An investigation of the theme of Transparency in the Canadian Federal Government. Non-partisan: Power corrupts and Absolute Power corrupts absolutely. Our model: the muckracker journalists.
Monday, April 15, 2013
Justin T elected chief of Liberals - and the negative ad campaign begins
Justin Trudeau, son of former PM Pierre Trudeau won the leadership of the federal Liberal party, yesterday, sunday, 14 april. Trudeau has a big job ahead of him! Potential liberal voters are splayed across a large part of the political spectrum from moderate left social activists to center right entrepreneurs. He has to avoid splitting the left of center and center vote with the New Democratic Party (NDP). Splitting on the left allowed Steven Harper and his team to win a majority in the last election.
More challenging, is the negative momentum of the Liberal party in recent decades. The federal Liberals have become a party whose modes and models, whose language and analytical tools appeal to fewer and fewer people. Moderation, tolerance, individual liberty are ideas which move fewer people in these extremely conservative / reactionary times. One need only think of the rise of religiously oriented political parties and groupings around the world, from (?post?-)Arab spring Egypt to "conservative christian" America. Trudeau must somehow reach past the polarization to either recover the soul of the once great "natural ruling party of Canada" or, at the very least, succeed in "rebranding" it for a younger generation so it can compete as a political "brand" against the increasingly strident and activist Right.
If Trudeau fails in either of these missions, the great old party may very well die as a political force on the federal scene. A more polarized Canada might emerge within a two party system: Conservatives versus the NDP (or whatever their successor - merging the remnants of the Left - choses to call itself). Such a Canada might be unrecognizable to us today. A large segment of the Liberals' right wing - the entrepreneurial sector - would swing over to the Conservatives. The "New Left Party", rallying the center-left forces, would probably radicalize, leaving a narrow, sparsely populated political center, a sort of political no-man's land where few dare to venture. The current climate of emnity and dirty tricks could intensify with unknown consequences. Today, one is justified in asking does a party of the center, like the Liberals traditionally were, have a place in the contemporary political scene?
As a person and candidate, Tudeau is engaging, sincere (one of his more endearing qualities), mediagenic and relatively youthful. He is of moderate intelligence and, apparently, a caring father. He makes the right noises on environmental issues. But does he have a vision? A vision of a better Canada in a better world? The reality is: the world is in terrible need of such men and women today. Down deep everyone knows this.
Our civilization is hurtling over the edge of an ecological / demographic abyss and we blindly follow madmen who urge us that naysayers are evil (or inspired by Satan himself). They foolishly preach that all we need to do is think of the economy (stupid!) and consume our way out of whatever crisis we happen to be in at the moment. (And we are stupid enough to listen..)
Denis Meadows: the apocalypse draws near
One can obviously pick bones with Meadows and the Club of Rome regarding their timetable but the principle should be clear enough: you can't consume non-renewable resources at an exponentially increasing rate for very long. You will in short order suffer shortages. As a planet, a world, a species we need to get our population under control: first halt its growth then shrink it (and we must soon - very soon! - wake up to the fact that either we will shrink our global population voluntarily or Mother Nature will impose her harsher birth regulaltion measures: famine, plague and war). We urgently need to place our economic activities (our extraction, transformation, production and consumption of goods and services) on a renewable basis. We must develop and employ renewable energy sources with an emphasis on employing biological processes to do things we now use non-renewable resources for (biological systems are self replicating provided enough food and a conducive environment).
Yes, so far Justin Trudeau makes the right noises on environmental issues but he has yet to formulate a coherent and mobilizing vision. In terms of Statesmanship, Justin Trudeau is called to put forth a Great Vision, an enobling vision to inspire Canadians to act in concert, as a society, to realize that vision of a Common Good. We might ask for example, what sacrifices would Canadian society be required to make to achieve a viable future for unborn generations?
A major role of any leader is to inspire people to make those sacrifices which need to be made for the collective good. Traditionally, these sacrifices have related to times of war, sometimes to economic or other emergencies. Does Mr Trudeau have the royal jelly to inspire people to the degree necessary to effect real change? Or is he merely giving us more yuppie greenwashing to make us feel good, so we can go back to consuming and (increasingly) chasing scapegoats..
"Time will tell" as the old adage says. Mr Trudeau has, perhaps, several years to prove his worth as party chief for this challenging time.
An interesting side note: dirty tricks are starting early in the Conservative Camp.
dirty tricks start early!
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! These guys have no shame. Consider. Mr Harper has installed a minister of science who, ostensibly, is a creationist. For those of us who think that, generally, creationism is bad science this is not good, not good..
Is this a creationist speaking??
And then there is the question of Mr Harper's intellectual honesty (or sanity!) which he himself managed to call into question with the following farcical position:
"Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations,"
too weird for me to invent (do people BELIEVE this??)
And, of course, there is the long standing robocall scandal: during the last federal election, on voting day, non-conservative voters in several parts of the country received fraudulent calls, purporting to come from Elections Canada workers, telling them to change their voting station. This made for inconvenience and some people did not vote as a result (seniors with limited mobility, for example). While the robocalls scandal has not received the coverage - and angry action! - it deserves, some charges have been laid at the feet of a scapegoated underling.
