Posts
With Carlin dead, I can only be talking about Bill Maher. His take on why the American founding fathers would have thought the teabaggers are idiots is more than worth the price of watching.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Monday, November 29, 2010
Liars, Damned Liars and the Conservative Party
The Toronto Star / Canadian Press Service are reporting that despite repeated claims that the Canadian government would address global warming and GHG emissions in step with the United States, Environment Minister John Baird has stated that this will not happen.
With the failure to institute cap and trade in the US, the Obama administration has announced a "Plan B," passed by executive order, that strengthens the EPA regulation over greenhouse gasses. To quote the article:
Frankly, this position is absurd. It is the equivalent to suggesting that because Alberta has argued with, and been in contravention of, aspects of our national healthcare program, that this invalidates Medicare. It was not true in the case of Medicare, and it certainly isn't true in the case of the new EPA regulations.
The Conservative Party has been relying on the American Republicans tactics of lies, denial, and fear to keep any meaningful change in American policy on GHGs from being enacted. With the strengthening of EPA regulation by the White House, this claim that "when the Americans do something, we'll do something" has been rendered moot. The Americans have done something-- and, importantly, something that could make a difference here in Canada. They have targeted GHG emissions from stationary sources. In Canada, that means only one thing; the Alberta tar sands projects.
If the Conservatives were to actually harmonize Canadian environmental regulation with the US, this would force greater efficiencies on the tar sands projects, possibly restricting their (currently a cancer-like unrestrained) growth. It would do nothing to address the appalling waste handling in the tar sands, nor would it do anything to deal with tailpipe emissions (a 1970s problem addressed by a Conservative proposal to harmonize Canadian regulation with American earlier this year).
The Conservative Party under Stephen Harper has made it abundantly clear that they will not, under any circumstances, do anything that might slow the exploitation of the tar sands, or that would impose any kind of regulation on them. This does, from their point of view, make sense; any regulation of the tar sands would raise, in Alberta, the spectre of the hated National Energy Program. Which, of course, would mean political suicide for the Tories in Oilberta. The Tories have recognized that opposing corporate interests, particularly in the oil patch, particularly in Alberta, is a non-starter. This despite the fact that most Albertans couldn't have told you what the NEP was about in the '70s, never mind now.
In our current irony-impaired environment, Baird made his comments while preparing to attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference that begins this week in Cancun, Mexico.
With the failure to institute cap and trade in the US, the Obama administration has announced a "Plan B," passed by executive order, that strengthens the EPA regulation over greenhouse gasses. To quote the article:
The first step tightens rules for existing facilities planning any expansion that would increase emissions. Then, starting in July, the rules will be extended to include newly constructed facilities.Although the EPA regulations are national, Texas has announced that the state will refuse to meet the federal guidelines. Baird offers the excuse that because of this refusal, this makes the US regulations "not national."
The EPA says its regulations target operations that produce nearly 70 per cent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources.
The agency estimates the more stringent rules will require first-time permits for about 550 sources between 2011 and 2013. It also expects an additional 900 permits for new and modified projects each year.
Frankly, this position is absurd. It is the equivalent to suggesting that because Alberta has argued with, and been in contravention of, aspects of our national healthcare program, that this invalidates Medicare. It was not true in the case of Medicare, and it certainly isn't true in the case of the new EPA regulations.
The Conservative Party has been relying on the American Republicans tactics of lies, denial, and fear to keep any meaningful change in American policy on GHGs from being enacted. With the strengthening of EPA regulation by the White House, this claim that "when the Americans do something, we'll do something" has been rendered moot. The Americans have done something-- and, importantly, something that could make a difference here in Canada. They have targeted GHG emissions from stationary sources. In Canada, that means only one thing; the Alberta tar sands projects.
If the Conservatives were to actually harmonize Canadian environmental regulation with the US, this would force greater efficiencies on the tar sands projects, possibly restricting their (currently a cancer-like unrestrained) growth. It would do nothing to address the appalling waste handling in the tar sands, nor would it do anything to deal with tailpipe emissions (a 1970s problem addressed by a Conservative proposal to harmonize Canadian regulation with American earlier this year).
The Conservative Party under Stephen Harper has made it abundantly clear that they will not, under any circumstances, do anything that might slow the exploitation of the tar sands, or that would impose any kind of regulation on them. This does, from their point of view, make sense; any regulation of the tar sands would raise, in Alberta, the spectre of the hated National Energy Program. Which, of course, would mean political suicide for the Tories in Oilberta. The Tories have recognized that opposing corporate interests, particularly in the oil patch, particularly in Alberta, is a non-starter. This despite the fact that most Albertans couldn't have told you what the NEP was about in the '70s, never mind now.
In our current irony-impaired environment, Baird made his comments while preparing to attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference that begins this week in Cancun, Mexico.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Sean Bruyea
So Sean Bruyea is an Canadian retired intelligence officer and (currently)an advocate for soldiers rights. When he was testifying against the new Veterans Charter about five years back, he ran into problems getting treatment for his PTSD.
Over on Sympatico, there's an article about his appearance on Question Period this week. Last Thursday, Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart acknowledged that his files were indeed accessed and shared among Department of Veteran's Affairs staffers.From the article:
Stoddart's year-long investigation stemmed from a complaint made by Bruyea that his personal and medical information was contained in briefing notes prepared for then-veterans affairs minister Greg Thompson in 2006. The notes covered Bruyea's participation in a press conference in which he was critical of the department.
"What we found in this case was alarming," Stoddart said Thursday in a news release.
"The veteran's sensitive medical and personal information was shared -- seemingly with no controls -- among departmental officials who had no legitimate need to see it. This personal information subsequently made its way into a ministerial briefing note about the veteran's advocacy activities. This was entirely inappropriate."
