategic - sense: wages and environmental costs associated with regulations are lower (or nonexistent) in the 3rd world. As a result of "outsourcing", profits, dividends to shareholders, obscenely inflated salaries and "bonuses" to megacorporation plutocrats shot through the ceiling. The rich got richer and the poor got poorer - bigtime! The rustbelt spreading through disaffected industrial towns of America marked the demise of the "American Dream" for the little wo/man.. As peak oil now rears its ugly head, we are forced to recognize that the Cheap Energy Binge is over. Now we have the hangover, the cops and the landlord to deal with.. (So hungover, you fear you are going to die. And then it just goes on and on and on, and now you're so sick you really are scared you're NOT going to die..)

             As the world economy attempts to recover from the "Great Recession", oil prices will spike again - since supply remains "tight", prices will be driven up by scarcity. Speculation may further inflate prices, repeating the boom-bust cycle of summer / autumn 2008 (which was the cause of the construction bubble collapse in the USA which, in turn, brought down the globalized financial sector, triggering the Great Recession) - this is one probable scenario. Another possible scenario - the economy will be stiffled by higher "new oil" costs and will never recover but continue its death spiral. This latter scenario now seems the more probable one. Only time will tell..

             Regardless of which scenario materializes, the globalized economy is cooked. It will be too expensive to ship cheap rubber bath duckies and steel from China to N. America and Europe. As Rubin says, we will have to get used to producing / consuming locally and regionally as people did in the past. We will relearn the virtues of local food: it will be too expensize to ship mangoes to Montréal from tropical plantations employing massive inputs of expensive fossil fuel energy in the form of fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, insecticides and transport. We will have to reopen rusting N. American steel mills if we want steel, buy N. American vehicles if we want travel and transport.

              For me, the weak point of Rubin's analysis: where will all the locally / regionally produced energy come from? Can we get enough renewable energy online, fast enough to avoid really serious economic and social disruption? If we can, at what price? Will that price be too high, stiffling any hope of long term economic recovery? I am not sure that even "green" Western Europe has enough installed green energy infrastructure to make the transition a peaceful one. It is for the perceived weaknesses of Rubin's analysis of the long term situation, that I withhold full marks: 8.5 out of possible 10.

               As a general introduction to the subject of Peak Oil, especially for younger readers, it's hard to beat this book - despite its weaknesses.

Bienvenue Pascal

2011-12-20T16:40:00.000-08:00

Bienvenue, Pascal! Vous pouvez nous écrire soit en anglais, soit en français. J'aimerais recevoir des impressions outre-mer. La vision stéréoscopique est le jeu de DEUX yeux qui envoient des images chacune un peu différente l'une de l'autre..

ONE OF THE GREATEST POSTS ON YOUTUBE SO FAR!

2011-12-16T11:57:00.000-08:00

Laffin' an' fiddlin' while Rome burns

2011-12-16T10:35:00.000-08:00

             Ah the Tories, one's gotta love 'em! Funnier than a barrel of monkeys..

              When Canada was "awarded" the Colossal Fossil boody prize in the Durbin (post Kyoto protocol) talks, Conservatives MPs laughed and cheered.

http://montreal.mediacoop.ca/blog/tim-mcsorley/9348

                Behind the good ol' boy laugh up and self congratuations, there is a truth being revealed here which the Left, the Center and the Moderate Right ignore at their peril. In the psychology of reaction, facts, alternative views, the civil rights of scapegoats can all be dispensed with by collective ridicule (or outrage or denigration - it's called Group Think). Ridicule conveniently replaces intelligent reasoned response and debate which, of course, require intellectual effort. In addition, Ideology provides justifications and rationalizations for injustice (laziness, racial inferiority, "clashes of civilizations"..) and provides a norm to which "reality" must be forced, wily-nily to conform. Thus, ideologically speaking, for the Global Warming "sceptic", Global Warming simply CAN'T be happening. Therefore, scientists and academics - despite credentials and field experience - who claim it is happening, MUST be lying and planning to corner the market on carbon credit trading and rake in "trillions" (on a professor's salary??!! - no mention made, of course, of those fossil fuel companies, their executives and shareholders and what THEY stand to profit from continued use of fossil fuels "to the last drop"..)

                    More specifically, democracy requires free flows of information up and down the hierarchy of governance. Theoretically - not to mention practically! - the public needs proper information on the pros and cons of important issues so they can decide which of the various platforms proposed by political parties they choose to support. Unfortunately, the type of nervous, reactive, ideological arrogance exhibited by Tory members of the house of Commons is fundamentally incompatible with the transparency of information flows required by democracy to function.

                    1- Ideology blocks openess to alternative views. The ideologue's mind is "opaque" rather than "transparent" and permeable to conflicting facts and viewpoints.

                    2- Perhaps even more toxic to the free and open give and take of opinion which democracy requires is the fact that ideology encourages intellectual - and eventually moral - dishonesty: all those inconvenient FACTS - what to do about them.. In the long run, the notion of the "Public Good" vanishes, replaced by partisan fighting - and infighting - for status, position, favor, bakchich..

                   Here's a good example of what Ideology can do to "Democracy" in practice: a Canadian artist who had her funding cut, seemingly because she was too pro-Global Warming in her thinking..

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/canadas-approach-to-inconvenient-art/

                   While my appreciation of history may be hindered by my ignorance, we believe that reaction is a (nearly) sure sign that a society is failing in some fundamental ways: France before the Revolution of '89, Russia before WW I (and the Russian Revolution which, be it noted, turned out to be a debacle); Europe in the between wars, 1919 - 1939, and the rise of fascism, the contemporary rise of skinheads and U.S. militias.. What the nexus of the crisis will be, will vary, of course, from one concrete historical situation to another.

Dirty tricks: the New World Order

2011-12-14T13:41:00.000-08:00

         I wonder if anyone out there remembers why the Harper Conservatives got elected in the first place? Remember? The Liberals left us with the bad tasting legacy of the Chrétien government's "sponsorship scandal". Monies earmarked to polish the Feds' image in Québec - in order to weaken the separatist movement in that province - were diverted either into the pockets of federal Liberal party supporters or into the coffers of the Liberal party's warchest. Taxpayers were taken for millions of dollars. For details:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/gomery-commission-inquiry-sponsorship-scandal#origins

   The population was, justifiably, miffed by all this. Many were hopping mad. To worsen things, the Chrétien government's arrogance and / or disconnect with physical reality contributed to the growing climate of political apathy and cynicism, especially among the young. Under the Chrétien Liberals Canada ratified the Kyoto Greenhouse Gas Emissions control accord - and then simply ignored it! (The current government continues that policy but at least have the honesty to proclaim their open hostility to the Kyoto accord, affording them, at least, a record of consistency on the issue.)

The Haperites deftly exploited the climate of political cynicism and "neo-conservative" self-interestedness while mouthing pious populist platitudes about a "return to traditional values" of "responsible government", "transparency" and "law and order". In this image creating venture it is hard to fault them.

             Today, into its second mandate, the Harper government inspires anything but confidence when you examine the list of their accomplishments and the quality of the governance they have provided our country. One commentor was even moved to say that the Harperites have reached a degree of arrogance and cynicism that would give envy to the most corrupt Liberals but in a much shorter period of time - they rotted on the vine even faster than the Libs!

               A shocking display of the nature of today's political climate was recently revealed in what might be called the "Cotler affair". Liberal federal deputy (Montréal), Irwin Cotler has been the victim lately of a "dirty tricks" campaign. Cotler's constituents have been receiving phone calls implying that he plans to step down and that a by-election is imminent. The calls have been traced to Campaign Research, an Ontario-based market research firm with ties to the Conservative Party. Cotler argues that the difusion of false information is hindering his ability to carry out his public duties.

               "Ok", one might argue, "dirty tricks are unfortunate and there are always rotten apples in every barrel" but in a blatantly cynical appeal to "free speech", the Harperites in Ottawa didn't even bother attempting to conceal their involvement! Has the rot really set this deep? One can only wonder..

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/12/13/pol-speaker-rules-irwin-cotler-question-of-privilege.html?cmp=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

                 In a shocking admission of the degree to which short term political expediency has come to rule, House of Commons speaker, Andrew Scheer (Conservative) conceded "I can understand how [Cotler] and others are seeking relief from the climate of cynicism — not to say contempt — about parliamentary institutions and practice that seems to prevail. But I fear that such relief is not within my gift: the Speaker’s powers in these matters are limited, as my predecessors have repeatedly stated". Really Mr. Scheer?

                 I really beg to differ here. I think two points are in order. 1- You guys are in power. You were elected to lead the country which means, in effect, maintaining a healthy political, social, economic and foreign relations climate in which democratically elected government can function. Obviously an impossible task but your job - your "mandate from the public" as you like to say so often - is to approach these goals as close as is humanly possible: this is what taxpayers are paying you fat salaries for.. 2- Mr. Scheer, let us not be disingenuous, you guys were specifically elected on a platform of good governance, transparency, etc with the specific "mandate" of cleaning up the mess the Liberals had left behind. If you are so powerless to clean up the mess, why the hell did you delude the public in promising clean government in the first place? Were your camplaign pledges therefore made in bad faith, Mr Scheer..

Do YOU have a shadow?

2011-11-18T13:16:00.001-08:00

          This one is a little too bizarre to be true but then, with the Harperites, you never know..

           Cindy Blackstock is a small, middle aged, non-radical, non-separatist aboriginal activist working for children's rights and services on reservation (a Federal jurisdiction). For some unknown reason she managed to get herself on someone's surveillance list. When she showed up for a meeting with the feds, she found herself barred from access and even had a security guard assigned to watch over her while her colleagues conferred with the feds. Why? What was her crime?

              The only thing anyone can come up with to date: a complaint with the human rights commission accusing the feds of willfully underfunding child welfare services on First Nations reserves.

http://wmtc.blogspot.com/2011/11/cindy-blackstock-another-victim-of.html

              To get to the bottom of things, Ms Blackstock filed under the freedom of information act. She discovered that she had a thick dossier. As Professor Papillon, an expert on Aboriginal autonomy issues, argues, it is normal that government employees attend meetings relevant to their area of expertise and take notes. Check the audioclip from CBC radio program, The Current, 17 nov, 2011:

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2011/11/17/govt-surveillance-of-native-youth-advocate-cindy-blackstock/index.html

                 What is not normal, though, is that Ms Blackstock alone be singled out. Files released under the freedom of information act contained verbatim notes of Ms Blackstock's presentations at meetings but not those of other activists. Ms Blackstock seems to have grown a tail! Shades of the MacCarthy anti-communist "witch hunts" back in the 1950s and early 1960s in the USA..

                  Another expert, appearing on The Current, Tom Powers, himself a Conservative party strategist, and who worked with aboriginal affairs also found the behavior of the government puzzling. And this on the part of a government who ran on a platform of responsible democracy and transparency! What, oh what, is the world coming to?

                   Just wondering. Have you done something to find youself with a tail, an extra shadow. Have I got one for posting these blogs..

Bilingual / shmilingual - who cares?

2011-11-04T13:14:00.000-07:00

         The conservative government's choice for auditor general, Michael Ferguson, does not speak French well. So what, what does it matter?