Sona doesn't like being hung out to dry..
Maybe - when you stop to think about it - it DOES make sense that these people would resort to dirty tricks so readily..
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Chrysotile asbestos saga coming to an end?
The blog stats show that asbestos is one of the most popular topics. Why? - would anyone want to tell me..
Soo.. We decided to respond to the popularity of the topic and provide a thumbnail sketch / history of the industry in Québec Province and an update on what is probably the death-knell of the industry in North America.
The name "asbestos" covers several silicate based fibrous minerals used valued for their insulating properties. Unfortunaltely, with age, the fibers breakdown and release inhalable fragments. These fragments, suspended by air currents, pose a serious health hazard for miners, workers and inhabitants of buildings with aging asbestos insulation. Those exposed to the fibers show abnormally high rates of severe respiratory disease and a rare, usually lethal form of cancer.
In the context of asbestos mining in Québec, two categories of asbestos were recognized: "asbestos" and "chrysotile (asbestos)". The latter form of the fiber was held to be safer based upon research conducted at McGill University in Montréal. Unfortunately, this research has come under fire for "cherry picking": publishing results which favor the position held by the sponsor (the asbestos industry!)
cat-fight-at-McGill-faculty-club/
The present status of the industry in Québec? Not quite dead yet but on life support. And the newly elected Parti Québécois gouvernment of Pauline Marois is thinking seriously - very seriously - of pulling the plug.
"Quebec's government appears to be on the verge of officially turning its back on the asbestos industry, according to comments made by the province's natural resource minister.
The ministry wants to end an 11-year-old policy of encouraging the use of asbestos in Quebec construction projects and is publicly questioning the implications of exporting chrysotile asbestos."
Quebec-asbestos-policy-changes
These policy changes, if implemented, would seem to indicate the end of Québec's asbestos saga.
"The future of asbestos mining in Quebec ground to a halt earlier this year after the newly elected government of Pauline Marois announced it would not honour a commitment of the previous government to lend the Jeffery Mine $58 million to restart production.
The government said instead it would rather put that money into economic diversification projects in the area.
At the end of March, the province's health minister announced that the government would make public a list of buildings that contain asbestos."
The $58 million loan mentioned was the work of the previous Libéral government of Jean Charest, defeated in September of last year. Now of course begins the work of finding alternative sources of economic development for the Asbestos region, monies in short supply thanks to the Global Recession of 2008.
Personally, the thing I find the most disheartening about this saga is the support the Québec labor unions gave to the asbestos mining industry, a support which was based on flimsy "scientific" evidence. Only now, that the end of the industry is virtually certain, do they begin making proper noises: evidence leads to the consclusion that no usage of chrysotile can be assured to be truly free of risk. So we withdraw our support of the industry, blah, blah, blah.
I think labor leaders should be, as francophones say, "militants". They should be infused with a moral mission which is to serve the common good, a good which includes the health and well being of their fellow workers in third world countries exposed to asbestos health hazards in conditions of unsafe workplace exposure. How is the worker to thrive - nay, survive! - if labor leaders fall to the "divide and conquer" stategy of multinationals?
internal blog links:
http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2012/09/harper-flips-flops-on-asbestos.html
http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2012/06/asbestos-toxic-legacy-and-present.html
http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2011/06/crysotile-asbestos-transparency-or-lack.html
this last link contains extended commentaries in the comments section.
Soo.. We decided to respond to the popularity of the topic and provide a thumbnail sketch / history of the industry in Québec Province and an update on what is probably the death-knell of the industry in North America.
The name "asbestos" covers several silicate based fibrous minerals used valued for their insulating properties. Unfortunaltely, with age, the fibers breakdown and release inhalable fragments. These fragments, suspended by air currents, pose a serious health hazard for miners, workers and inhabitants of buildings with aging asbestos insulation. Those exposed to the fibers show abnormally high rates of severe respiratory disease and a rare, usually lethal form of cancer.
The use of asbestos is now banned in many juisdictions like the European Union and it has been placed on a list of dangerous subtances maintained by the United Nations. In late 2011, Canada's remaining two asbestos mines, both located in the Province of Québec, halted operations.
In the context of asbestos mining in Québec, two categories of asbestos were recognized: "asbestos" and "chrysotile (asbestos)". The latter form of the fiber was held to be safer based upon research conducted at McGill University in Montréal. Unfortunately, this research has come under fire for "cherry picking": publishing results which favor the position held by the sponsor (the asbestos industry!)
cat-fight-at-McGill-faculty-club/
The present status of the industry in Québec? Not quite dead yet but on life support. And the newly elected Parti Québécois gouvernment of Pauline Marois is thinking seriously - very seriously - of pulling the plug.
"Quebec's government appears to be on the verge of officially turning its back on the asbestos industry, according to comments made by the province's natural resource minister.