So Bruyea is understandably upset. Then he saw a memo in which " in which a department official suggested bureaucrats get tough on him for his criticism."
"When I received that memo I was stunned that I suddenly became subversive, I became a dissident, I became an enemy of the state for the very department that I was trying to help so that it can improve the treatment of veterans," Bruyea said. "I didn't get that. For me, it was mind-boggling."
So let me state for the record that what happened to Sean Bruyea was unconscionable. It was wrong. Both the current and previous governments deserve to be slapped around for their actions and Mr. Bruyea deserves apologies, compensation, whatever.
But, to be foul-mouthed and crude about it, exactly what part of this is fucking surprising? Has he been living with his head up his ass for his entire life? Has he never read a book? A newspaper? Watched a news program? Of fucking course he became subversive, a dissident, an enemy of the state. Did he not hear of Nixon keeping an enemies list? Or watch the actions of the Canadian government over the last fifty years?
I just want to slap this guy upside the head (not that I would, but the feeling is there). He was a part of the apparatus that maintains state power. The left has been yelling about this for decades. Hell, they even get it when the right complains about the same thing.
It's this fucking blindness to anyone who isn't us that drives me insane. CSIS recruits spies to infiltrate the union movement in Canada, who cares? That's them unionists. They're all probably commies anyway. That's YOU you fucking eejit! How fucking hard is it to understand that if one of us is a slave, NONE of us is free. Maybe it''s just because I would walk away from Omelas, but this shouldn't be that hard to get.
Every time a Communist, a gay man, an accused serial killer, is treated with fairness, justice, compassion, THAT'S YOU. This veneer of rights and democracy is thin enough. We have to do what we can to strengthen it, because when we do, it keeps us a little safer. It's not that fucking hard to understand.
Over on Sympatico, there's an article about his appearance on Question Period this week. Last Thursday, Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart acknowledged that his files were indeed accessed and shared among Department of Veteran's Affairs staffers.From the article:
Stoddart's year-long investigation stemmed from a complaint made by Bruyea that his personal and medical information was contained in briefing notes prepared for then-veterans affairs minister Greg Thompson in 2006. The notes covered Bruyea's participation in a press conference in which he was critical of the department.
"What we found in this case was alarming," Stoddart said Thursday in a news release.
"The veteran's sensitive medical and personal information was shared -- seemingly with no controls -- among departmental officials who had no legitimate need to see it. This personal information subsequently made its way into a ministerial briefing note about the veteran's advocacy activities. This was entirely inappropriate."
So Bruyea is understandably upset. Then he saw a memo in which " in which a department official suggested bureaucrats get tough on him for his criticism."
"When I received that memo I was stunned that I suddenly became subversive, I became a dissident, I became an enemy of the state for the very department that I was trying to help so that it can improve the treatment of veterans," Bruyea said. "I didn't get that. For me, it was mind-boggling."
So let me state for the record that what happened to Sean Bruyea was unconscionable. It was wrong. Both the current and previous governments deserve to be slapped around for their actions and Mr. Bruyea deserves apologies, compensation, whatever.
But, to be foul-mouthed and crude about it, exactly what part of this is fucking surprising? Has he been living with his head up his ass for his entire life? Has he never read a book? A newspaper? Watched a news program? Of fucking course he became subversive, a dissident, an enemy of the state. Did he not hear of Nixon keeping an enemies list? Or watch the actions of the Canadian government over the last fifty years?
I just want to slap this guy upside the head (not that I would, but the feeling is there). He was a part of the apparatus that maintains state power. The left has been yelling about this for decades. Hell, they even get it when the right complains about the same thing.
It's this fucking blindness to anyone who isn't us that drives me insane. CSIS recruits spies to infiltrate the union movement in Canada, who cares? That's them unionists. They're all probably commies anyway. That's YOU you fucking eejit! How fucking hard is it to understand that if one of us is a slave, NONE of us is free. Maybe it''s just because I would walk away from Omelas, but this shouldn't be that hard to get.
Every time a Communist, a gay man, an accused serial killer, is treated with fairness, justice, compassion, THAT'S YOU. This veneer of rights and democracy is thin enough. We have to do what we can to strengthen it, because when we do, it keeps us a little safer. It's not that fucking hard to understand.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Having a Nice Day? I Can Fix That.
In this version of the Christian Gospel, the exploitation and abuse of other human beings is a good. Homosexuality is an evil. And this global, heartless system of economic rationalism has morphed in the rhetoric of the Christian Right into a test of faith. The ideology it espouses is a radical evil, an ideology of death. It calls for wanton destruction, destruction of human beings, of the environment, of communities and neighborhoods, of labor unions, of a free press, of Iraqis, Palestinians or others in the Middle East who would deny us oil fields and hegemony, of federal regulatory agencies, social welfare programs, public education--in short, the destruction of all people and programs that stand in the way of a Christian America and its God-given right to dominate the rest of the planet. The movement offers, in return, the absurd but seductive promise that those who are right with God will rise to become spiritual and material oligarchs. They will become the new class.Those who are not right with God, be they poor or Muslim or unsaved, deserve what they get. In the rational world none of this makes sense. But believers have been removed from a reality-based world. They believe that through Jesus all is possible. It has become a Christian duty to embrace the exploitation of others, to build a Christian America where freedom means the freedom of the powerful to dominate the weak. Since believers see themselves as becoming empowered through faith, the gross injustices and repression that could well boomerang back on most of them are of little concern. They assuage their consciences with the small acts of charity they or their churches dole out to the homeless or the mission fields. The emotion-filled religious spectacles and spiritual bromides compensate for the emptiness of their lives. They are energized by hate campaigns against gays or Muslims or liberals or immigrants. They walk willingly into a totalitarian prison they are helping to construct. They yearn for it. They work for it with passion, self-sacrifice and a blinding self-righteousness. "Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil but as a necessity, or even a duty," Simone Weil wrote in Gravity and Grace. And it is the duty of the Christian foot soldiers to bring about the Christian utopia. When it is finished, when all have been stripped of legal and social protection, it will be too late to resist. This is the genius of totalitarian movements. They convince the masses to agitate for their own incarceration.