          We hold it does matter for at least three reasons.

1- When you choose to play a game, you play by the rules or you go home. Else you screw things up for everybody. The Conservatives chose to get themselves elected. The AG's job requirements require French. Tough titty..

2- The Harper government, be it not forgotten, was elected on a platform of law and order, good / responsible government and transparency. This was in reaction to the waste, boondoggles and scams of former Liberal governments. This, we maintain, holds the Haperites to a higher standard than the discredited Liberals. Are they living up to the higher standards they set for themselves? It has, already, been remarked that the Harperites "break the rules when they feel like it", giving the unfortunate impression that they might actually consider themselves above the law. And this, of course, is exactly what they accused the Liberals of doing..

3- While this may appear to be hitting below the belt, we feel it is a legitimate concern for those interested in Canadian national unity. The Ferguson nomination is sure to rub Québécois nationalism the wrong way when there is already evidence of a growing rift between Québec and the ROC (rest of Canada: the fact that Québécois use this term fairly often these days is itself indicative of the rift). In addition, one suspects - fears - that the nomination is, if not a conscious, intentional play to populist, anti-French feelings in the ROC, at least a gaffe which, potentially, plays into the hands of such elements. At the very least, "it doesn't look good"..

             There is, of course, nothing stopping the federal Conservatives from operating within the framework of parlementary procedure and working openly and above board to change the law regulating the AG's proficiencies. But would such a transparent procedure raise the ire of too many? Have the Harperites - once again - stooped to talking from both sides of their mouths at the same time: preaching fairplay and transparency while dealing the cards in a way to send a covert -and contrary - message to their populist core constituency? Once again, things are not clear but it does not look good..

             And in this cynical era of political vacuity, appearance is indeed everything!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2011/10/28/michael-ferguson-auditor-general-nomination-privy-council-lack-of-french-senate-unilingual_n_1064079.html

Smoke Screens

2011-10-26T14:27:00.000-07:00

        Mr. Harper is at it again: making cheap appeals to his populist base (one wonders if this is a conscious strategy on the part of him and his handlers or an simply unconscious political reflex). Be that as it may..

        Here's how it works. You appeal to your base: their vote has to be assured. Québec, on the other hand has probably been written off as a lost cause by the Harper team (more on this a bit later..) Seeing the rightward shift in political and social attitudes taking place in Western societies, Harper and co. seem to be betting that mean-spirited, hairy chested populist demagogy will probably pick up more votes from the soft Right than will be lost on the Left. And they are probably right..

        In the present context, Harper's most recent appeal to the populist base lies in his fufilling his electoral promise to eliminate the long gun registry - ONE promise he manages to keep at least! His recent gaining of a parliamentary majority assures passage of the bill..

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/end-of-long-gun-registry-seen-as-victory-in-war-on-big-government/article2213761/

         Planified coup or savy political instinct, this vindictive move strikes deep into a core of resentment burning in the heart of the Canadian electorate. Lest we be accused of "Left wing bias", it is instructive to recall that the gun registry program, instituted by a Liberal government in the wake of the Montréal Polytechnique Massacre (6 Dec, 1989), soon degenerated into an obscene boondoggle, racking up unprecedented cost overruns during its implementation. To rub salt in the wounds of the taxpayer, no heads ever rolled over the cost overruns but the voters - and especially conservative, gun-owning rural voters - remembered. They remembered..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry

           Here is an example of the masterful manipulation of the rural / small town / suburban voter's smoldering resentment at being ripped off and imposed on by "big city crooked politicians". Note, especially, the tone of righteous indignation (justified) and deep sense of victimization (a perennial theme of populist militants): "These are good salt-of-the-earth people".

“They’re upstanding citizens who work hard. They take their kids and grandkids out hunting and shooting and those kids, by the way, probably aren’t involved in gangs in the streets,” she said.
“These are good salt-of-the-earth people and for so long they have had really nobody in government who has been able to make any changes on their behalf. So it really was very gratifying to know how thankful they were and how much it meant to them to have someone who was going to be promoting good policy, policy that was fair and wasn’t targeting them.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/killing-gun-registry-a-victory-for-salt-of-the-earth-people-tory-mp-says/article2212609/


                The depth of the anger and the sense of betrayal of the conservative, grassroots voter is probably reflected in the meanspirited, pyrrhic vindictiveness of the proposed legislation: Harper wants not merely to suspend the long gun registry but intends to destroy the data bases..

                As seems so often the case these past few decades, conservatives (especially neos) and reactionaries have reaped the fruits of years of liberal (small "l" liberal here) corruption and incompetence. Truth be known, neither the Right nor the Left in modern Western societies has much of a clue what to do next. All parties are in bed with the plutocrats who rule the world. Before the unfolding economic, ecological and climatological meltdown of our planet and its life support systems, they can offer nothing but platitudes ("economic growth", "fighting for democracy"), symbolic gestures ("Millennium Goals" of the United Nations), improvisation and - at the limit - the outright delusions of Magical Thinking:

“God is not capricious. He’s given us a creation that is dynamically stable. We are not going to run out of anything.”

http://minnesotaindependent.com/77707/gops-beard-wants-more-coal-plants-because-god-will-fix-global-warming

               What the heck is he talking about: what does "dynamically stable" actually mean in the present context?? Can anyone tell me..

                 Since neither Left nor Right has a clue how to get us out of the quagmire (since both are products of the system that created the quagmire), they both lack any coherent Strategy ("game plan"). But the forces of reaction have one huge, short term advantage: Tactics. The Right knows no better than the Left what to do next but they are past masters of the fine art of public opinion manipulation. Lefties are - to strike a caricature - college profs and garrett intellectuals from the Arts and Humanities. They are not the real shakers and movers of modernity. They do not possess the tools, intellectual or otherwise, to effectively jerk the strings of the increasingly frightened and disoriented "masses". The real shakers and movers - the technicians, engineers, programmers, business types, PR men, admen, bureaucrats and technocrats - are basically, by blood and breeding, men of the Right. They understand the tools of mass manipulation: they invented them in the first place!

                 Thus, while Rome burns, our elites fiddle. The public's attention is deftly turned aside from the real problems our world faces: overpopulation, resource depletion, Peak Oil, the need to develop renewable energy sources and to learn to do things more efficiently, to learn to live with less in dignity and in justice.. Thus these pressing real, high priority, problems are never addressed. Instead, just as the Roman mob was given bread and circuses to entertain them, we too are given gory spectacles and entertainment. We are enroled in pseudo-crusades, so that we don't have the time or the courage to pose the really important questions. Instead we fight the terrors of abortion, family planning, gay marriage, the "liberal media bias", creeping secularism, humanism and socialism. Reality check: defeating family planning and abortion in Africa will likely lead to more deaths from malnutrition and the attendant political instability and warfare. We are provided abundant scapegoats to hate - liberals, "socialists", "secular humanists", "baby killers", "Islamofascists", "green nazis".. - all of course to divert our attention from the real issues and who really benefits from maintaining society on its suicidal course.

                  To return to the Canadian situation in conclusion, Harper's team have probably decided that Québec is a lost cause. The gun registry, let's not forget, was born in the aftermath of the infamous Dec 6, 1989, Montéal Polytechnique massacre of women students by a misogynist gunman who then took his own life. Québec will not therefore take the elimination of the long gun registry lightly. Above all, the province wants the info in the data bases referring to guns registered in Québec in order to create its own provincial registry. Harper's move to destroy the data bases may pander to the smoldering anger of his core constituents but can only outrage Québécois voters. Harper's legislation threatens to reopen old mutual incomprehensions between Québec and the rest of the country in order to obtain short term political gain. In the long run it may be the country as a whole that will have to pay the price of his political myopia.

Welcome aboard Anne!

2011-10-26T12:03:00.000-07:00

Welcome aboard Anne. Please feel free to contribute: your ideas are surely welcome. And don't forget to suggest us to any friends you think might benefit from or be able to contribute to the discussion. The more the merrier - gotta break the apathy!

Budget Cutting: Cutting off your nose to spite your face

2011-10-12T12:58:00.000-07:00

         Harping against the Harperites. Well, they are at it again, it seems. Breaking campaign promises. What is it this time?

"Responsable government" - like they do what they say and what they do is relatively clean, honest, efficient, comptetent. Those are nice guide lines for responsable government.

            Does the current Conservative government in Ottawa live up to this definition?

             There is reason to believe the answer to this question is "no". A recent article from Canadians for Accountability points to a number of glaring inconsistencies in the Feds recent proposals to "reduce fat" in the bureaucracy.

http://canadians4accountability.org/blog/2011/09/26/the-real-problem-with-the-90000-per-diem/

   They propose paying a private accounting firm $20 million ($90,000 per day or the salary of about 45 people) to save money. On the surface it makes "sense", appealing to kneejerk populist anti-government sentiments. But, the author argues, does it really make sense, in either a financial, managerial or moral sense?

   Firstly, private firms like Deloitte and Touche are, in reality, likely to be less responsible than the corps of professional bureaucrats who will have to live with the consequences of their policy choices. Outside "privateers" are more like to play the tune they know their clients expect and want to hear. They are therefore less likely to be objective and efficiency oriented than a duly delegated working group of bureaucrats would be.

"So why this expensive exercise? The most likely answer is the desire to give a veneer of validity, independence and authority to the findings... The government wants to be able to say, “Look, we don’t want to cut all these jobs. We don’t want to axe these programs. But the report says we have to.""

                    In other words, "you gets what you pays for". Attempting to slough off what are essentially governmental functions on the private sector does not necessarily result in "efficiency", "savings", "performance" and the rest. Such decisions these days are - let's be honest - ideologically driven, not performance driven. We are being sold a used clunker with false papers that's been in a bad accident. Would you buy a used car from this man..

Fascism and optimism

2011-10-04T16:59:00.000-07:00

            Fascism may seem a bit off topic. I do not think so, however. All indicators point to a dangerous Rightward shift in Western societies since the end of the second World War.

             Following the dictum, "knowledge is power", I recently began an informal study of fascist / reactionary movements, both contemporary movements (the Christian Right) and those of mid-20th century vintage. The preliminary results of this research have turned out rather surprising, to say the least..

             In the first place, I never imagined that studying such an unpleasant aspect of modernity as fascism could possibly lead one to optimism (a "guarded optimism", admittedly, but still real optimism, however small).

             An informative, comparative analysis ("case studies") of three 20th century fascist movements is Roger Bourderon, Le fascisme, idéologie et pratiques, (Éditions sociales, Paris, 1979). Unfortunately, I find no English translation. For an excellent empirical analysis of the psychology of authoritarianism / fascism see: Bob Altemeyer, The authoritarians (free, non-printable online version):

http://www.cmaq.net/en/node/44252

          In a nutshell, I consider "fascism" - in the most general sense of the term - one of the greatest dangers the world faces. It exacerbates all the other challenges we now face and is itself a source of great evil. I have always, even as a kid, wanted to defeat it and, to this end, seached for understanding (which never came). My "hypothesis" today is that most people - as Carl Jung claimed - are capable of both the highest good and the lowest evil. There are few exceptions: 1- those born saints and those "born evil": psychopaths / sociopaths (Lady MacBeth and Iago, the vilain of "Othello" are classical literary examples, Hitler is the stock historical example..)