The ministry wants to end an 11-year-old policy of encouraging the use of asbestos in Quebec construction projects and is publicly questioning the implications of exporting chrysotile asbestos."
Quebec-asbestos-policy-changes
These policy changes, if implemented, would seem to indicate the end of Québec's asbestos saga.
"The future of asbestos mining in Quebec ground to a halt earlier this year after the newly elected government of Pauline Marois announced it would not honour a commitment of the previous government to lend the Jeffery Mine $58 million to restart production.
The government said instead it would rather put that money into economic diversification projects in the area.
At the end of March, the province's health minister announced that the government would make public a list of buildings that contain asbestos."
The $58 million loan mentioned was the work of the previous Libéral government of Jean Charest, defeated in September of last year. Now of course begins the work of finding alternative sources of economic development for the Asbestos region, monies in short supply thanks to the Global Recession of 2008.
Personally, the thing I find the most disheartening about this saga is the support the Québec labor unions gave to the asbestos mining industry, a support which was based on flimsy "scientific" evidence. Only now, that the end of the industry is virtually certain, do they begin making proper noises: evidence leads to the consclusion that no usage of chrysotile can be assured to be truly free of risk. So we withdraw our support of the industry, blah, blah, blah.
I think labor leaders should be, as francophones say, "militants". They should be infused with a moral mission which is to serve the common good, a good which includes the health and well being of their fellow workers in third world countries exposed to asbestos health hazards in conditions of unsafe workplace exposure. How is the worker to thrive - nay, survive! - if labor leaders fall to the "divide and conquer" stategy of multinationals?
internal blog links:
http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2012/09/harper-flips-flops-on-asbestos.html
http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2012/06/asbestos-toxic-legacy-and-present.html
http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2011/06/crysotile-asbestos-transparency-or-lack.html
this last link contains extended commentaries in the comments section.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
The Imperial Prime Minister: wither democracy?
An interesting half-hour discussion this morning on the state of Canadian democracy, heard on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's morning radio program, "The Current". Recently social conservative backbencers have openly complained that the Prime Minister's Office is stiffling their right to represent their constituents on issues such as abortion law and sex selective abortion of girls reportedly practiced in some ethnic communities. They claim that they have been told that these issues are not welcome on the floor of parliament and will not be debated.
Brent Rathgeber, a Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) representing Edmonton, Alberta speaks on the first segment of the audio-clip (hit the "Listen" button of the link below). Rathgeber is not himself a social conservative but believes that fundamental principles of democratic governance are being violated by his own party. Conservatives, he claims, have traditionally stood for freedom of speech and freedom of open debate.
Conservative Backbenchers muzzled?
The last segment, beginning around minute 16, is an interview with conservative pundit Andrew Coyne. Coyne has some interesting points to make about the general state of health of Canadian democracy today. Party discipline, he notes, has grown across all party lines in recent decades. But why? I have asked myself this very question quite a few times lately. Is Canada moving towards an American style presidential system and away from British style adversarial parliament? A recent article by Mr Coyne in which he compares the Canadian and Australian parliaments suggests this might be the case.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/03/27/andrew-coyne-backbench-revolt-isnt-pro-life-vs-pro-choice-its-for-the-freedom-of-all-mps/
Coyne concludes his article with the stirring lines:
"This did not begin with Warawa, in short, and it will not end here. The question is whether opposition MPs will join the fray. The shuttering of Warawa’s motion, after all, was an all-party affair: it was his motion this time, but it could be theirs next. There’s a fight worth having, here, but it isn’t Conservatives vs. Opposition, or pro-life vs. pro-choice. It’s for the freedom of all MPs against the dictates of a system that, as in no other democracy, has vested all power in the party leader."
The distortions of the democratic process are everywhere if one takes the time and effort to look and see. In this blog we have examined recent efforts on the part of the Harper governement to silence scientific debate relating to the hazards of fossil fuel use (climate change in general and potential biohazards resulting from extracting and refining Alberta tar sands). See the internal blog links at the end of this article for links to these articles.
In his interview on "The Current", Coyne described the perncious current practice - borrowed from the US? - of utilizing omnibus bills to ram through federal budgets without debate. Listen to the audioclip of the link below, Backbench MPs muzzled?, beginning around minute 16 for the Coyne interview. Obviously "pragmatism" or "efficiency" are invoked to justify this undemocratic practice: modern goverments have simply grown too large, too complex and too interconnected in their functioning to afford the luxury of longwinded debate..
Backbench MPs muzzled?