Hedges, Chris American fascists : the Christian Right and the war on America New York : Free Press, ©2006
If you haven't read this book yet, you really should. No, really. the Christian Right from the inside.
Hedges, Chris American fascists : the Christian Right and the war on America New York : Free Press, ©2006
If you haven't read this book yet, you really should. No, really. the Christian Right from the inside.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
The Truth Doesn't Always Show Up
I recently read Harvey Cashore's book The Truth Shows Up, and was fascinated by the amount of attention he'd given the story of Karlheinz Schreiber and Brian Mulroney. So when I came across the Executive Summary of the Oliphant Report (the handier version of Commission of Inquiry into Certain Allegations Respecting Business and Financial Dealings Between Karlheinz Schreiber and the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney: Report Volume 1: Executive Summary (opens a pdf of the executive summary)) I had a little bit of background to make some sense of the book.
Back in the day, Airbus Industries was desperately trying to break into national markets held almost exclusively by Boeing Aerospace, and one of those markets was Canada. Specifically, Airbus wanted a chance to provide AC with the new aircraft it required. This would give them some legitimacy in the North American marketplace. In order to get to Air Canada, Airbus first cut a deal with Max Ward's Ward-Air. Max Ward wouldn't have purchased the aircraft on offer from Airbus, but for a sweetheart of a deal they offered him, making it impossible to turn down. This led to Airbus being able to approach Air Canada and pursue a deal. Air Canada ended up buying from Airbus a number of unsuitable aircraft, which were eventually sold to the Canadian military who neither needed nor wanted them, but the deal allowed AC to get out with a minimum of financial loss. But the poor old Canadian taxpayer ended up being stuck with the bill, as usual. And Airbus, having broken into the market, has since gone on to great success.
In order to cut the deal, Airbus relied on Karlheinz Schreiber, who developed significant relations with members of the Conservative Party establishment in Alberta and, ultimately, across Canada. Schreiber dispensed large amounts of cash to various and sundry war-chests (both to individuals and to the parties) in order to curry influence and favour. And it worked. Eventually he became tight with the lawyer from Baie-Comeau; Brian Mulroney.
During Brian's rise to power, it was reported by various sources that his win against Joe Clark at the PC leadership convention in 1983 had been managed by flying and/or busing in large numbers of "instant delegates"; people who had never been members of the Progressive Conservatives, but had their memberships paid for just in time for them to vote at the convention. Karlheinz Schreiber has since claimed that it was his $50,000 contribution that paid for those" instant delegates" and their transportation to Winnipeg. Whether this happened or not has never really been investigated (Clark actually came out against anyone following up on these reports, feeling, I would suppose, that confirming the rumours would tar the Progressive Conservative Party as a very sleazy operation). Oliphant, in the Report, actually addresses this story, remarking that he was "struck by [Schreiber's] proclivity for exaggeration as he described the nature of his relationships with people, particularly those in positions of influence and power. Furthermore, with respect to Mr Schreiber's testimony regarding the leadership review, there is no evidence on which I was able to rely to support this testimony. Because his evidence is self-contradictory, I found Mr. Schreiber's evidence respecting the leadership review to be unreliable." (page 8, Report). Mr. Cashore, in The Truth Shows Up, suggests that there might be a bit more to this story, and at the very least it should be pursued. After all, the suggestion that a foreign national (as Mr. Schreiber was) may have influenced the outcome of the Canadian political process might be something to look into. But I do understand the reluctance of the Canadian political establishment to pursue the issue, as it might actually expose the tremendous influence wielded by the US political right since, well, forever, but particularly the last thirty or so years. In particular, the seed capital for the Alberta (later Western) Report and the impetus behind the birth of the Reform Party.
But even more interesting is Oliphant's commentary on the source of the $1000 bills Schreiber passed to Brian Mulroney on three separate occasions.
The issue of where the money came from is important. Airbus has acknowledged that they did use schmiergeld (slush or bribe monies) when dealing with foreign governments around the time of the sale of aircraft to Air Canada. There still remain questions around the AC sale--was anyone paid off, if so, how much, and who received the schmiergeld. This is the question that has been haunting Brian Mulroney since his time in office. Did a sitting Prime Minister take a bribe from a sleazy representative of a foreign firm--something we might expect from a banana republic, but surely not in a nice developed-world liberal democracy like our own.
Both Mulroney and Schreiber agree that yes, Brian was paid significant cash money to do something. But they don't agree on how much or just what services were rendered for the money. Both agree that Brian was doing work hyping the "Bear Head" project for Thyssen (a German arms manufacturer looking to establish a manufacturing facility in Canada in order to be able to export weapons to countries off-limits to German based companies). But it is clear in the Oliphant Report that Brian did nothing on the Bear Head file to earn somewhere between $225,000 and $300,000.
Oliphant's Report agrees that Mulroney was paid out of an account coded "Britan," but is very clear that it is impossible for this account to have funds from Thyssen in it. Rather, the Report concludes that the "funds that made up the Britan account can be traced back to commission payments made to IAL by Airbus Industries in connection with sales of aircraft to Air Canada." (page 23, Report) Harvey Cashore's book on the topic delves a lot deeper into the question of Schreiber's accounts and the source of the funds in them--and where those funds eventually went. Such as how much went to Frank Moores and Mulroney confidant Fred Doucet as well as to Brian.