           In reading Bourderon's text, I found the following - to me surprising - analysis (although in retrospect I got that delayed head-slap reaction: "Now, why the heck didn't I see that before! All the facts were at my disposal.. :-0) Bourderon, a historian, describes fascist ideologies as "un habit d'harlequin", a harlequin's / clown's costume, stitched together from disparate and often contradictory elements. This, of course, belies the apparent monolithic, absolutist, totalitarian face that fascism presents to the world. In effect, the party platforms of the three movements studied (Italian fascists, Nazis, Spanish phalangists) pitchforked together:

- borrowings from traditional Right and Extreme Right parties: appeals to "traditional values", Authority, nationalism, imperialism, militarism, appeals to church centered "compassionate conservatism"..

- contributions from liberal democracy (center Left / center Right of the political spectrum): defense of private property with special appeals to the small and medium sized business communities, importance of eduction as a means of upward social mobility (and "elite building")

- elements of "reform socialism" (Social Democracy, progressivism): exaltation of work and workers, denunciation of monopolies and profiteers, populist appeals to the "little people", public private partnerships for public services..

          The goal of fascist ideologues and militants alike is to appeal to the largest possible base of potential voters (populism). In this scam, everybody gets to hear something they want to hear! Inherent contradictions between the various positions and groups are papered over or simply ignored. This "patchwork quilt" nature of fascist platforms, in retrospect, fits well with long observed traits of the "authoritarian personality type" already noted by social psychologists in the years following WW II. Authoritarians are typically observed to lack internal psychological - and logical - consistency or integrity, for example in holding contrary views. Thus they are prone to "project" onto hated or vilified groups their own aggressivity and negativity. Antisemites warn us of the "dangers" of associating with the Jews they hate, fear and denigrate. "We gotta git 'im before they gits us"..

             Things get really interesting when you start to dig below the surface of the "harlequin's suit" motley of fascist movement party platforms. What positive program do fascists propose, for example? That is what are they trying to DO, what are their GOALS, what is their AGENDA (real or feigned)?

              Bourderon's convincing but surprising conclusion: nothing! There is at the heart, the core, of fascism and reactionary thinking a deep void, a vacuum, a nullity but this nullity is filled with hate and paranoid fear. (One can't help but be reminded of Neitzsche's puzzling but - apparently! - prophetic insight that the core of modernity was nihilistic "life-slander" combined with a toxic "psychology of resentment". It appears that reactionary / fascist thinking is not directed toward any positive goal but only against something.

              But what? "Marxism" (AKA "socialism", "social democracy", "liberal democracy", "liberalism"..) and "internationalism" (AKA "One-Worldism"). The goal of fascist populism ideology is to find - or fabricate, if need be - hot button connections between "instinctive" mob behaviors and trigger words indicating targetted ethnic or social groups, political orientations, etc. Logical thought and serious critical analysis are to be avoided to the degree this is possible. Thus rabid anti-intellectualism is cultivated as a public - if not "patriotic" - virtue: liberal college professors were denounced as "pinkos" (half-Reds) and "pinheads" (intellectually defective) by the extremist John Birch Society in the US during the infamous McCarthyite "anti-communist witchunts" of the 1950s and early 60s.

           Now, it is this very nullity of purpose at the heart of reactionary / fascist thinking that gives me room for a bit of hope.

1- the fact that they can propose nothing positive to the "Left agenda" is itself heartening. (It suggests there might not be any other serious game in town..)

2- the very intensity of their paranoia and vitriolic attacks tends to suggest that, down deep, they too intuitively understand that their horse is dead, that the race is likely over..

Environmental Transparency: what you don't see, can't hurt you!

2011-09-19T13:23:00.000-07:00

                  Oh dear! The Harperites are at it again, it seems. Defaulting on their campaign promises. What this time..?

                   Remember the promises about "responsable government"? A government is responsable when it informs citizens of common dangers. This is so because, technically speaking, the government is supposed to be acting - in democracies anyway - as the agent of the people. You do not expect your banker to be rifling your accounts or your grocer to be short changing on the weight of the veggies you buy.

                 So too with governments. One of their functions is national defense. "Defense" - in the large sense - includes warning people of dangers, for example, a radioactive cloud arriving on the Pacific cost from damaged Japanese reactors. If the government failed to do so, the public would, in fact, be justified in calling the government to account for its failure to inform. We all know damn well this is true.

   Now, since we accept the consensus opinion of the scientific community on the risks posed by climate change, we consider it totally unacceptable that the Harper government would suppress reasearch and monitoring programs relating to anthropogenic climate change. This however is exactly what the Harperites have done!

Incredible! Do these guys have no shame? Or are they so brain-washed by the propaganda machine of the oil industry they serve that they really feel such programs and research are "a waste of time and money" in a time of budget restriction? Although, even here, given the way the economy is behaving lately, it is arguable that the feds should actually be spending money in strategic areas - renewable energies, energy conservation, public transport.. - even if this means going into deeper debt for a while.

                 The consequences of further budget cuts to Environment Canada will be long reaching and unpredictable. For those who reject the scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change but who do believe in the threat of ozone eating CFC gases, consider the following:

"... the Canadian cuts also threaten to erode the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement that obliges Arctic countries to monitor the ozone layer and maintain scientific ozone research.
Closing down Canada's ozone stations and the Toronto data archive "would clearly be seen as eroding the regulations of the Montreal protocol,"... "Once such an erosion process starts other countries can follow and may start to question other parts of the regulations under the Protocol.""

http://www.canada.com/technology/Harper+government+cutting+vital+climate+science+Critics/5402767/story.html

We are treading on very thin ice here! Global problems, like Ozone Layer Depletion which could reduce crop outputs and further destabalize the third world, need to be faced multilaterally, that is, "internationally". Harper and his gang, in a move to gain cheap votes from their right wing core - populism, in other words - are dismantling multilateral structures and institutions, the destruction of which will entail unknowable - but extremely heavy - long term consequences.

Transparency: losing control over our privacy rights

2011-09-15T14:10:00.000-07:00

            Canada is a democracy which protects the civil rights of its citizens, right?

            So here's a theoretical question: which is more important to the Harper government, trade with the USA or protection of privacy and civil rights here at home?

            Well, you might be inclined to say, given that Canada is a democracy which protects the civil rights of its citizens, that's really a no brainer! Rights trump trade..

   Think again! Former diplomat Gar Pardy - who has worked on US-Can relations - has issued a warning: Canada is thinking of trading off privacy and civil rights protection against trade in recent negotiations with the States.

   Who is Mr. Pardy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Garfield_Pardy

              And here is his warning, in an Ottawa Citizen piece dated September 12, 2011:

"The essence of the security measures in the Shared Vision declaration requires the transfer of information to the United States on, potentially, millions of people, most of whom would be Canadian citizens. Officials with the Canadian Shared Vision working group negotiating with the Americans, in briefing interested Canadians this summer, were frank in declaring that increased Canadian co-operation on security was the price to be paid for the removal of border restraints and constraints. They were equally frank in stating that the privacy rights of Canadians could be affected in paying that price."

The former diplomat's conclusion is chilling:

"If Canadians are not vigilant they may soon discover that the Americans have more control over their privacy rights than we do at home."

Once again, we are forced to face the inevitable: in the neocon - and neocon wanabe - hierarchy of value, despite all the hairy chested talk about "freedom", "choice", and "individualism", profits trump civil rights and civil society everytime.

Forewarned is forearmed, for those with wit to see..

Au pays des aveugles, les borgnes sont roi / in the land of the blind, the one-eyed are king

Is Canada serious in its committment to reduce carbon emissions?

2011-08-11T12:19:00.000-07:00

          Transparency in both public and private life means doing what you say you are going to do - doesn't it? "Keeping your word". "A man is as good as his word". In French a person who doesn't keep his word is held up to scorn: "il dit n'importe quoi!" / literally "he says anything" is a big put down. In English we quip, "you can tell when they're lying: their mouths move".

            Is that part of the reason young people in this country are so cynical about politics? They know that our "leaders" can't be trusted, that - in effect - they are not worthy to be leaders: what are leaders good for if they can't be trusted to embody the will and best interest of the people who honor them with the title "leader"??

            A particulary egregious example of the lack of transparency of the Harper government is revealed by a recent Pembina Institute report on Canada's performance in meeting international committments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

http://www.pembina.org/blog/561

            We have the feeling that the Haper government serves the interest of the Oil Patch on environmental and energy policy. They do give consent to international agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but only under extreme pressure from home and abroad. They drag their heels. But since they are beholden to the Patch, their "committment" is phony and belied by their (non-)action in meeting targets. They say one thing, do another. Untransparent..

As a nation, as a people, don't we deserve better?

And, given the risks to international peace and well being (far greater than that posed by jihadist terrorism for sure!), as part of the human race, should not we demand more from our "leaders"..

Double standards of truth

2011-07-27T11:01:00.000-07:00

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/07/20117206368409551.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2011/08/11/pol-charkaoui-la-presse.html

Do we live in a sick society? Are we collectively mentally ill?

2011-07-22T14:51:00.000-07:00

Reflections on the falling crime rate and the Harper government's reaction

              Violent crime is down, crime is at lowest level since 1973. A cause for jubilation?

http://www.globalnews.ca/Crime+rate+lowest+level+since+1973+StatsCan/5137105/story.html

              At least one might think it a cause for jubilation. But apparently not for Harper government hairy-chested ideologues.

              They want to spend lots of $$ - taxpayers' money, not their own - "gettin' tough on crime". Professional criminologists think they are crazy, obviously: even down in the States they are having second thoughts about all that money they've wasted.. And besides, the crime decline is probably due, in large part, to demographics, not to government programs. In an aging population, like ours, "exhibitionist" / machismo crimes like barroom brawls, murder, muggings go into decline. Older folks are more cautious: they embezzle the bank they work for or swindle their clients out of their life savings, they ship their profits overseas to island tax havens or use those havens to launder money from drug importation / production..

              The rhetoric is getting a bit hairy, too. Some of Harper's people are claiming crazy things like: "the crime stats are being manipulated" (to fit a liberal-secular humanist-socialist / communist agenda, no doubt..) or, again, that the beleaguered, victimized public has become so discouraged that - in droves - they have ceased reporting crimes. Wacky, wacky, this is wacky thinking..

              The pattern here appears obvious: the Haperites always, instinctively, return to their populist / reactionary core or base, whether we speak of principles or of targeted "audiences" (subsets of the electorate to whom the rhetoric of the Right appeals). Such targeting - think: focus groups - is, in reality, a sure sign that a party, or a political system, is bankrupt of ideas and vision. "They pander to the Right wing / reactionary vote", we say..

               But perhaps we mistake the trees for the forest. Perhaps we are overly focused on what are really only symptoms of a deeper, more pervasive, cultural or civilisational malady: the very lack of ideas, the lack of vision for the future and its potentialities or the flagrant moral irresponsibility with which our societies have addressed issues like 3rd world development, social justice, equity between nations in access to the earth's ressources..