The following article, published Easter Sunday in the New York Times by Canadian academic Prof. Thomas Homer-Dixon, sounds an alarm for citizen's on both sides of the border.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/01/opinion/the-tar-sands-disaster.html?_r=1&
Prof Homer-Dixon in a short, 8 minute, interview on the CBC newsprogram: "As it happens", 2 April, 2013. This spoken statement of his position, I find particularly eloquent.
http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/features/2013/04/02/thomas-homer-dixon-nyt-editorial-the-tar-sands-disaster/
My own analysis of the state of democracy in Canada and the world is more "structural" and perhaps more pessimistic than conservative pundit Andrew Coyne's. I perceive the disenfranchisement of the citizen / the disempowerment of civil society as an inevitable byproduct of technocracy. One's actual starting position on the political spectrum appears irrelevant. Technocracy operates it centralizing of power and regulation of information flows whether one begins from the Left - marxist Communism - or from the Right - fascism and its antechamber, the modern corporation controlled State. Wherever one starts from, one ends up in the same place. Chinese taoist philosophy says that the tao (the nature) of water is to seek sealevel. All rivers flow to the sea. I see Fascism as the tao of industrialisation. "Republican values" - in the French revolutionary sense of "republican": liberty, equality, fraternity and representative government arose prior to the industrial reveolution (and technocracy). The Great Historical Question: would such "republican" values have risen if the industrial revolution had occurred in the first half of the 18th century instead of the first half of the 19th century..
To cut to the chase."Every cloud has a silver lining". Bad things shake people up, forcing them to consider new and better ways of living, of doing things, of making a buck. Consider the New Economy we are entering in this dawn of a new century, the post peak oil economy. Cheap oil is running out. What is left will cost more and more to discover, extract and refine. Environmental impacts will worsen. This all looks bad for our energy junkie lifestyles, certainly. But the New Economy also offers the (potential) promise of reversing the trend toward antidemocratic centralization which industrialisation and technocracy have installed. If we play our cards right we will find within ourselves the wit and wisdom to grasp this opportunity to re-empower our local communities, our families, our lives and to offer our children a future in which hope still lives.
internal blog links:
Harper muzzles Conservatives' Right Wing?
Harper muzzles Environmental Science?
This link gives numerous internal blog links
climate scientists speak out
Brent Rathgeber, a Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) representing Edmonton, Alberta speaks on the first segment of the audio-clip (hit the "Listen" button of the link below). Rathgeber is not himself a social conservative but believes that fundamental principles of democratic governance are being violated by his own party. Conservatives, he claims, have traditionally stood for freedom of speech and freedom of open debate.
Conservative Backbenchers muzzled?
The last segment, beginning around minute 16, is an interview with conservative pundit Andrew Coyne. Coyne has some interesting points to make about the general state of health of Canadian democracy today. Party discipline, he notes, has grown across all party lines in recent decades. But why? I have asked myself this very question quite a few times lately. Is Canada moving towards an American style presidential system and away from British style adversarial parliament? A recent article by Mr Coyne in which he compares the Canadian and Australian parliaments suggests this might be the case.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/03/27/andrew-coyne-backbench-revolt-isnt-pro-life-vs-pro-choice-its-for-the-freedom-of-all-mps/
Coyne concludes his article with the stirring lines:
"This did not begin with Warawa, in short, and it will not end here. The question is whether opposition MPs will join the fray. The shuttering of Warawa’s motion, after all, was an all-party affair: it was his motion this time, but it could be theirs next. There’s a fight worth having, here, but it isn’t Conservatives vs. Opposition, or pro-life vs. pro-choice. It’s for the freedom of all MPs against the dictates of a system that, as in no other democracy, has vested all power in the party leader."
The distortions of the democratic process are everywhere if one takes the time and effort to look and see. In this blog we have examined recent efforts on the part of the Harper governement to silence scientific debate relating to the hazards of fossil fuel use (climate change in general and potential biohazards resulting from extracting and refining Alberta tar sands). See the internal blog links at the end of this article for links to these articles.
In his interview on "The Current", Coyne described the perncious current practice - borrowed from the US? - of utilizing omnibus bills to ram through federal budgets without debate. Listen to the audioclip of the link below, Backbench MPs muzzled?, beginning around minute 16 for the Coyne interview. Obviously "pragmatism" or "efficiency" are invoked to justify this undemocratic practice: modern goverments have simply grown too large, too complex and too interconnected in their functioning to afford the luxury of longwinded debate..
Backbench MPs muzzled?
The following article, published Easter Sunday in the New York Times by Canadian academic Prof. Thomas Homer-Dixon, sounds an alarm for citizen's on both sides of the border.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/01/opinion/the-tar-sands-disaster.html?_r=1&
Prof Homer-Dixon in a short, 8 minute, interview on the CBC newsprogram: "As it happens", 2 April, 2013. This spoken statement of his position, I find particularly eloquent.
http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/features/2013/04/02/thomas-homer-dixon-nyt-editorial-the-tar-sands-disaster/
My own analysis of the state of democracy in Canada and the world is more "structural" and perhaps more pessimistic than conservative pundit Andrew Coyne's. I perceive the disenfranchisement of the citizen / the disempowerment of civil society as an inevitable byproduct of technocracy. One's actual starting position on the political spectrum appears irrelevant. Technocracy operates it centralizing of power and regulation of information flows whether one begins from the Left - marxist Communism - or from the Right - fascism and its antechamber, the modern corporation controlled State. Wherever one starts from, one ends up in the same place. Chinese taoist philosophy says that the tao (the nature) of water is to seek sealevel. All rivers flow to the sea. I see Fascism as the tao of industrialisation. "Republican values" - in the French revolutionary sense of "republican": liberty, equality, fraternity and representative government arose prior to the industrial reveolution (and technocracy). The Great Historical Question: would such "republican" values have risen if the industrial revolution had occurred in the first half of the 18th century instead of the first half of the 19th century..