But Oliphant could not pursue the question of Airbus during the Inquiry. The mandate of the Inquiry made it clear that Airbus was off the table, so seeing Brian paid out of the "Britan" account, and clear evidence from the forensic accountants that the money in the "Britan" account came from Airbus made no never mind. Oliphant couldn't pursue the question.
But what does it matter anyway? In Germany, very connected and powerful people have ended up in jail over Airbus' actions. In Canada, a former Prime Minister has had his reputation tarnished (and honestly, could it be any blacker than it already was?). And as far as the public is concerned, the story is about over. We paid Lyin' Brian just over two million dollars for damage done to his reputation--even though he's admitted that he did take money from Schreiber after all. Questions of undue influence in Canadian politics by foreign nationals have been tabled. And whether government officials were bribed or not are to be ignored. the status quo, after all, is sacrosanct in Canada.
Commission of Inquiry into Certain Allegations Respecting Business and Financial Dealings Between Karlheinz Schreiber and the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney: Report Volume 1: Executive Summary
The Honourable Jeffery J. Oliphant: © Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada 2010
The truth shows up : a reporter's fifteen-year odyssey on the trail of Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber
Harvey Cashore Toronto : Key Porter Books, ©2010.
Back in the day, Airbus Industries was desperately trying to break into national markets held almost exclusively by Boeing Aerospace, and one of those markets was Canada. Specifically, Airbus wanted a chance to provide AC with the new aircraft it required. This would give them some legitimacy in the North American marketplace. In order to get to Air Canada, Airbus first cut a deal with Max Ward's Ward-Air. Max Ward wouldn't have purchased the aircraft on offer from Airbus, but for a sweetheart of a deal they offered him, making it impossible to turn down. This led to Airbus being able to approach Air Canada and pursue a deal. Air Canada ended up buying from Airbus a number of unsuitable aircraft, which were eventually sold to the Canadian military who neither needed nor wanted them, but the deal allowed AC to get out with a minimum of financial loss. But the poor old Canadian taxpayer ended up being stuck with the bill, as usual. And Airbus, having broken into the market, has since gone on to great success.
In order to cut the deal, Airbus relied on Karlheinz Schreiber, who developed significant relations with members of the Conservative Party establishment in Alberta and, ultimately, across Canada. Schreiber dispensed large amounts of cash to various and sundry war-chests (both to individuals and to the parties) in order to curry influence and favour. And it worked. Eventually he became tight with the lawyer from Baie-Comeau; Brian Mulroney.
During Brian's rise to power, it was reported by various sources that his win against Joe Clark at the PC leadership convention in 1983 had been managed by flying and/or busing in large numbers of "instant delegates"; people who had never been members of the Progressive Conservatives, but had their memberships paid for just in time for them to vote at the convention. Karlheinz Schreiber has since claimed that it was his $50,000 contribution that paid for those" instant delegates" and their transportation to Winnipeg. Whether this happened or not has never really been investigated (Clark actually came out against anyone following up on these reports, feeling, I would suppose, that confirming the rumours would tar the Progressive Conservative Party as a very sleazy operation). Oliphant, in the Report, actually addresses this story, remarking that he was "struck by [Schreiber's] proclivity for exaggeration as he described the nature of his relationships with people, particularly those in positions of influence and power. Furthermore, with respect to Mr Schreiber's testimony regarding the leadership review, there is no evidence on which I was able to rely to support this testimony. Because his evidence is self-contradictory, I found Mr. Schreiber's evidence respecting the leadership review to be unreliable." (page 8, Report). Mr. Cashore, in The Truth Shows Up, suggests that there might be a bit more to this story, and at the very least it should be pursued. After all, the suggestion that a foreign national (as Mr. Schreiber was) may have influenced the outcome of the Canadian political process might be something to look into. But I do understand the reluctance of the Canadian political establishment to pursue the issue, as it might actually expose the tremendous influence wielded by the US political right since, well, forever, but particularly the last thirty or so years. In particular, the seed capital for the Alberta (later Western) Report and the impetus behind the birth of the Reform Party.
But even more interesting is Oliphant's commentary on the source of the $1000 bills Schreiber passed to Brian Mulroney on three separate occasions.
The issue of where the money came from is important. Airbus has acknowledged that they did use schmiergeld (slush or bribe monies) when dealing with foreign governments around the time of the sale of aircraft to Air Canada. There still remain questions around the AC sale--was anyone paid off, if so, how much, and who received the schmiergeld. This is the question that has been haunting Brian Mulroney since his time in office. Did a sitting Prime Minister take a bribe from a sleazy representative of a foreign firm--something we might expect from a banana republic, but surely not in a nice developed-world liberal democracy like our own.
Both Mulroney and Schreiber agree that yes, Brian was paid significant cash money to do something. But they don't agree on how much or just what services were rendered for the money. Both agree that Brian was doing work hyping the "Bear Head" project for Thyssen (a German arms manufacturer looking to establish a manufacturing facility in Canada in order to be able to export weapons to countries off-limits to German based companies). But it is clear in the Oliphant Report that Brian did nothing on the Bear Head file to earn somewhere between $225,000 and $300,000.
Oliphant's Report agrees that Mulroney was paid out of an account coded "Britan," but is very clear that it is impossible for this account to have funds from Thyssen in it. Rather, the Report concludes that the "funds that made up the Britan account can be traced back to commission payments made to IAL by Airbus Industries in connection with sales of aircraft to Air Canada." (page 23, Report) Harvey Cashore's book on the topic delves a lot deeper into the question of Schreiber's accounts and the source of the funds in them--and where those funds eventually went. Such as how much went to Frank Moores and Mulroney confidant Fred Doucet as well as to Brian.
But Oliphant could not pursue the question of Airbus during the Inquiry. The mandate of the Inquiry made it clear that Airbus was off the table, so seeing Brian paid out of the "Britan" account, and clear evidence from the forensic accountants that the money in the "Britan" account came from Airbus made no never mind. Oliphant couldn't pursue the question.