                We contend that the Harperites' obsessive, paranoid fixation on punishing (ubiquitous) evildoers deserves to be put in parallel with, for example, some of Rush Limbaugh's recent conspiratorial ravings.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/rush-limbaugh-heat-wave

                For years, I have avoided the conclusion that our leaders, hence our society, is somehow "mad". After all, can one legitimately apply concepts drawn from individual psychopathology to a collective, societal context? Not so sure about that one, me..

                But the evidence is now pressing, invasive, omnipresent. Even professional psychologists are beginning to worry about our collective mental health; we're not talking about crime here but something else, more ominous still. What is happening? For example, why, exactly, are so many people droping psychotropes - prescription, stolen, legal or illegal? Why are wacky, extremist, fundamentalist religious sects gaining political power in the US, the country that put men on the moon and began robotic exploration of the inner and outer solar system, is daily cataloguing exoplanets capable, possibly, of harboring extra-terrestrial life: is this not a worrying trend? If it is not a worrying trend, what is then..

http://www.cmaq.net/fr/node/44040

               What we are witnessing, I believe, is an increasing disconnect-from-reality on the part of ascendant reactionary forces in Western societies. Why this is so, I don't know. In fact, none of the social scientists whose work I've consulted has been able to answer this question for me. We can, at best, merely describe this social pathology although its etiology - its origin and nature - remain opaque to understanding, at least at this point in time.

              Such was the case for the plague which ravaged Europe for centuries before people began to get a handle on controling its spread through improved public hygience, quarantine and  rodent control. Only much later was the ultimate cause of the disease isolated after the rise of microbiology.

               Social psychologist, Bob Altemeyer (University of Manitoba) has well described the "highly compartmentalized thinking" and logical incoherence (self-contradiction) so often noted in authoritarian / reactionary / conspiratorial thinkers. Exactly, why these folks are like this is anyone's guess at this stage of the game, but at least we can assess their "illness" and it's potential impacts on society.

http://www.cmaq.net/en/node/44252

                 It is evident, I hope, that one does not have to understand a danger in order to recognize that it IS a danger. In this case we are not dealing with a plague caused by a microbe but a "psychic plague" (Wilhelm Reich): reactionary, fascistic politics and their precursor, contemporary right wing populism. As the recent, still unfolding tragedy in Norways trumpets: our societies are sick, we are in trouble..

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/24/us-norway-multiculturalism-idUSTRE76N2O020110724

Refugees: Can you speak from both sides of your mouth at same time?

2011-07-07T12:15:00.000-07:00

            A recent CBC radio "The Current" segment dealt with the incredible ordeal of the Benhmuda family. The father's brother belonged to a group opposing the Qadhafi regime in Libya. The cops began to hassle the brother to the point the family immigrated to Canada and sought refugee status. Reason: they feared for their lives. That's clear enough ain't it? Qadhafi is known to do bad things to people who he thinks oppose him: he's a dictator that Canada is fighting, right?

          Strange thing. After living in Canada for EIGHT YEARS the government wackily decides to deport the family back to Libya. Why? Difficult to get info, of course (we expect this by now..): another lack of transparency in a government elected on a reformist platform with transparency a hot button issue.

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2011/07/04/refugee-benhmuda-family/

           What is going on here? Check out the above link to get a feel for the irrationality of the gov's action. The Benhmuda segment is the first interview.

           To all appearances, the family members commited no crime, either in Libya or Canada. The family had integrated. A son, who considers himself Canadian, was born here. Why, then, deport them back to a hellhole like Libya? And why NOW, with a goddam WAR going on??!!

          Fortunately the Benhmudas managed to escape Libya and now live in Malta (on assistance, poorly). They have initiated legal procedures and hope to return to Canada which they consider their home.

           But why deport them in the first place? - And after EIGHT YEARS living in Canada! Does it take EIGHT YEARS to find out if they are legit? If so, why does it take so long? - all those cuts to "bureaucratic fat"?

            Given that such behavior on the part of the Harper government is not isolated to this single case, one is in right to question whether or not a pattern is being revealed. One need only think of the truly odious Arar case,where an innocent man was shipped overseas to be tortured to extract information during the war on terrorism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar

            Or the absolutely Orwellian / Kafkesque Mubin Shaikh case where a Canadian born muslim volunteered to infiltrate a terrorist cell for the RCMP leading to the dismantling of the gang, convictions and prison sentences. For his trouble - not to mention patriotism and courage - Shaikh was placed on terrorist lists in the US and Canada. LOL, will cockups never cease..

http://transparencycanada.blogspot.com/2011/05/transparency-and-murphys-laws.html

            Do we see a pattern revealed in these - to say the least! - "strange" cases and, if so, what is that pattern? Such behavior obviously demands a response on the part of responsible public servants: Harper was elected on a platform which stressed responsible government, let us not forget.

           Muslims seem to be a prime target in these and other cases. Does that mean anything? Is the government - or segments of that government - pandering to ethnocentric populist sentiments? One surely hopes not..

           In more general terms, one detects a hardening of approach to those seeking refugee status in recent years. Is Canada still the "compassionate nation" we so like to pride ourselves on being? Or have our values imperceptibly shifted? Do we, for example, afford a higher priority today than formerly to economic immigrants, those bringing money to Canada in exchange for citizenship?

           Is Canada STILL the "compassionate nation" we so like to pride ourselves on being? To you to decide, dear reader..

Transparency: The Dirty Window needs cleaning.

2011-06-22T09:48:00.000-07:00

             The RCMP is investigating "G8 summit legacy fund" spending, citing a troubling lack of transparency in the administration of $50 million allotted to the riding of federal cabinet minister Tony Clement. Once again, the Harper government - elected on a platform of "law 'n order, transparency and responsible governance"- has left many with a bitter taste in the mouth through its blatant failure to live up to either the spirit or the word of its electoral commitments.

               Acting federal auditor John Wiersema recently decried the virtual total absence of a papertrail in the allocation of G8 summit legacy fund monies:

"Wiersema called the complete absence of documentation “very unusual and troubling” and said he’d never encountered anything like it during his lengthy career as an auditor."

               "Never encountered anything like it during his lengthy career as an auditor". That statement alone deserves a moment of quiet reflection. Just think who preceeded the Harperites: the Chrétien government and its procurement scandal!

               LOL! You come off smellin' like s--t in comparison with THOSE guys! That ain't good. That definitely ain't good. Just think! It was exactly the public's disgust with the antics of THOSE guys which helped elect Harper and his crew in the first place!

             And now.. and now, we find out that the Harperites are even creepier than the Chrétien crew: "never encountered anything like it during his lengthy career as an auditor"..

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1012610--rcmp-to-probe-g8-legacy-fund

             Jeez! Are we being taken for another ride by another wing of the Old Boys Club?

              And such transparency issues are a recurring problem with this government: this is not so much a glitch as a trend. Going back to March, accusations of attempting to hide the true costs of its budget policies flared, setting the stage for the last election. Guess we just like being whipped by these guys..

http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110321/ottawas-brink-of-election-politics-week-begins-110321/20110321/?hub=EdmontonHome

Crysotile Asbestos: transparency or the lack thereof

2011-06-15T12:11:00.000-07:00

          Asbestos, the insulating fiber, is a known carcinogen. The crysotile variant is less so but requires special handling to prevent inhalation of the carcinogenic fibers. Canada exports the fiber to third world countries like India from mines in Québec. The trade has been denounced because the "special handling to prevent inhalation" is rarely, if ever, achieved in the third world. See, for example:

http://hesa.etui-rehs.org/uk/dossiers/files/Calvert_%20Canada_Asbestos_Tragedy.pdf

           Why then does the Harper government continue to support the international trade in crysotile fiber when it is well known that lives in third world countries are being lost to lung cancer and other respiratory illnesses as a result of exposure to the fibers in unsafe working conditions? It is like a man profiting from selling hypodermic needles to junkies with the argument, "well, I don't know what they use them for". Out of sight, out of mind: it's a crappy morality..

           Less we be accused of Left wing bias - US?? - it should be noted that Canadian unions don't come out smellin' like roses either. As a group they have been internally paralyzed by Québec unions in the industry who have placed local job security over 3rd world health and lives. Short term logic of course: we save our jobs in Québec and to hell with Asian workers. Did no one tell them of "Divide and conquer!"

Tacky, tacky, tacky..: the face of populism in Canada

2011-06-10T11:44:00.000-07:00

           Magnificent example of populist rabble rousing! Krista Erickson stands up for the "little man" - the eternal Taxpayer - against that nasty liberal / artist Margie Gillis. Gillis manages to come off with some dignity despite the ambush - good thinking Margie!

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/971454253001Importante

          Students of Authoritarianism (or aspiring führers), study the video carefully! Observe how Gillis' past statements are ripped out of context - "Canada not a compassionate society" - and then used to beat up Gillis. The internal dialogue of the viewer is being artfully programmed here by spinmeister Erickson: Oh! what a naughty, arrogant woman! how unpatriotic! and how terribly, terribly ungrateful, taking a million dollars from the Taxpayers in grants (over 39 years and for salaries for many aspiring artists, admittedly) and then claiming Canada is "not compassionate", tsk, tsk, tsk.. Oh, yes, it's all there, all the tools of the demagog's trade, masterfully - and yet apparently instinctively - deployed: the misquoting, the baiting, the rabble rousing followed by pandering to the baser instincts roused. Beautiful Krista, beautiful, you are a master..

           Aside from the tactics employed, the video is also a showroom of the populist psychology on many different levels (astute observers could list more):

- reduction of life to the purely quantitative: how much is it worth?

- behind the rhetoric of hairy chested "individualism" and the incessant cant of "freedom" (or "democracy" in foreign affairs), the desire to suppress the natural diversity of opinion found in modern societies, the constant pressure to conform to rigid normes and to force others to adopt herd normes of conduct, belief, life-style, occupation..

             Presently reading "The Authoritarians", a free access online text by an American prof of psychology teaching at the University of Manitoba, another recommended window into the populist / authoritarian mentality:

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

(One wonders why he chose to do his research on authoritarianism from a base in Canada given that he is American and the US seems to be the major current source of authoritarian thinking on the continent. Did his topic of research put him in the way of too many stray bullets.. )

From the "Incredible but True!" file: Shameful!

2011-05-30T13:02:00.000-07:00

Vic Toews, federal public safety minister apparently feels that the private sector profits trump the welfare, the health or the safety of citizens:

At a time when distressed flood victims in Quebec’s Richelieu Valley were urging the federal government for more troops to help deal with the crisis, Ottawa refused to send in additional soldiers, saying it would put them “in competition with the private sector.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec/ottawa-initially-refuses-request-for-more-troops-to-aid-quebec-flood-victims/article2033562/

It appears that the bottom line - despite patriotric machismo - is, well, the bottom line.. What a travesty of the word "citizen" we have here! In a State shrunk to the point it "could be drowned in a bathtub", the citizen is finally reduced to the status of a mere "client", a "consumer" of State services. A purely mercantile relation. At the limit, the poor "citizen" (client), who does not have the wherewithall to purchase services, does without. Witness the progressive - sureptitious - privitization of the health services.. death by a thousand cuts.. Yet another example of the mercantile psychology behind neoconservative ideology at work, transparently, in the open.. "From the mouths of babes".. Toews you are an innocent..