To cut to the chase."Every cloud has a silver lining". Bad things shake people up, forcing them to consider new and better ways of living, of doing things, of making a buck. Consider the New Economy we are entering in this dawn of a new century, the post peak oil economy. Cheap oil is running out. What is left will cost more and more to discover, extract and refine. Environmental impacts will worsen. This all looks bad for our energy junkie lifestyles, certainly. But the New Economy also offers the (potential) promise of reversing the trend toward antidemocratic centralization which industrialisation and technocracy have installed. If we play our cards right we will find within ourselves the wit and wisdom to grasp this opportunity to re-empower our local communities, our families, our lives and to offer our children a future in which hope still lives.
internal blog links:
Harper muzzles Conservatives' Right Wing?
Harper muzzles Environmental Science?
This link gives numerous internal blog links
climate scientists speak out
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Social Activist Art: towards a new paradigm?
"As
our world, our culture, continues to race headlong toward some
precipitous collapse (really, so many people see it coming but feel so
helpless to alter course), doesn't art have a crucial role to play in
this search for the kind of reve[lation] that can break the psycho-spiritual impasse that has settled over the western world?"
writing-from-what-you-know
writing-from-what-you-know
Harper muzzles Conservatives' Right wing?
In our last article, we wrote,
"Governments - and political parties - are probably less internally "coherent" - in a psychological sense - than are individuals. Governments and parties are not people but collections of individuals and groups who seek to serve their interests through acquiring political power..
However, the desires and interests of the various groups which found a party may, at times, come into conflict. The temporary resolution of conflict most likely indicates that one side has, for a while, surmounted its adversary (the adversary may die or disappear only to be replaced by another later on as the new balance of power generates a new generation of the disaffected, those left out in the cold or who feel they have lost former advantages)."
of-pandas-and-profit
Here is a recent example of what happens when internal conflicts within a party or government threaten to explode in internal dissention (one also recalls the Chrétien - Martin feud which undoubtedly crippled the federal Liberals' leadership during their last years in power).
MPS-accuse-harper-government-of-muzzling
It would appear that Harper is attempting to muzzle the Right wing of his party who wish to debate 1- abortion in general and 2- sex-selective abortion of female fetuses (a practice alleged to occur in some ethnic communities in Canada).
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/17/immigrants-using-sex-selective-abortion
It is interesting to note how these contentious issues actually span the conventional political spectrum. Many conservatives vigorously oppose abortion in general or would put severe limitations on its use. But sex-selective aborting of female fetuses is also opposed by the traditional Left (feminists).
One suspects that Harper is playing the game following a traditional piece of political wisdom: "campaign from the Left / Right, rule from the center". Once in power, parties tend to moderate their rhetoric and move toward the pragmatic center of the spectrum in order to govern. However, I wonder if Steven has received good counsel on this issue. Given that sex-selective abortion is a "Left wing issue" - with the added advantage of being supported by many of his own people! - would it not be better to crack down on sex-selective abortion and win kudos from both Left and Right? This would certainly win votes. In addition, if played right, such a move could pull the sting of his own hard Right who oppose all abortions. This would further enhance his appeal to the political center, winning more votes. I get the impression that our PM is not the brightest of political strategists (??) Not when it comes to thinking outside the box at least..
"Governments - and political parties - are probably less internally "coherent" - in a psychological sense - than are individuals. Governments and parties are not people but collections of individuals and groups who seek to serve their interests through acquiring political power..
However, the desires and interests of the various groups which found a party may, at times, come into conflict. The temporary resolution of conflict most likely indicates that one side has, for a while, surmounted its adversary (the adversary may die or disappear only to be replaced by another later on as the new balance of power generates a new generation of the disaffected, those left out in the cold or who feel they have lost former advantages)."
of-pandas-and-profit
Here is a recent example of what happens when internal conflicts within a party or government threaten to explode in internal dissention (one also recalls the Chrétien - Martin feud which undoubtedly crippled the federal Liberals' leadership during their last years in power).
MPS-accuse-harper-government-of-muzzling
It would appear that Harper is attempting to muzzle the Right wing of his party who wish to debate 1- abortion in general and 2- sex-selective abortion of female fetuses (a practice alleged to occur in some ethnic communities in Canada).
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/17/immigrants-using-sex-selective-abortion
It is interesting to note how these contentious issues actually span the conventional political spectrum. Many conservatives vigorously oppose abortion in general or would put severe limitations on its use. But sex-selective aborting of female fetuses is also opposed by the traditional Left (feminists).