But what does it matter anyway? In Germany, very connected and powerful people have ended up in jail over Airbus' actions. In Canada, a former Prime Minister has had his reputation tarnished (and honestly, could it be any blacker than it already was?). And as far as the public is concerned, the story is about over. We paid Lyin' Brian just over two million dollars for damage done to his reputation--even though he's admitted that he did take money from Schreiber after all. Questions of undue influence in Canadian politics by foreign nationals have been tabled. And whether government officials were bribed or not are to be ignored. the status quo, after all, is sacrosanct in Canada.
Commission of Inquiry into Certain Allegations Respecting Business and Financial Dealings Between Karlheinz Schreiber and the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney: Report Volume 1: Executive Summary
The Honourable Jeffery J. Oliphant: © Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada 2010
The truth shows up : a reporter's fifteen-year odyssey on the trail of Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber
Harvey Cashore Toronto : Key Porter Books, ©2010.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Building Stuff--and Societies
In the Globe and Mail (Monday, 26 July 2010, pp A1, A8) Douglas Saunders writes about Birmingham, England and the current economic conditions there. His way in to the story is through a small manufacturer, The Acme Whistle Works, which he describes as "an anachronism: a bustling, noisy Victorian factory" . Saunders reports that although employment at the factory is only 68 people, it is the district's second-largest employer. The current international economic crisis has hit Britain's industrial cities even harder than the rest of the county (currently, unemployment in Birmingham is running at about 10.8% overall and 15.4% for men (at least officially. Actual unemployment usually runs much higher than the official statistics)).
The reason for this is fairly straightforward, and something I've written and talked about before: the hollowing of the economy by exporting manufacturing jobs overseas. At the end of 2008, as the international monetary system came within a whisker of crashing (a situation not yet avoided--see Spain and Greece), there was an outburst of anger over the bailout of the North American auto sector. I argued then that bailing out the auto sector was a very good idea--without the jobs connected to auto-making (well-paid, unionized jobs) it might well crash the Central Canadian economy and, by extension. the national economy as well. Stephen Harper held his nose and approved the bailout. This was the right thing to do; the loans provided a needed boost of confidence in both the manufacturing and financial sectors, and GM has apparently already paid off their line of credit with the Canadian government.
Douglas Saunders, in his report in the G&M, describes what happened in the manufacturing centre of Birmingham: the removal of government support for the manufacturing sector (not only financial support, but political support; where there were no trade missions selling British products abroad, but also a campaign suggesting that manufacturing had no future in England, which had the effect of removing private sector financial interest in manufacturing), and the expansion of government support for knowledge, finance, and service industry at the expense of manufacturing (replacing rather than supporting the sector). The Labour governments of the day under Blair and Brown poured billions of pounds into "urban rehabilitation," kick-starting the New Economy in places like Birmingham.
There was a problem with the New Economy, but for 15 years the boom times papered it over. The benefits of the New Economy don't spread through society like the benefits from a maker economy do. To quote Doug Saunders: "Eighty-five per cent of the employment created during that recovery took the form of government jobs, jobs in privatized, former government sectors, or jobs in the service industries that provided for government. At its heart, Birmingham didn't have an economy of its own--its boom was mostly just poor service jobs and government spending."
Manufacturing jobs, particularly unionized ones, move working-class people into middle-class tax brackets, and spark a propagating wave of consumer spending and wealth creation. Service jobs don't. Service jobs are a race to the bottom, halted only by minimum wage laws. That's why the "Asian Tigers" went after the manufacturing sector--it generates wealth. Knowledge and financial services also generate wealth, but for a much smaller portion of society, and when combined with a decline in manufacturing and a rise in outsourcing, exports the broad wealth creation as well.
It's all well and good to talk about upgrading the workforce to participate in the "New Economy." But it overlooks the fact that so much of the workforce is male and (at best) high school educated. A quick scan of YouTube shows that these people aren't stupid--building a pulse jet and attaching it to a go-kart or kayak may be insane, but you can't be stupid when you do it. But what we are is monkeys, and as such, we like to muck about with our hands. We make things. Things from sticks to pull termites out of their nest so we can eat them, to backyard, Volkswagen-launching trebuchets with no purpose at all except to throw cars around.
But with the export of manufacturing to progressively lower-waged countries, no one has yet explained to me where the new broad-spectrum wealth creation is supposed to come from. If I design something cool, I'll send it off to be manufactured in a low-waged economy, and then it will be shipped back here for people to buy. But that generates wealth for me, but not a lot for the rest of my fellow citizens. Retail sales of the whatever generate wealth at the top and minimum wages at the bottom. I hire a maid and a nanny, I don't pay manufacturing job wages, I import low wage help from overseas. Nowhere in that system is there a middle class--there are only the rich and the poor and a small group of hard-core hustlers who want to become rich.
Yet it is the nation of shopkeepers and small businesses (remember, in Canada small business is rated at under one million a year in sales) that generate a middle class, and its a middle class that generates demand for middle and higher margin items.
The reason for this is fairly straightforward, and something I've written and talked about before: the hollowing of the economy by exporting manufacturing jobs overseas. At the end of 2008, as the international monetary system came within a whisker of crashing (a situation not yet avoided--see Spain and Greece), there was an outburst of anger over the bailout of the North American auto sector. I argued then that bailing out the auto sector was a very good idea--without the jobs connected to auto-making (well-paid, unionized jobs) it might well crash the Central Canadian economy and, by extension. the national economy as well. Stephen Harper held his nose and approved the bailout. This was the right thing to do; the loans provided a needed boost of confidence in both the manufacturing and financial sectors, and GM has apparently already paid off their line of credit with the Canadian government.