"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist

Transparency and Murphy's Laws

2011-05-20T11:38:00.000-07:00

                    Murphy's Laws

1- anything that can go wrong will go wrong
2- anything that can't go wrong will go wrong
3- any attempt to correct for failures of type 1 or type 2 will, by increasing the complexity of the system, increase the sources of failures of type 1 and type 2

          As the "failsafe" nuclear power plant security failures in Japan have demonstrated clearly since 11 March, "failsafe" security measures don't work. We live in a universe ruled by Murphy's Laws!

          Take the case of poor Mubin Shaikh.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/05/18/mubin-shaikh-wikileaks.html

           This fellow, well intentioned and / or hopelessly naive, offered Canadian security agencies (CSIS, RCMP) his services as a mole within the radical Islamic community in Canada. His goal, he says, was to be a better-than-average citizen and personally run the risk of ferretting out terrorists plots. Weird. Pollyanish, maybe, but brave, at least (I mean, these dudes are willing to kill innocent people: what might they do to a mole if they found out? Would you do it..) At any rate, Shaikh's services led to the conviction of theToronto 18 plot members.

             Normally, the guy should get a medal, right? He volunteered to put himself at risk to serve his country, etc. So how was Mubin Shaikh rewarded for his time, effort, courage?

              According to a wiki-leaks document, Shaikh was amply "rewarded" for his services by being place on one or more American terrorist suspect lists. Note: I don't make this stuff up! - I simply don't have enough imagination.. However, I imagine this type of incredible cockup must have led engineer Murphy to formulate his famous Laws: engineers apply scientific theories to practical situations and thus are forced to deal with all the vicissitudes and perversities of the material world.

Transparency: neocon "Voter Suppression" tactics imported from U.S.

2011-05-11T12:38:00.000-07:00

Harper and company promised "law 'n order, responsible government and transparency", right?

How's this for "transparency"? Anne Lagacé Dowson:

"The Conservatives’ latest voter suppression tactic is what is called "robo-calling" – fake phone calls directing voters to the wrong polling stations. These calls are standard operating procedure for Republican right-wingers in the U.S. Now they are apparently part of the Tory playbook.
The calls went out to ridings where the races were close, and where the difference between winning and losing is a couple of hundred votes. People were told to go to the wrong place to vote in B.C., Manitoba, Ontario and the Atlantic region. The phone messages told voters that their polling place had been changed because of high turnout. Elections Canada never calls people like that, but most people trust such a call when it comes."

http://hour.ca/2011/05/05/orange-nation/

To my way of thinking - which apparently is not that of the Harper crew - being "transparent" means being open, honest, above board in dealing with others. It means probity, frankness - yes, at times it's needed, "telling it like it is". Above all, transparency is the opposite of dissimulation, "dirty tricks". And these are U.S. Republican style dirty tricks: not a good sign. One talks the moral "high road" and walks quite a different way..

At this early date, Elections Canada has been informed of the dirty tricks played the last few weeks of the campaign but has made no judgement. Rogue Conservative supporters may, of course, be responsible but this remains to be proven.. See, for example, CBC radio's The Current, May 11, 2011 for a discussion with an American author who wrote a book about his work as a Republic hatchet man (he spent time in prison for it):

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2011/05/11/dirty-election-tricks/

A STRANGE PUZZLING ELECTION - More questions than answers

2011-05-05T14:38:00.000-07:00

         As we expected, the Conservatives won with a big majority.

   Division of the vote on the Left between Liberals and the NDP let Conservatives walk up the middle.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/map/2008/fullscreen.html

The election left Big Losers and Big Winners.

The Big Losers:

The Liberals: their lowest percentage of the popular vote in history. Leader Ignatieff, defeated in his own riding, fell on his sword and quit politics. What will now become of the beleaguered, once mighty, Liberal Party? It leaves the impression of a wounded animal crawling off to die..

            Some pundits suggest a fusion of the Liberal Party and the NDP to create a unified party of the Left (as the Right did years ago with fusion / hostile takeover of the "Red Tory" Progressive Conservatives by the neoconservative Reform - Alliance). Other, more pragmatic voices claim that a fusion would destroy the former: the Liberal right wing - business - would rush to the Conservatives, fleeing the socialist hordes. The future of the traditional party of the center is, at best, uncertain..

The Bloc Québécois: A truly monumental defeat, giving new meaning to the saying "going down in flames". No one saw leader Gilles Duceppes' loss of his home riding: he, like Ignatieff, bows out, leaving the political scene in defeat. What will happen to the separatist movement in Québec? Will it die? No one can say..

The Big Winners:

Finally! Elizabeth May, head of the Green Party, wins a sole seat. Will she be able to leverage her win into a national paradigm shift on environmental issues? Good luck, Elizabeth!

Jack Layton's Orange Wave: Why did the NDP spike so quickly the last two weeks of the campaign? Why did the wave begin and crest so high in Québec, formerly closed to NDP wooing because of the Province's "made-in-Québec" brand of social democracy? Why did the Orange Wave spread to other parts of the country? Was the wave just another example of "social mimicry", the recent democracy movements in the Middle East serving as role-models? If so, this would suggest there is an underground current of fear, frustration, rage and desire for change waiting to be tapped by emerging social / political movements..

           The election raises more questions than it answered, revealing fracture lines of fear and distrust, revealing also an alien political landscape for which we possess no maps..

            For the first time in history the Reds have been denied the role of Official Opposition by Jack's neophyte Orange team. A first! - but what does it really mean for the long run? Does the Liberal rout indicate a fundamental shift in our political perspective: a potentially creative polarization of Canadian politics between a neoconservative Right and a "Social Democratic", possibly green, Left? Or did people vote for Jack merely in protest? Only time will tell if the Orange Wave was a fluke created by circumstances or a real paradigm shift..

            Just as puzzling is the role Québec now finds itself in: undefined! Not only did the Orange Wave begin there but more than half of Layton's team hail from la belle province - no one, but no one, saw this coming. To be effective the Orange team will need to reach across the linguistic divide and develop a common political vision and strategy. This alone could - potentially - usher in a new era of Canadian federal politics. Decades ago, in their heyday, the centrist Liberals played this bridging role. Now the role of bridge builder falls to a party of the Left. How will this reconfigured political map play out in the decades of environmental / ecological turmoil ahead? One can only speculate!

            One thing seems certain though: the Bloquistes, the Liberals and the NDP itself will have a long stretch ahead to discover their new roles, formulate new goals and try out new strategies in this political Wonderland we have suddenly fallen into. They will all have their work cut out for them too: with their strong majority, the Harperites will feel their hand free to do pretty much as they see fit..

            One thing I think we can count on: the unexpected.

Attendre l'inattendu! / expect the unexpected!

Politics is the art of the possible

Politics is the realm where Murphy's Laws have their fullest, most complete and most diversified expression

abortion: the iceberg's tip

2011-04-22T11:55:00.000-07:00

         Icebergs are dangerous because you don't see what's below the waterline.

Juan Ramón Jiménez

Mares
!Siento que el barco mío
ha tropezado, allá en el fondo,
con algo grande!
!Y nada
sucede! Nada.. Quietud.. Olas..

-?Nada sucede; o es que ha sucedido todo,
y estamos ya, tanquilos, en lo nuevo?-

Oceans
I sense that my boat
has foundered, below the waterline, deep,
against a great thing!
And yet nothing
happens! Nothing.. quiet.. the waves..

Nothing happens - or has everything happened
and we are already, unknowing, in the new?

        Recently, Conservative candidate Brad Trost, addressing the Saskatchewan Prolife Association, claimed that the federal tories have "decided to cut funding" to the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Reason: they support abortion programs in third world countries. He went so far as to say that prolifer activism played a role in the decision. PM Harper was forced to scurry to deny his candidate's claims and re-iterated that his government has no plans to re-open the abortion debate.

        The important point here is not whether the conservatives will or will not "reopen the abortion debate" at some future date. This is the tip of the iceberg, the less dangerous part. It is what lies under the waterline that is really disconcerting..

        In this minor skirmish, we get a glimpse of an attempt by the American Right and their Canadian allies to open another front in the "culture wars".

        Do not forget! Despite the nationalistic / militaristic blustering - "northern sovereignty", for example - Harperites are, in reality, neocon wanabes, "mirror imaged clones joined at the h/lip". Their economic "philosophy" (? sophistry ?) emerges straight from Milton Friedman's "Chicago School" of neo-laissez-faire capitalism. In other words, another undesirable "cultural transplant" from across the border. Nothing more, nothing less. If one really wanted to be nationalistic, one could hardly do better than follow in the footsteps of Tommy Douglas, the father of the Canadian "socialized" health care system which flag wavin' Harper and his Chicago School clones assiduously strive to dismember. Once again, the two sides of the mouth speak different languages..

          The real question here is in what image do we want to create Canda (given that we accept that in democracies the populace is the ruler and electoral process the means by which that will is expressed..)? Our thesis is that the Harperite government, by appealing to populist emotionality, is opening the door to the forces of fascist reaction so well documented in Chris Hedges' American Fascists (Free Press, NY, 2006).

           Hedges' book is required reading for anyone interested in Canada's future and worried by the direction the Harperites have take us in. American Fascists is a brave, a magnificent, a frightening book, a trip into the hell of moral chaos, family breakdown, economic insecurity, social atomization and existential vacuity of contemporary American culture. (Since we share much of the same culture and values, we too are prone to the same social forces as indeed Harper's election itself testifies..) These forces of cultural disintegration provide fertile soil for fascism to take root and flourish.

           American Fascists, page 118 (numbers in parentheses refer to footnotes):

"creationist publications.. blame Darwin for spawning most of the evils of modernity including racism, apartheid (1), Stalinism (2), the holocaust (3) and the Rwandan genocide.. Christians must be prepared for battle, for war, against satanic forces that lie incubating within America's secular, evolutionist, materialist society, forces getting ready to begin a new round of mass exterminations, this time of American Christians"

Q: Where does this horrifc crap come from?

R: Keith Graham: Biology: God's living creation (A Beka, Pensacola, Florida, 1986) - a creationist high school "biology" textbook! Talk about the rape of the minds of the young, intellectual pederastry..

Un pouvoir totalitaire a besoin d'entretenir une psychose de guerre permanente en état de paix - Edgar Morin: La Méthode, tome 5

A totalitarian power needs to maintain a permanent state of war psychosis during times of peace.

            Is this the kind of society we want Canada to become? Are these our standards of truth?

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/thesearch/archive/2010/10/28/evolution-a-litmus-test-in-u-s-election-is-canada-next.aspx

            Canadian's on the whole, are half as likely as Americans to believe that God created man within the last 10,000 years and 70% more likely than Americans to believe in evolution according to an Angus Reid poll. These are significant differences..

            Nor, is all this a "matter of opinion", for if conservative "christians" actually do manage to get their way - in the US or in Canada - issues such as evolution or right to abortion and contraception will not be "matters of opinion" as the tone of the creationist high school "biology" textbook cited above indicates: the goal is to create nothing short of a theocracy (modelled on Iran of the Ayatollahs, ironically enough..). "One nation under God" - did you ever stop to think of what those words really mean?