One suspects that Harper is playing the game following a traditional piece of political wisdom: "campaign from the Left / Right, rule from the center". Once in power, parties tend to moderate their rhetoric and move toward the pragmatic center of the spectrum in order to govern. However, I wonder if Steven has received good counsel on this issue. Given that sex-selective abortion is a "Left wing issue" - with the added advantage of being supported by many of his own people! - would it not be better to crack down on sex-selective abortion and win kudos from both Left and Right? This would certainly win votes. In addition, if played right, such a move could pull the sting of his own hard Right who oppose all abortions. This would further enhance his appeal to the political center, winning more votes. I get the impression that our PM is not the brightest of political strategists (??) Not when it comes to thinking outside the box at least..
Monday, March 25, 2013
Of pandas and profit
The giant pandas arrived in Toronto, Monday, March 25, a "gift" from the Chinese people (for which Canada has to pay a million bucks each year of their 10 year visit). Obviously, one welcomes such gestures of peaceful solidarity between "peoples" but I was also left with a sense of irony. When the Harper government was first elected - and still very inexperienced - they were quite vocal in their criticism of the Chinese government for its poor civil rights record. To the point that they appeared a bit buffoonish in their populist excesses: oh, those nasty communists! (I even wondered if there was some crypto-racism at play, at times.) I felt irritated, too, at the Harperites' apparent hypocrisy since, at home, here in Canada, they were busy cutting funding to programs whose function was to improve people's quality of life and provide opportunities to build a better life. If you reduce someone's access to justice, or work, or dignity is that not a form of de facto civil rights abuse?
http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2012/04/rip-29-march-2012.html
But those days of China bashing now seem a distant dream of the past. Lost in the shuffle to insure Chinese investment in big energy projects like the Alberta tar sands. One can only scratch one's head and ask: what happened, why the change? Are the Chinese really more respectful of civil rights these days? The situation in Tibet, for example, would not tend to support such a conclusion. Or what about the human rights of those dying of industrial pollution or mining accidents in China?
In reality, what we are witnessing is probably an example of the "schizophrenia" of the Harper government and its supporters. Governments - and political parties - are probably less internally "coherent" - in a psychological sense - than are individuals. Governments and parties are not people but collections of individuals and groups who seek to serve their interests through acquiring political power. At best, their interests are seen as co-inciding (or largely overlapping) the public or common good of the nation. (A few inspired leaders may actually desire to serve the common good of "humanity" or the future generations of all nations.)
However, the desires and interests of the various groups which found a party may, at times, come into conflict. The temporary resolution of conflict most likely indicates that one side has, for a while, surmounted its adversary (the adversary may die or disappear only to be replaced by another later on as the new balance of power generates a new generation of disaffected, those left out in the cold or who feel they have lost former advantages). This process may explain the strange shift in attitudes towards the Chinese on the part of the Harper government in recent years. Their initial populist communist bashing borrowed a theme made popular - or infamous - during the Cold War by American Rightwingers like the John Birch Society or the much criticized McCarthyite witchhunts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
But as time passed, the desire to maximize the profits of petrochemical corporations, their vassals (pipelines, construction companies..) and shareholders became the dominant force in Conservative foreign policy. "Money won out" and the Harper government is now much less exercised by Chinese civil right abuses than formely. Global Warming "sceptics" like to say "follow the money" to find the motivation for peoples' stance on environmental issues. In the case of the Harper government, one could say the money trail leads back to big oil in Alberta..
Our entire political system - that of Canada and the West in general - seems presently afflicted with a generalized lack of moral backbone. This theme is often adopted by the Right, especially in the US. We should not dismiss them too lightly - we do so at our peril - because their sentiments reflect a valid perception of the political reality we live in today. It is easy, especially for those leaning toward the Left of the political spectrum, to vilify the Harperite neocon wanabes. But in reality, the rot runs much deeper than a single party...
We forget, for example, why the Harper Conservatives came to office in the first place: public outrage over misappropriation of public monies for partisan purposes, corruption.
Jean-Chrétien's final scandal
And then there is what can only be called the Kyoto Scandal. Given the longterm consequences of climate change and our failure to rise to the challenges presented by the depletion of cheap fossil energy reserves, this is probably the most egregious of the moral failings of all recent Canadian governments. And it was perpertrated, be it noted, under a Liberal, not a Conservative government. In a 2007 Mcleans interview, a former Chrétien staffer, admitted that the Liberals had no clear game plan when they signed onto the Kyoto Greenhouse Gas Emission Control Protocol. It was a "feel good" symbolic gesture made without insight into the real costs of climate change and resource depletion nor any clear vision of where Canada should be heading over the next 50 years of crititical transition. Such short sightedness is a moral failing in those committed with the governance of a nation.
Kyoto Protocol fiasco
The world lacks leaders of caliber at the this critical time of transition. God help us all!
http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2012/04/rip-29-march-2012.html
But those days of China bashing now seem a distant dream of the past. Lost in the shuffle to insure Chinese investment in big energy projects like the Alberta tar sands. One can only scratch one's head and ask: what happened, why the change? Are the Chinese really more respectful of civil rights these days? The situation in Tibet, for example, would not tend to support such a conclusion. Or what about the human rights of those dying of industrial pollution or mining accidents in China?