Douglas Saunders, in his report in the G&M, describes what happened in the manufacturing centre of Birmingham: the removal of government support for the manufacturing sector (not only financial support, but political support; where there were no trade missions selling British products abroad, but also a campaign suggesting that manufacturing had no future in England, which had the effect of removing private sector financial interest in manufacturing), and the expansion of government support for knowledge, finance, and service industry at the expense of manufacturing (replacing rather than supporting the sector). The Labour governments of the day under Blair and Brown poured billions of pounds into "urban rehabilitation," kick-starting the New Economy in places like Birmingham.
There was a problem with the New Economy, but for 15 years the boom times papered it over. The benefits of the New Economy don't spread through society like the benefits from a maker economy do. To quote Doug Saunders: "Eighty-five per cent of the employment created during that recovery took the form of government jobs, jobs in privatized, former government sectors, or jobs in the service industries that provided for government. At its heart, Birmingham didn't have an economy of its own--its boom was mostly just poor service jobs and government spending."
Manufacturing jobs, particularly unionized ones, move working-class people into middle-class tax brackets, and spark a propagating wave of consumer spending and wealth creation. Service jobs don't. Service jobs are a race to the bottom, halted only by minimum wage laws. That's why the "Asian Tigers" went after the manufacturing sector--it generates wealth. Knowledge and financial services also generate wealth, but for a much smaller portion of society, and when combined with a decline in manufacturing and a rise in outsourcing, exports the broad wealth creation as well.
It's all well and good to talk about upgrading the workforce to participate in the "New Economy." But it overlooks the fact that so much of the workforce is male and (at best) high school educated. A quick scan of YouTube shows that these people aren't stupid--building a pulse jet and attaching it to a go-kart or kayak may be insane, but you can't be stupid when you do it. But what we are is monkeys, and as such, we like to muck about with our hands. We make things. Things from sticks to pull termites out of their nest so we can eat them, to backyard, Volkswagen-launching trebuchets with no purpose at all except to throw cars around.
But with the export of manufacturing to progressively lower-waged countries, no one has yet explained to me where the new broad-spectrum wealth creation is supposed to come from. If I design something cool, I'll send it off to be manufactured in a low-waged economy, and then it will be shipped back here for people to buy. But that generates wealth for me, but not a lot for the rest of my fellow citizens. Retail sales of the whatever generate wealth at the top and minimum wages at the bottom. I hire a maid and a nanny, I don't pay manufacturing job wages, I import low wage help from overseas. Nowhere in that system is there a middle class--there are only the rich and the poor and a small group of hard-core hustlers who want to become rich.
Yet it is the nation of shopkeepers and small businesses (remember, in Canada small business is rated at under one million a year in sales) that generate a middle class, and its a middle class that generates demand for middle and higher margin items.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Who Said Things Were Crap?
Not the wealthy of the U.K., that's for sure. According to The Guardian, the wealthiest 1000 of them managed a 30% increase last year. To quote the article:
There may have been a recession, but the combined fortunes of the richest people in Britain still managed to rise by nearly 30% last year, the biggest increase for more than two decades, according to annual ratings published today.
The Sunday Times Rich List suggests that the combined wealth of Britain's 1,000 richest people rose by more than £77bn to £333.5bn, with the number of billionaires up from 43 to 53. That still leaves the list relatively poorer than at its peak in 2008, when the combined total was nearly £413bn and there were said to be 75 billionaires. But it still means that the richest 1,000 people are more than three times richer than when Labour came to power in 1997, when their combined wealth was less than £100bn.
Yeah, three hundred percent increase in combined wealth in 13 years. In Capitalism: A Love Story, Michael Moore points out that in the U.S. the top 1% now own more than the bottom 95%. Madness.
There may have been a recession, but the combined fortunes of the richest people in Britain still managed to rise by nearly 30% last year, the biggest increase for more than two decades, according to annual ratings published today.
The Sunday Times Rich List suggests that the combined wealth of Britain's 1,000 richest people rose by more than £77bn to £333.5bn, with the number of billionaires up from 43 to 53. That still leaves the list relatively poorer than at its peak in 2008, when the combined total was nearly £413bn and there were said to be 75 billionaires. But it still means that the richest 1,000 people are more than three times richer than when Labour came to power in 1997, when their combined wealth was less than £100bn.
Yeah, three hundred percent increase in combined wealth in 13 years. In Capitalism: A Love Story, Michael Moore points out that in the U.S. the top 1% now own more than the bottom 95%. Madness.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
A Comedy God
Jon Stewart take apart Glenn Beck, mocking with perfect mimicry. I cannot say enough about this performance--it is simply perfect.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Copenhagen, Canada, and the End of the World
The Globe and Mail is reporting on an interview with Environment Minister Jim Prentice, saying that the chance of an agreement on climate change in Copenhagen is pretty much non-existent.
The world wants a climate change agreement in Copenhagen. The US is even onside, with President Obama actually understanding both the science and political realities of global warming. The EU wants an agreement, with Germany busy poaching Canadian alternative energy companies and the Brits launching the 10-10 campaign. China is even pursuing lower carbon emissions. So what's the problem?
The problem is the Canadian government. Canada has become the biggest roadblock to an international agreement to lower carbon emissions. According the the G&M article (23 October 2009, p A1 Ottawa dashes hope for treaty in Copenhagen) Canada is continuing to "insist that it should have a less aggressive target for emission reductions[...] because of its faster-growing population and energy-intensive industrial structure". The Harper government is also going to insist that any cap on industrial emissions will not be applied uniformly across the country, but will allow the Alberta oil sands to continue expanding. To quote the Environment Minister; "The Canadian approach has to reflect the diversity of the country and the sheer size of the country, and the very different economic characteristics and industrial structure across the country." The Harper government has also demanded that emerging economies (like China and India) agree to binding caps on carbon emissions, and has refused to release its own plan for carbon reduction until there is clarity on what the Americans are planning to do.