         Hot button issues, like abortion ("murder of the unborn") are deftly exploited by the American Right - and their clones in Canada - as the "thin entering wedge" of reactionary socio-political change agendas. Obviously, it would be absurd to import such attitudes or motives to all - or even to most - Harperites. Many, for example, are openly at the opposite end of the moral spectrum: upper middle class hedonistic libertarian narcissists possessing no social conscience whatsoever and who want to gut government simply to serve their own selfish ends. However, caution must warn us to see in these "thin entering wedge" issues a great danger for our democracy: the puppet masters who pull these strings are no democrats..

          For less astute readers or those too naively liberal to grasp the full import and true nature of the "culture wars", Hedges, page 140, citing a speach given at a recent annual convention of American National Religious Broadcasters:

         "'Ages of faith are not marked by dialogue but by proclamation (4).. truth.. does not rest in the wisdom of man but in the power of God'. And in a lisping imitation of liberals he mocks, admist laughter and applause, those who want to 'share' and be 'sensitive to the needs of others'." Could the true nature of the "culture wars" be made any clearer? "Liberals" - and others who promote social justice- "lisp" effetely because they are like "fags", not "real men" like Christian warriors for God's Revealed Truth..

Is this what we really want to become as a society?

http://blog.sojo.net/2010/03/11/glenn-beck-responds-social-justice-is-a-perversion-of-the-gospel/

Hedges, American Fascists, page 140:

            "His antics delight most of the crowd but not all. Luis Palau, a close protégé of Billy Graham, is one of the few present at the convention who is uncomfortable with the naked and repeated calls for power... [Palau] represents a traditional evangelicanism that has been shunted aside, often ruthlessly, by this new class [of evangelizers] . [Palau's] focus is on personal salvation, he says, not seizing of political power... he bristles at the coarseness, the naked calls for a Christian state, and the anti-intellectualism. He, like Graham, shuns the movement's caustic biting humor that belittles homosexuals, those deemed effete intellectuals and those condemned as "secular humanists". The emphasis on abortion and gay marriage to the exclusion of other issues worries him. [As indeed it should! Such hot button 'moral' issues are smoke 'n mirrors which function to divert the public's attention from the many urgent problems we face: overpopulation, peak oil, climate change, development of alternative energy sources, the environment, biodiversity, endangered species, social justice, spreading inequalities in wealth and opportunity and their political consequences..] "

           The shift from religious commitment and personal salvation to the acquistion of "faith based" political power represents the true "thin entering wedge" of the culture wars, the slippery slope we tread at our peril. Once again, Hedges, American Fascists, page 142:

            "The emphasis on personal renewal and commitment to Christ - the staple message of evangelists such as Billy Graham and Luis Palau - is an anachronism to the new class [of conservative "christian" activists] . While speakers demand that followers give their lives to Christ, and while the born-again experience is considered the dividing line between believers and nonbelievers, the conversion experience is no longer the dominant theme pounded home from the pulpit or across the airwaves. It has been replaced by the rhetoric of war, the demands of a warrior God who promises blood and vengeance, and by the rhetoric of persecution, by the belief that there are sinister forces that seek the destruction of believers [collective paranoia: compare with Hitler's terror of the "Jewish threat", now replaced by the "threat of Islam"]. [The conversion experience] has also been replaced by a conspicuous and unapologetic infatuation with wealth, power and fame. As the movement has shifted away from the focus on personal salvation to a focus on power, it has incorporated into its theology the values, or lack of them, of a flagrant consumer society. [fascinating! - given that Jesus, their Teacher, taught that 'it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven' and that 'a man cannot serve two masters and not love the one and hate the other' "

          In essense, Judeo-christian symbology, tradition, values, and myth have been cynically / hypocritically "deconstructed" - stripped of original meaning and signification - and ideologically "recycled" to justify / rationalize social injustice and inequality.

A single example suffices: ecological crises - caused by human activity - are radically re-interpreted / re-framed as signs of the "End Times" (5). Greens, by trying to improve things, are opposing God's will and thus are Satan's agents on earth. Thus the responsibility for human greed and stupidity is conveniently shifted onto God's broad shoulders. And - more importantly! - the pollutors, the "developers", the oil compagnies and their media cronies.. are given carte blanche to continue their pillage and despoliation of our world and the destruction of our children's future..

footnotes:

(1) racism is, however, more regularly cited as a trait of the political Right than the Left and apartheid was a program initiated by the Dutch Reformed Church, a christian sect

(2) Stalin was actually a supporter of the anti-Darwinist crackpot biology of T Lysenko

(3) centuries of Christian bigotry played no role in preparing the holocaust??!!

(4) so are monarchies and totalitarian governments!

(5) the rather specific dating of the End Times in the New Testament is, of course, conveniently ignored:

Mark 13:24 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till these things take place

Mark 9:1 Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste of death till they see the Kingdom of God present with power

Can you talk from both sides of your mouth at the same time?

2011-04-19T11:46:00.000-07:00

            Can you talk from both sides of your mouth at once? The Harper (neo-)cons can!

            Now that the election is underway, they - like the other parties - are positively bending over backwards to gain the "ethnic" vote. And, be it admitted, they seem to be doing a better job at it than the aenemic Liberals. In these troubled and troubling times, the Harperites populist / reactionary rhetoric finds traction in immigrant communities still rooted in traditional value systems..

              Yet what one fails to observe is that these same Harperites were, not so long ago, vigorously slashing funding to immigrant groups, particularly in hated Toronto (read: appeal to redneck sentiment across the country..)

http:rewindthecuts.ca/letters-and-statements-of-support/non-political-sources/

              What we find galling: the programs being cut were functioning, even functioning well by all acounts. By assisting immigrants to integrate, their subsidies were, most likely, more than "paying for themselves" in increased taxes (from better integrated / higher salaried new Canadians), and reduced Welfare, Social Services, Health Care and prison costs. Thus, once again, our "good governement", "responsible government", "law and order" Harperites have sacrificed good and responsible governance to short term political expedience. Shame on you all!

Transparency: the veteran issue

2011-04-15T15:42:00.000-07:00

Hairy chested individualist gun-totin' conservatives love war 'n fightin' 'n all that manly stuff. But funny, when it comes to dealing with the physical and psychological aftereffects of combat, our vets get stiffed. So says former Veteran Affairs ombudsman, Pat Stogran, himself a retired officer.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/decision-Canada/Embattled+ombudsman+Stogran+makes+last+stand+Canada+veterans/3790825/story.html

This is what comes with an obsessional fixation on "budget cuting" and "small government" so the boomers can ride around in their big gas guzzling SUV toys: the little guys - and gals - from the working classes who actually lay their lives on the lines get sucker punched when they are down and need help..

Transparency: a prophecy

2011-04-12T13:34:00.000-07:00

        The political noise machines are really being cranked up to full steam as election day approaches!

         But what is being said of real importance?

         Perhaps more importantly from the perspective of political transparency, what is NOT being said? What issues that should be on the front burner aren't even on the stove yet?

         We believe that the two issues of greatest importance are not even being discussed (or, at best, are given pious lip service):

(1) Peak Oil: the exhaustion of cheap, easy to extract and refine oil reservoirs. This is the most immediate challenge our society faces today.

(2) The "Environmental Issue": everything from climate change to habitat destruction, species extinction and the destabilization of vital planetary ecosystem services (clean water, air and soil; the capacity for natural soil regeneration..)

A PROPHECY

         We predict that these two issues, completely off the political agendas of the major parties, will become major social, economic and (geo-)political issues over the next, say, 2 to 10 years (and probably no more than 5).

         Now, these predictions are not really rocket science. The first, Peak Oil, is in fact already here. More and more economists, of late, are conceding that peak oil price hikes in spring / summer 2008 and not the subprime mortgage scam (autumn 2008) were the immediate, effective cause of the current world recession. Now, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that, as economies "recover" from the recession and 3rd world economies grow, demand will once again push "tight supply" oil prices through the ceiling again. The only question is when: summer 2011? fall?.. spring 2012, winter equinox 2012?.. (were the Mayans right after all..)

         As for the "environmental thing", we wager that this cluster of crises will be the wild card for the first half of the 21st century. One salient point to consider while assessing future climate change possibilities: the experts and their computer models inevitably err on the side of conservatism (as indeed they should - if they are doing good science and not, say, astrology..) They consistently underestimate the velocity of the ongoing changes: ice cap or glacial meltdown for example.

         At present, the rising tide of political instability in the Mideast is due, in part, to food price hikes caused by extreme weather crop damage over the last growing season (Russia, prairie Canada, Pakistan..) If global warming / climate change are, in fact, real - as we posit they are - then the tide of geopolitical instability can only be expected to rise in the years to come..

        Yet, paradoxically, none of these "clear and present dangers" is front and center on the political stage (not to date, anyway..) Why this curious silence? And does this lack of contact with reality have anything to do with apathy of young voters who instinctively recognize, perhaps, that the system is not addressing the problems they will soon have to deal with? One can only speculate..

PM Steven Harper goes green

2011-04-01T11:42:00.000-07:00

         Steven Harper seems to have caught the green bug. Electioneering makes for strange - really strange - bedfellows, it seems.

"Speaking at an event in Halifax on Thursday, Harper said developing hydroelectric power generation in Newfoundland and Labrador would help promote green energy across the East Coast.
"This has the potential to be a very important part of our efforts to fight climate change in Canada," Harper told supporters."

         http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110331/election-main-110331/20110331?hub=EdmontonHome

          But Thursday, March 31, that was April Fool's eve..

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2007/01/30/harper-kyoto.html

          He had us! Il nous a eu!

Transparency and Hard Ball Immigrant Services Games

2011-01-20T17:47:00.000-08:00

       Harper's Conservatives are out to gut community organizations helping to integrate immigrants into Canadian life.

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/news/investigations/immigration/article/923349--settlement-agencies-shocked-by-gag-order?bn=1

        The logic of such a move leaves much to be desired: why say Canada "welcomes" immigrants and then kill the grassroots organizations which are so efficient in carrying out that work? Don't make sense to me..

But there's worse - as there usually is:

"Immigrant service agencies were horrified when they got a government email last week banning them from discussing recent federal funding cuts that may kill some of them"

     Thus while preaching a platform of "transparency", "grassroots values", and "responsible government", the Feds cut funding to those who were actually actively engaged in the grassroots integration (="responsibilisation") of new Canadians. Further, the Feds even want to muzzle discussion about the cuts...

           I'm flabbergastered. I admit I don't get it.. What happened to the promised "transparency", "grassroots values" and "responsibility". We are simply at a loss for words before such blatant hypocrisy (?cynicism?), of the consistent failure of this government to put in practice the platitudinous, populist values they preach. Instead, they descend to the level of American style attack ads on their opponents - a sure sign that your government is playing dirty! They want to divert your attention from real problems, solutions and choices to strawmen set up for the mob to attack.We're in big trouble folks. Just look what's happening south of the border to see where we're going.