In reality, what we are witnessing is probably an example of the "schizophrenia" of the Harper government and its supporters. Governments - and political parties - are probably less internally "coherent" - in a psychological sense - than are individuals. Governments and parties are not people but collections of individuals and groups who seek to serve their interests through acquiring political power. At best, their interests are seen as co-inciding (or largely overlapping) the public or common good of the nation. (A few inspired leaders may actually desire to serve the common good of "humanity" or the future generations of all nations.)
However, the desires and interests of the various groups which found a party may, at times, come into conflict. The temporary resolution of conflict most likely indicates that one side has, for a while, surmounted its adversary (the adversary may die or disappear only to be replaced by another later on as the new balance of power generates a new generation of disaffected, those left out in the cold or who feel they have lost former advantages). This process may explain the strange shift in attitudes towards the Chinese on the part of the Harper government in recent years. Their initial populist communist bashing borrowed a theme made popular - or infamous - during the Cold War by American Rightwingers like the John Birch Society or the much criticized McCarthyite witchhunts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
But as time passed, the desire to maximize the profits of petrochemical corporations, their vassals (pipelines, construction companies..) and shareholders became the dominant force in Conservative foreign policy. "Money won out" and the Harper government is now much less exercised by Chinese civil right abuses than formely. Global Warming "sceptics" like to say "follow the money" to find the motivation for peoples' stance on environmental issues. In the case of the Harper government, one could say the money trail leads back to big oil in Alberta..
Our entire political system - that of Canada and the West in general - seems presently afflicted with a generalized lack of moral backbone. This theme is often adopted by the Right, especially in the US. We should not dismiss them too lightly - we do so at our peril - because their sentiments reflect a valid perception of the political reality we live in today. It is easy, especially for those leaning toward the Left of the political spectrum, to vilify the Harperite neocon wanabes. But in reality, the rot runs much deeper than a single party...
We forget, for example, why the Harper Conservatives came to office in the first place: public outrage over misappropriation of public monies for partisan purposes, corruption.
Jean-Chrétien's final scandal
And then there is what can only be called the Kyoto Scandal. Given the longterm consequences of climate change and our failure to rise to the challenges presented by the depletion of cheap fossil energy reserves, this is probably the most egregious of the moral failings of all recent Canadian governments. And it was perpertrated, be it noted, under a Liberal, not a Conservative government. In a 2007 Mcleans interview, a former Chrétien staffer, admitted that the Liberals had no clear game plan when they signed onto the Kyoto Greenhouse Gas Emission Control Protocol. It was a "feel good" symbolic gesture made without insight into the real costs of climate change and resource depletion nor any clear vision of where Canada should be heading over the next 50 years of crititical transition. Such short sightedness is a moral failing in those committed with the governance of a nation.
Kyoto Protocol fiasco
The world lacks leaders of caliber at the this critical time of transition. God help us all!
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Experimental Lakes Area: a most curious episode
A curious episode in the ongoing saga of Canadian environmental science. The Experimental Lakes Area (northern Ontario). This multidecade project is world renowned for providing essential information on the dynamics of freshwater ecosystems and their interaction with air and water borne pollutants: acid rain, mercury, phosphorus runoff..
In an interview on the CBC radio program, "As it happens", Prof Britt Hall, an earth science researcher claimed that the federal government gave her the run around when pressed for reasons for cutting funding to the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) project. Successive "reasons" provided:
1- Budget. This is BS for several reasons. Firstly, ELA costs a measly $2 Million (that is "Million" with an "m", not billion with an "b"). In return, not only does ELA provide info essential for assessing environmental risks, remediating them and drafting legislation but ELA puts science Canada on the world map. As one scientists puts it succinctly: "ELA is Canada's Hadron Collider". The services ELA provided in the long term study of freshwater ecosystem dynamics were, in fact, unique in the world. And all this for a measly $2 million (with an "m", remember). Secondly, most of the $2 million in funding were internal federal expenditures for the salaries of federal government employed scientists. Thus even if the feds chose to withdraw their participation in the scientific side of the project, there is no reason for physically closing it down. At present, full staff maintenance of the facility costs a mere $600,000. Maintaining a skelton maintenance staff for externally funded university and private industry researchers would cost "much less" than $600,000 (Prof Hall in the 18 march"As it happens" interview). We are now getting down into the $100,000 range which is chicken feed even for provincial governments! No, budget is not a legitimate excuse for shutting down ELA.
2- The second phony "reason" the feds tried to get Prof Hall to swallow: "not our mandate". But ELA reasearch does actually relate to the environment in Canada, duhhh.. (Who then should be responsible for the Canadian environment - the Vietnamese environmental agency, maybe??)
3- The last pathetic excuse for a rationale for killing ELA: redundancy - work done at ELA overlaps that covered by other federally funded projects. Problem: one can't find 'em when one looks for 'em.. More BS..