The New Democratic Party has a bill currently in committee that would commit Canada to an emission reduction of 25% from 1990 levels by 2020--a target that would meet our commitment under Kyoto and would be consistent with the EU's approach in the next round of negotiations. Ottawa has proposed a reduction of 20% from 2006 levels of emissions by 2020--our obligation under Kyoto was a cut of 6% from 1990 levels by 2012. The plan proposed by the Harper government would result in a 3% reduction from 1990 levels by 2020. Chief climate negotiator Michael Martin said to the committee considering the NDP bill that the Harper government's targets are "comparable" because they will be just as costly to achieve as the more aggressive NDP targets.
What becomes clear, as we follow the progress towards significant carbon emission reductions, is that the Harper government has no intention of ever reducing carbon emissions. Harper simply does not consider carbon emissions to be a problem (how can I say that? By simply looking at his record).
And our Prime Minister is dragging a lot of sceptics along with him. World-wide, temperatures maxed out in 1998, leading deniers to claim that temperatures have levelled off or are even declining. But new research to be published in Geophysical Research Letters, was carried out by Judith Lean, of the US Naval Research Laboratory, and David Rind, of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The research, "is the first to assess the combined impact on global temperature of four factors: human influences such as CO2 and aerosol emissions; heating from the sun; volcanic activity and the El Niño southern oscillation, the phenomenon by which the Pacific Ocean flips between warmer and cooler states every few years.
The world wants a climate change agreement in Copenhagen. The US is even onside, with President Obama actually understanding both the science and political realities of global warming. The EU wants an agreement, with Germany busy poaching Canadian alternative energy companies and the Brits launching the 10-10 campaign. China is even pursuing lower carbon emissions. So what's the problem?
The problem is the Canadian government. Canada has become the biggest roadblock to an international agreement to lower carbon emissions. According the the G&M article (23 October 2009, p A1 Ottawa dashes hope for treaty in Copenhagen) Canada is continuing to "insist that it should have a less aggressive target for emission reductions[...] because of its faster-growing population and energy-intensive industrial structure". The Harper government is also going to insist that any cap on industrial emissions will not be applied uniformly across the country, but will allow the Alberta oil sands to continue expanding. To quote the Environment Minister; "The Canadian approach has to reflect the diversity of the country and the sheer size of the country, and the very different economic characteristics and industrial structure across the country." The Harper government has also demanded that emerging economies (like China and India) agree to binding caps on carbon emissions, and has refused to release its own plan for carbon reduction until there is clarity on what the Americans are planning to do.
The New Democratic Party has a bill currently in committee that would commit Canada to an emission reduction of 25% from 1990 levels by 2020--a target that would meet our commitment under Kyoto and would be consistent with the EU's approach in the next round of negotiations. Ottawa has proposed a reduction of 20% from 2006 levels of emissions by 2020--our obligation under Kyoto was a cut of 6% from 1990 levels by 2012. The plan proposed by the Harper government would result in a 3% reduction from 1990 levels by 2020. Chief climate negotiator Michael Martin said to the committee considering the NDP bill that the Harper government's targets are "comparable" because they will be just as costly to achieve as the more aggressive NDP targets.
What becomes clear, as we follow the progress towards significant carbon emission reductions, is that the Harper government has no intention of ever reducing carbon emissions. Harper simply does not consider carbon emissions to be a problem (how can I say that? By simply looking at his record).
And our Prime Minister is dragging a lot of sceptics along with him. World-wide, temperatures maxed out in 1998, leading deniers to claim that temperatures have levelled off or are even declining. But new research to be published in Geophysical Research Letters, was carried out by Judith Lean, of the US Naval Research Laboratory, and David Rind, of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The research, "is the first to assess the combined impact on global temperature of four factors: human influences such as CO2 and aerosol emissions; heating from the sun; volcanic activity and the El Niño southern oscillation, the phenomenon by which the Pacific Ocean flips between warmer and cooler states every few years.
The analysis shows the relative stability in global temperatures in the last seven years is explained primarily by the decline in incoming sunlight associated with the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle, together with a lack of strong El Niño events. These trends have masked the warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
As solar activity picks up again in the coming years, the research suggests, temperatures will shoot up at 150% of the rate predicted by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Lean and Rind's research also sheds light on the extreme average temperature in 1998. The paper confirms that the temperature spike that year was caused primarily by a very strong El Niño episode. A future episode could be expected to create a spike of equivalent magnitude on top of an even higher baseline, thus shattering the 1998 record.
The study comes within days of announcements from climatologists that the world is entering a new El Niño warm spell. This suggests that temperature rises in the next year could be even more marked than Lean and Rind's paper suggests." (The Guardian Online).
The British Meteorological Office released a new map of the world (below) showing the current thinking on what the world will look like with a 4°C rise in the average global temperature. The 4°C rise mostly happens at the equator--the further you move away from the equator, the greater the changes. Here on Vancouver Island, we may only see an average 5°C rise, but up in Hudson's Bay, its looking more like 16°C. What this doesn't indicate is just how this will affect global weather patterns. If it was just going to get warmer, that wouldn't be the end of the world.But all that extra energy is going to change things in ways we can't imagine yet, much less model.
The Met Office says that climate researchers have discovered that:
- levels of CO2 have risen 40% since the Industrial Revolution
- Global sea levels have risen 10cm in the last 50 years [and that's a hell of a lot of water]
- temperatures in the Arctic have risen at twice the global average [which suits our Prime Minister just fine]
- snow cover in the northern hemisphere has dropped 5% in the last 2 decades
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Ah, I Can Feel It Working
From over at IPS:
In recent weeks, Greenpeace has staged three daring protests inside tar sands mines, temporarily shutting down parts of the world's largest energy project. On Oct. 3 and 4, activists blocked construction of an upgrader needed to refine heavy tar sands oil, belonging to Shell in Ft. Saskatchewan, Alberta.