Internal Contradictions of Neo-Conservative Ideology

2010-12-14T14:16:00.000-08:00

         Québecois author, Christian Nadeau, is a prof of philosophy who studies conservatism in the N. American context. Here is a google search result, en français, of his work:

http://www.google.ca/search?as_q=conservatisme+harper&hl=fr&num=10&btnG=Recherche+Google&as_epq=christian+nadeau&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&cr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images

          Nadeau uncovers what we consider to be the fundamental flaw of neo-conservative ideology: it claims to prioritize "individual liberties" (thus continuing the Revolutionary movements of the Enlightenment: French and American Revolutions) but, in practice, destroys the means to attain or defend those very liberties.

         This fundamental contradiction is seen in the Harper government's attempt to emasculate the national census by rendering the long form voluntary. This is done in the name of "individual liberties" but has for its practical effect the reduction of the information flows the federal government requires for targeting and monitoring programs which "level the playing field" for disadvantaged Canadians. These citizens thus find themselves with de facto reduced opportunies (and the freedom of action which derives from opportunity).

   Such behavior, Nadeau believes is explainable on the grounds of an obsessional - ideological - commitment to an American-style "the less government, the better" vision of society and the world. The pernicious outcomes of such behavior are simply ignored..

         Reactionaries love "tradition" (a loaded word if ever there was one!) and oppose all forms of "moral relativism". This language often is a cover for ethnocentrism and racism, of course, and too often masks an excessive love of "authority" and "strong man" figures: one thinks of the machisme of a Mussolini or a Hitler.. This excessive, fear-driven, need for "authority" leads to abberations such as the perversion of religious symbols, myths and terminology to prop up, rationalize or justify reactionary policies. American "conservative christians" argue that ecological and climatological crises are signs of the "end times" prophesized by the Book of Revelations. Ecologists and those struggling for social and ecological justice are portrayed as "defying God's Will" and "serving God's Enemy, Satan" - no less!

The reactionary perversion of thought extends even into places one would not expect: science. We see this trend in the puzzling rise of such pseudo-scientific curiosities as "intelligent design" which, we imagine, functions to reinforce "religious" authority (bible, charismatic interpreters..) and to generally suppress the cultivation of critical thinking especially among the young.

strip searches: authoritarian shift in police culture?

2010-12-13T13:26:00.000-08:00

       According to an article on this morning's "The Current" (CBC radio), police in this country might be resorting to psychologically intimidating / denigrating strip searchs on one third to one half of all arrests, at least in large urban centers.

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2010/12/13/strip-searches/

        Such practices continue despite Supreme Court rulings that strip searches be conducted only out of necessity, that they are "inherently degrading" and that they require the permission of a supervisor:

http://mymuskoka.blogspot.com/2010/12/policing-in-ontario.html

        Why are such practices tolerated in a society which considers itself "democratic" and "liberal". Such practices are more in line with the philosophy and psychology of totalitarian societies were police brutality is used as a means of suppressing public dissent..

Unelected senate should not ride rough shod over parliament - Harper

2010-11-18T14:16:00.000-08:00

        Well, you have to give 'em credit. No moss grows on the this stone..

        Way back when, before he was elected, Steven Harper was a staunch defender of populist democracy,

“disgraceful, undemocratic appointment of undemocratic Liberals to the undemocratic Senate to pass all too often undemocratic legislation.”

http://www.torontolife.com/daily/informer/the-feds/2010/11/17/unelected-senate-not-looking-so-bad-to-tories-now-that-its-killing-pro-environment-bills/

Hard to be clearer than that!

         Until, of course, you get elected and you stack the (unelected, still) senate with Conservatives. Then along comes the NDP with an environmental bill committing Canada to an 80% reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050. And without a debate - the first time in 7 decades - the bill was killed.

        Harper, of course, lamely rationalized / justified this undemocratic procedure by playing the phoney "lost jobs" card:

"“It sets irresponsible targets, does not lay out any measure of achieving them, other than by shutting down sections of the Canadian economy and throwing hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of people out of work,” Harper said."

           reported The Star.

http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/environment/article/892053

          Once again, unfortunately for all that transparency we were promised when this government was elected, these "facts" provided by Prime Minister Harper are pure bullshit. As Scandinavian countries are demonstrating, green jobs, in reality, create more jobs than they destroy. They tend to be in labor-intensive sectors of the economy, requiring relatively modest investments and plenty of work for many hands. Ironically, it is the fossil fuel sector - Harper's buddies in the Oil Patch - that is highly CAPITAL INTENSIVE - big investments - while being relatively weak on job creation. Harper has stood things on their head! I guess it's who pays the piper..

"The volume of renewable energy produced within the EU-27 increased overall by 57.0 % between 1998 and 2008, equivalent to an average increase of 4.6 % per annum."

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Renewable_energy

Oh dear! They're at it again, procurement..

2010-11-01T12:45:00.000-07:00

          The Harper team got elected on a platform of clean, transparent / limpid, accountable / responsible government. Procurement scandals, well, those were things of the Liberal past. These are heady new days..

           Or maybe not.. Federal auditor general, Sheila Fraser, has found that the Harper team talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. They don't play by their own rules, she says.

   Federal purchases of Chinook and Cyclone helicopters for the military will prove to be considerably more expensive than lawmakers were led to believe, claims Fraser. Full costs and estimated life-cycle costs were not divulged at the time of debate. Transparency, you say? Accountability?

"..costs have since skyrocketed, in part because the initial estimates didn't include long-term servicing costs. The 15 Chinooks were supposed to cost $2 billion, but are now estimated at $4.9 billion with support. They're due to be delivered in 2013.

The 28 Cyclones were initially estimated $3 billion. The costs have since been revised to include long-term service support and are now estimated at $5.7 billion. They're due to be delivered in 2012."

   Thus, by my estimation, what should have cost $5 billion has now ballooned to $10.6 billion, an impressive 110% cost over-run. Such "scandalous, irresponsible behavior" a thing of the Liberal past, you say? Think again..

http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2818206

The law and order thing

2010-10-29T10:23:00.000-07:00

The Haper Conservatives, like conservatives everywhere, are tough on crime, big on law and order. Under the Liberals, no Canadians serving time in US jails were denied the right (or privilege) to serve part of their term in Canada during the period 1998 - 2005. According to documents obtained by the CBC, in the first 4 years of the Harper government, the percentage of refusals on the part of the federal government rose to 14.5%, 43%, 15.5% and a whopping 62% in 2009.

Such "toughness" of course appeals to their redneck populist base - and to many closet rednecks - but does it actually "make our streets safer"?

Here's some food for thought..

"Canadians convicted of crimes in the U.S. and serv(ing) their entire sentence there have no criminal record in Canada after they're deported back to their home country and are not given a supervised release.

This means that a criminal record would not show up on the Canadian Police Information Centre if that person were ever stopped by authorities."

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/10/25/prison-transfer-denials.html#ixzz13lg936Rg

That's right, the "tough on crime" boys, by refusing prison transfers to Canada, are providing criminals, when they return to Canada, with clean police records (at least for the crimes they served time for in the US). "Safer streets" - not so sure about that one..

It should also be noted that, while serving time in the US, Candian cons are NOT eligible for American rehabilitation programs because they are aliens! Such programs have been shown to reduce recidivism rates (some studies show a halving). Thus the ex-cons turned loose after serving a stint in US jails are more likely to re-offend than if they had been extradited and followed a rehabilitation program here. This is not good, definitely not good.. (But it does put on a good "tough on crime" show for the rubes..)

Transparency denied: federal scientists complain of being muzzled

2010-10-27T13:01:00.000-07:00

        A government elected on a platform of law and order, accountability, decentalization and transparency and which imposes tight - authoritarian / centralizing - controls upon the access of federally employed scientists to the media.. Wha' the hell is going on ???

http://www.sciencepublique.ca/portal/page/portal/science/news

         This website, representing Federally employed scientist, provides ample evidence that the Harper Conservatives are following the lead of anti-science, populist right-wingers in the States.

          Thus John Geddes in a MacCleans article, 13 sep, 2010, reports:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/13/federal-scientists-should-be-allowed-to-speak-up/#more-146872

"For instance, when Environment Minister Jim Prentice announced a $5-million study into the feasibility of creating an Arctic marine conservation area in Lancaster Sound last year, I tried to do a few quick interviews with federal biologists who study the sound’s abundant sea birds. But the bird guys told me they were required to go through an approvals process that would have prevented them from talking to me on the record quickly enough to meet my deadline for posting an item on the subject on this website that same day."

           But, goddamit! these are only bird scientists, BIRD, like the ones that fly around your feeder or shit on statues in the park. This isn't even global warming science.. Good Lord! Have these "transparency" mongers lost it completely? Is their mania for control (centralization) and censorship that strong.. One wonders. And if one believes in democracy, one fears..

           Bruce Cheadle, in The Star, sep 19, 2010:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/863468

           Paradoxically, the current restrictive policy flies in the face of the government's own objectives stated in their "Communications policy of the Government of Canada" dated 1 aug, 2006:

"Openness in government promotes accessibility and accountability. It enables informed public participation in the formulation of policy, ensures fairness in decision making and enables the public to assess performance.”

           Why then this puzzling shift in practice relative to their own stated agenda? What happened in the intervening four years? One can only stand puzzled, reflecting on the corrupting influence of power and vested interest on noble goals. For example, Cheadle notes that such "censorship" and "creative re-interpretation" of research on cod stocks was rife in the Dept of Fisheries way back in the 90s, long before the Harperites hit town.

          Of course, the real issue here is the "fit" between "theory" and "practice". In theory, Democracy is rule by the People. In order to rule, the rulers must 1- be informed (that is, they must have access to all relevant data required to make an informed decision) and 2- they must participate in decisional procedures (example: by electing representatives - members of parliament - who "stand in" for their electors in decision making and who are accountable to their electorate for their actions).

           Is part of the reason so few young people vote because they are aware of the fact that they are not being informed by their governement and elected representatives..

Transparency and the role of press freedom in a democracy

2010-10-21T14:00:00.000-07:00

        Democracy is based on the rule of the People. The theory holds that, in order to make informed and intelligent choices, the populace must have access to the information required to make those choices. Traditionally, this information could come through a variety of chanals: word of mouth, public meeting including debate, theater, and street demonstration; the pulpit, the press and related printed or graphic materials (posters, artwork..)..

         The Canadian Journalism Project provides a litany of broken promises and bad faith on the part of the Harper government with regard to journalistic access to information, the very information - don't forget! - that democracy requires in order that the People make wise decisions in public matters.

http://www.j-source.ca/english_new/detail.php?id=3391

http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/ccs/issues/freedomofthepressandprimeministerharpersmediapolicy.php

Thus we are left with the intriguing paradox that a goverment elected on a platform of "transparency" and "diversity of opinion" is guilty of seeking to control and direct the timing, spin and accessibility of information in the public domain. "One hand knoweth not what the other does"..

           One can even argue - I do - that even when the letter of the law (Charter of Rights) is respected, the spirit of the law - and of Democracy itself - is being violated. Justice must not just appear to be done, justice must be done.

What would accountable government look like, anyway..

2010-10-14T15:53:00.000-07:00

         The Harper Conservative government won the last election on a platform of "law and order", "accountable government" and "transparency". Enough time has passed for us to make a judgement of their performance in meeting their own stated objectives.