When pressed by the "As it happens" interviewer for a plausible reason for the cuts, Prof Hall said simply, the only conclusion one could draw is that the feds don't want research on air pollution / fresh water ecosystem quality to continue. Aside: Prof Hall is a soft spoken woman and does not come across as an ideological firebrand of the confrontational environmental Left. She is an academic.
After the jaw drop provoked by this astounding interview, comes the obvious question: but WHY?? Why the hell cut a high prestige, world class long term science project of great potential value which, moreover, operates on a shoestring budget? What have the feds got for brains??!! What is Steven Harper and his friends dropping or smoking?
Perhaps research on air quality bothers Harper's friends / supporters in the Oil Patch. This is the closest to a rational motive I could find. Anybody got better?
Podcast of "As it happens", CBC, monday, 18 march, 2013. To quickly access the interview with Prof Britt Hall advance the cursor one third.
http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/podcasts/asithappens_20130318_13749.mp3
The CBC deserves a bit of credit (not much, but a little) for sticking with this story a bit longer than usual. The day following the interview with Prof Hall, Prof Moss, a limnologist (studies terrestrial water systems) registrered his astonishment at Canada's recent "loss of good sense": gagging scientists, restricting access to research results, radical - and apparently strategic - budget cuts to scientific projects of long term proven value. Prof Moss particularly lamented the loss of the long term data base provided by ELA's 45 years of continuous monitoring and research.
Access to the interview with Prof Moss is easy, first interview on clip:
http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/podcasts/asithappens_20130320_36132.mp3
Internal blog links (gives numerous internal links):
http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2013/02/climate-scientists-speak-out.html
In an interview on the CBC radio program, "As it happens", Prof Britt Hall, an earth science researcher claimed that the federal government gave her the run around when pressed for reasons for cutting funding to the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) project. Successive "reasons" provided:
1- Budget. This is BS for several reasons. Firstly, ELA costs a measly $2 Million (that is "Million" with an "m", not billion with an "b"). In return, not only does ELA provide info essential for assessing environmental risks, remediating them and drafting legislation but ELA puts science Canada on the world map. As one scientists puts it succinctly: "ELA is Canada's Hadron Collider". The services ELA provided in the long term study of freshwater ecosystem dynamics were, in fact, unique in the world. And all this for a measly $2 million (with an "m", remember). Secondly, most of the $2 million in funding were internal federal expenditures for the salaries of federal government employed scientists. Thus even if the feds chose to withdraw their participation in the scientific side of the project, there is no reason for physically closing it down. At present, full staff maintenance of the facility costs a mere $600,000. Maintaining a skelton maintenance staff for externally funded university and private industry researchers would cost "much less" than $600,000 (Prof Hall in the 18 march"As it happens" interview). We are now getting down into the $100,000 range which is chicken feed even for provincial governments! No, budget is not a legitimate excuse for shutting down ELA.
2- The second phony "reason" the feds tried to get Prof Hall to swallow: "not our mandate". But ELA reasearch does actually relate to the environment in Canada, duhhh.. (Who then should be responsible for the Canadian environment - the Vietnamese environmental agency, maybe??)
3- The last pathetic excuse for a rationale for killing ELA: redundancy - work done at ELA overlaps that covered by other federally funded projects. Problem: one can't find 'em when one looks for 'em.. More BS..
When pressed by the "As it happens" interviewer for a plausible reason for the cuts, Prof Hall said simply, the only conclusion one could draw is that the feds don't want research on air pollution / fresh water ecosystem quality to continue. Aside: Prof Hall is a soft spoken woman and does not come across as an ideological firebrand of the confrontational environmental Left. She is an academic.
After the jaw drop provoked by this astounding interview, comes the obvious question: but WHY?? Why the hell cut a high prestige, world class long term science project of great potential value which, moreover, operates on a shoestring budget? What have the feds got for brains??!! What is Steven Harper and his friends dropping or smoking?
Perhaps research on air quality bothers Harper's friends / supporters in the Oil Patch. This is the closest to a rational motive I could find. Anybody got better?
Podcast of "As it happens", CBC, monday, 18 march, 2013. To quickly access the interview with Prof Britt Hall advance the cursor one third.
http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/podcasts/asithappens_20130318_13749.mp3
The CBC deserves a bit of credit (not much, but a little) for sticking with this story a bit longer than usual. The day following the interview with Prof Hall, Prof Moss, a limnologist (studies terrestrial water systems) registrered his astonishment at Canada's recent "loss of good sense": gagging scientists, restricting access to research results, radical - and apparently strategic - budget cuts to scientific projects of long term proven value. Prof Moss particularly lamented the loss of the long term data base provided by ELA's 45 years of continuous monitoring and research.
Access to the interview with Prof Moss is easy, first interview on clip:
http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/podcasts/asithappens_20130320_36132.mp3
Internal blog links (gives numerous internal links):
http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2013/02/climate-scientists-speak-out.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