          The results have - alas! - been, to say the least, disappointing. Take the issue of "accountable government". According to one on-line definition, the adjective "accountable" means:

"subject to the obligation to report, explain, or justify something; responsible; answerable"

In general terms, authorities (parents, teachers, health professionals, ministers of religion, civil servants..) are under obligation to protect those they are held accountable for. This is often expressed in legal language with penalties attatching to those authorities failing to meet their stipulated obligations. Penalties, including fines, loss of office or renumeration, and prision may be applicable. Thus parents who do not provide adequately for their children are indictable under child protection legislation. Applying the same logic, a government which does not provide its citizens with adequate information concerning potential risks associated with industrial activities is morally indictable for breach of trust with its citizenry.

   An article appearing today, october 14, in The Globe and Mail raises the spectre of moral indictability on the part of the Harper government in its (mis-)management of the shale gas extraction file:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/canada-not-ready-for-shale-gas-boom/article1756636/

".. there is no requirement in Canada for companies to disclose what chemicals they use in fracturing – as there is in several (American) states."

Now the hick is that several of the chemicals used in "fracking" operations to liberate natural gas from its mineral matrix are toxic and potentially capable of contaminating potable water aquifers. Why does our government not require gas extraction companies to divulge the chemicals they employ in their operations? If they do not establish such regualtory frameworks are they not showing a lack of accountability, one of the planks they ran on last election?

In reality, the list of failures of accountability on the part of the government is quite shocking:

- lack of adequate Federal (or for that matter Provincial) regualtory frameworks for the rapidly emerging shale gas extraction industry

- lack of knowledge of adequate treatment / long term storage of the large quantities of contaminated water resulting from extraction

- the provinces estimate badly, if at all, the nature or extent of potential conflicts between various categories of water consumers: domicile, industry, agriculture, tourism, natural ecosystem services upon which we all depend..

Do we have accountable government in Canada today?

In closing, I would merely like to underscore the overlap (?redundancy?) of the nature of "transparency" and "accountability" when applied to those holding high government office. A lack of transparency - failure to divulge information necessary for enlightened decision making on the part of the citizenry - is a precursor of failure to act accountably (responsibly). Transparency is not a question of governmental "style": it goes to the very heart of democracy itself. The people cannot decide intelligently unless and until they have all relevant fact before them. As democrats, we should hold this to be the sine qua non of responsible government in any democracy, ours included. Clearly, the Harper government, while talking the talk does not or cannot walk the walk.

Climate Science Suppressed?

2010-10-12T10:41:00.000-07:00

http://www.sej.org/publications/climate-change/canada-quashing-climate-science-critics

BUT, BUT, BUT... I thought this government was elected on a platform of law 'n order, government accountability and.. and.. TRANSPARENCY

Francophone? Noam Chomsky explique comment les néolibéraux manipulent la conscience collective. Leur cynisme est agaçant, mais leurs jours sont comptés..

http://www.pressenza.com/npermalink/les-dix-strategies-de-manipulation-de-masses

Lies, lies, lies and more damned lies..

2010-10-05T15:39:00.000-07:00

Populism once more rears its ugly head in Canada

      Maxime Bernier, conservative backbencher, has claimed that he received "thousands" of complaints from Canadian citizens concerning the intrusiveness of the long form census back in 2006 when he was industry minister.

     However, a CBC follow up has revealed that - untransparently - the truth may not have been well served by M. Bernier and his anti-long form Conservative supporters. The actually number of complaints generated by the 2006 census was not "thousands" but just under a thousand, of which an impressive twenty-two were complaints about census question "intrusiveness" - 22 ! And for twenty-two complaints we scrap the long form - at high cost to the taxpayer, while reducing the - internationally recognized - effectiveness of the government's data collection capacity. Incredible! - but why would any party - especially one so committed to "cutting fat" and waste - deliberately waste taxpayer money to reduce the effectiveness of a well-run government program??

Is that an ideological rat we smell?

        As is so often the case with this curiously untransparent government - which ran on a platform of transparency - one suspects that the truth lies deeper than appearences. The message conveyed by Conservative MPs is that Canadian citizens' "freedoms" are being trampled on and they didn't like it.

       But whose freedoms exactly? The twenty two people who actually did complain about the long form census questions' intrusiveness? Or, perhaps more pertinently, those groups receiving funding and who depend upon accurate sociological data to determine funding levels? Little groups (linguistic minorities..), disenfranchised groups, municipalities (especially smaller and rural ones - ironically just the folk who tend to vote Conservative!)..? Politically expendable groups..?

      One suspects that we have another case here of our neocon wanabe government playing the populist card to its hard core voter base. Whip up the angst and /or ire of the rednecks against convenient scapegoat groups to win the cheap vote..

      No policy, no program, no political vision, philosophy or thinking required but instead the easy recourse to the basest, lowest common demoninator; scapegoat bashing: "artists", "intellectuals", "elites" (unspecified), "peaceniks", "baby killers", "atheists", "tree huggers",..

      It's a low blow but, hey, politics is a dirty game.. even for those who promised us "transparency", "responsible government", "law and order", and even "justice" (apparently this does not include "social justice" since the long form census provided data required by government programs providing a measure of social justice and equity..)

2010-09-01T16:48:00.000-07:00

The feds and the oil sands

The feds seem to be taking a role supportive of the Albertan provincial government in respect of oil sands development.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/296829

In a recent study, University of Alberta biologists and ecologists concluded that measured quantities of 13 polluants (lead, cadmium..) were at concerning levels along stretches of the Athabasca River, impacted by oil sands extraction projects. Downstream levels exceeded upstream levels indicating that it was the projects themselves - and not natural processes - that were responsible for leaching the contaminants into the riverine ecosystems.

Unfortunately, the feds who should be protecting the Public Domain and working for the Public Good appear to be riding shotgun for the Oil Patch (Harper's home province):

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20771

"Earlier this summer the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development decided to pull its much-awaited report on the impact of bitumen development on water. Astonishingly, an official parliamentary document on this particular issue will no longer be released. As tar sands ‘truth-seeker’ Andrew Nikiforuk explains, “the parliamentarians even destroyed draft copies of their final report.”

Citizens, this is not a government acting in a transparent fashion! They have been elected for one purpose: defending the Public Domain and promoting the Public Good and they act in a totally contrary fashion: promoting and defending the interests of an entitled few..

Is this situation tolerable in a viable democracy?

patriotism: standing up for our boys, eh?

2010-08-19T12:36:00.000-07:00

“What seems to be missing is the principle of honouring Veterans by generously providing benefits.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/Somnia/article1672810/

           Twitter from veterans' ombudsman retired colonel Pat Stogran regarding the federal bureaucracy's attempts to block initiatives favorable to veterans.

           Surprised? The Conservatives publically strike a populist "Canada # 1", "we support our boys" pose combined with a militaristic foreign policy. However, this stance is less transparent than it might appear at first glance. Stogran and other veterans' advocates are discovering that there is a hidden agenda of penny pinching public service cutting (everyone likes tax cuts, right - should we expect an election soon?).

             Like other public servants whose attempt to perform their duties with diligence has found disfavor with budget slashing, "Little Government / Free Market" ideologues, col Stogran has found himself out in the cold: nonrenewal of mandate.

"Col. Stogran joins a long list other federal government appointees who've been shown the door, including Peter Tinsley, former head of the Military Police Complaints Commission and Linda Keen, the former head of Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission."

For another similar case, see yesterday's entry in this blog..

Also indicative of the lack of transparency of the feds is the refusal to discuss the reasons for the dismissal of the various ex-mandatees who would not tow the neocon party line:

"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." - attributed to Karl Rove of the Bush cortege.

Law 'n order, eh?

2010-08-18T12:31:00.000-07:00

Well, looks like Canada's homegrown neocon wanabes are back to their old tricks again.

PM Harper, recall, was elected on a populist platform of "law and order": get tough with those legions of criminals and deviants the liberals, socialists, secular humanists, etc are letting go free to predate on the law abiding citizen. The public is going to be protected from the criminal legions by the good Harperites who represent the "Will of the People" (tarah.. tarah..) Right? You remember all that?

The Result: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/gun-registry-advocate-latest-in-tory-pattern-of-quashing-dissent-critics-say/article1677053/

"The senior Mountie in charge of the controversial long-gun registry is being replaced on the eve of a vote about its future.."

Marty Cheliak, in effect, did his job too well. He did all the things conservatives like: he cut costs, boosted efficiency. And he defended the long gun registry, something the Conservatives populist core doesn't like. Read the readers' comments (Edmonton CTV):

http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100818/rcmp-firearms-chief-100818/20100818/?hub=EdmontonHome

Of course, a convenient "cover story" had to found for silencing Mr Cheliak (? elections coming ?). Well, here 'tis. On the eve of an important conference during which Mr Cheliak would go to bat for the retention of the long gun registry, it is suddenly discovered that he needs - get this! - "French lessons". Sure, given his position, he needs bilingual proficiency. Sure, he probably should have taken lessons a few years ago. But let's get real folks! This lack of transparency (honnesty, goodwill..) is simply too transparent in its obtuseness.

Isn't it just about time we, the public, began to put Harper's feet to the fire, recall to him all those promises about transparency, good governance and, yes, law 'n order too?

Perhaps we should even be thinking about better ways to target funds directed toward crime prevention. Something the Harperites don't talk about much: crime rates are falling as the population ages (few white haired grannies in tennis shoes go around mugging people or blowing people away over crack deals done wrong..). Perhaps now is the time to target unemployed young men in big cities joining gangs, make sure they don't end up as the "hardened criminals and deviants" the Conservatives fear so much, for example..

2010-07-29T09:20:00.000-07:00

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/less+proud+country/3330366/story.html

The slow, even unconscious, erosion of democracy in Canada?

Before you blow the thought away, read the article first..

2010-07-22T11:12:00.000-07:00

FEDERAL TRANSPARENCY: the record of the Harper government on the Alberta Oil Sands

Their cynicism and contempt for the public is unbelievable.

More unbelievable still: WHY exactly does the public tolerate this
crap on the part of those paid to be "public servants"?

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2010/07/15/TarSandsReport/

"Just two weeks ago the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development abruptly cancelled a big report on the tar sands and the
project's extreme water impacts. The parliamentarians even destroyed draft
copies of their final report."..

DESTROYED DRAFT COPIES OF THEIR FINAL REPORT..!!

Please.. please.. take a moment to reflect upon that phrase

And these neocon wanabes were elected on a platform of "transparency" and "responsible government", eh? Is that it..

This is what those who believe in a just society or "redistributive justice" are REALLY up against. This is the TRUE FACE of the Beast: think about long term health and envrionmental impacts in the affected water basins, think about the long term geopolitical impacts of Global Warming on arid countries undergoing accelerating desertification..

Allen Ginsberg: "Howl". See part II, "Moloch":

http://www.wussu.com/poems/agh.htm

What to do?

Can this scandal be used as a "wedge issue" to - eventually - force a wider debate on the issues of responsible governance and national goals? (This period may prove to be a "tipping point", given the state of the global economy, ecology and climate..)

My suggestions:

- bitch to your MP
- get your friends to bitch to their MPs
- ask your friends to get their friends to bitch..
- write letters, articles and op-ed pieces for local newspapers, church or professional group bulletins, get on community radio..

Is anyone interested? We have more impact if we co-ordinate our efforts..