Civil disobedience from Greenpeace, leading to 37 arrests, has enraged Alberta's conservative government. "We're coddling people who are breaking the law," complained Premier Ed Stelmach during a media scrum in early October.
"Premier Stelmach's public suggestion that he will use the 'force of the law to deal with these people' confirms his lack of knowledge of the limits of his authority and the clear rule that our system of justice cannot be interfered with or manipulated for political reasons," responded Brian Beresh, the defence lawyer representing arrested activists, at a news conference in Edmonton.
This is one of the uses of civil disobedience--like one of the uses of terrorism--to provoke those in power into over-reacting and doing something stupid that makes the instigator's point for them. Like the US after 9-11 made Al Qaeda's point that they were an imperial power by invading Iraq, the Alberta government is going to make Greenpeace's point for them. They are actually threatening to use anti-terrorism legislation to shut down civil disobedience at the tar sands.
"Canada's tar sands will singlehandedly produce more greenhouse gas emissions than Denmark, Ireland, Austria or Portugal by 2020 if the development continues expanding at its current rate, according to a recent report written by award-winning business reporter Andrew Nikiforuk. The tar sands already spew more greenhouse gas emissions than Estonia or Lithuania", the article continues.
It's not like Greenpeace stands alone on this; the head of the IPCC has also said that the tar sands should be shut down.
Keep in mind that this Saturday--October 24th--is 350 day, the international day of climate action. The 350 refers to the accepted maximum concentration of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere--the number we've blown past already. Last I checked, we were at 385. Write an MP, get out and be counted, ride a bike, whatever. Check the website for ideas. In Victoria, there will be a day of activities at Centennial Square on Saturday.
In recent weeks, Greenpeace has staged three daring protests inside tar sands mines, temporarily shutting down parts of the world's largest energy project. On Oct. 3 and 4, activists blocked construction of an upgrader needed to refine heavy tar sands oil, belonging to Shell in Ft. Saskatchewan, Alberta.
Civil disobedience from Greenpeace, leading to 37 arrests, has enraged Alberta's conservative government. "We're coddling people who are breaking the law," complained Premier Ed Stelmach during a media scrum in early October.
"Premier Stelmach's public suggestion that he will use the 'force of the law to deal with these people' confirms his lack of knowledge of the limits of his authority and the clear rule that our system of justice cannot be interfered with or manipulated for political reasons," responded Brian Beresh, the defence lawyer representing arrested activists, at a news conference in Edmonton.
This is one of the uses of civil disobedience--like one of the uses of terrorism--to provoke those in power into over-reacting and doing something stupid that makes the instigator's point for them. Like the US after 9-11 made Al Qaeda's point that they were an imperial power by invading Iraq, the Alberta government is going to make Greenpeace's point for them. They are actually threatening to use anti-terrorism legislation to shut down civil disobedience at the tar sands.
"Canada's tar sands will singlehandedly produce more greenhouse gas emissions than Denmark, Ireland, Austria or Portugal by 2020 if the development continues expanding at its current rate, according to a recent report written by award-winning business reporter Andrew Nikiforuk. The tar sands already spew more greenhouse gas emissions than Estonia or Lithuania", the article continues.
It's not like Greenpeace stands alone on this; the head of the IPCC has also said that the tar sands should be shut down.
Keep in mind that this Saturday--October 24th--is 350 day, the international day of climate action. The 350 refers to the accepted maximum concentration of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere--the number we've blown past already. Last I checked, we were at 385. Write an MP, get out and be counted, ride a bike, whatever. Check the website for ideas. In Victoria, there will be a day of activities at Centennial Square on Saturday.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Propaganda; Shouldn't It Really Be The Word Of God?
Over at the Conservapedia, there's a proposal being floated to re-translate the Bible. The Conservative Bible Project suggest that:
Thenutbars Conservatives over at Conservapedia are really worried about the liberal bias in the Bible.They state that:
I'm particularly fascinated by #6 & #7: "Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning" and "Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story." To state so baldly next to each other that you want to remove what you think is liberal cant and insert what can only be described as conservative cant, and that you don't see a problem with this, is, to me, mind-boggling. But apparently this is not so on the far right: the belief that others have done something--whether or not that belief is supported by evidence--is apparently justification for doing the exact same thing. Instantly any concept of "truth" disappears and is replaced by the concept of competing propagandas. Any appeal to evidence is immediately seen to be a call on biased propaganda. "Things fall" is liberal propaganda, and any appeal to the senses (look out the window! Gravity is in operation!) as dismissed as biased and propagandistic nonsense ("that's just what they want you to believe! Gravity doesn't even work on those who believe in it!). This kind of thinking is completely resistant to argument; it is thouroughly magical and any appeal to reason, evidence, or even sanity is, by definition, biased and propagandistic, and can be dismissed out of hand. Logic and reason have no place in a hermetically sealed belief system, and are seen as enemies of faith or belief.
This program, on the part of the Amerikan Right, to create a political community where spiritual, economic, and political concepts are adopted and are then unchangeable proceeds apace. Mutually antithetical concepts like "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" are normal inside this doublethink groupmind. Regretfully, this type of thinking and political community building has spread into Canada as well. Alberta and Saskatchewan are hotbeds of it.
Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:
- lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ
- lack of precision in modern language
- translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one.
The
As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[2]
1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[3]
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."
I'm particularly fascinated by #6 & #7: "Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning" and "Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story." To state so baldly next to each other that you want to remove what you think is liberal cant and insert what can only be described as conservative cant, and that you don't see a problem with this, is, to me, mind-boggling. But apparently this is not so on the far right: the belief that others have done something--whether or not that belief is supported by evidence--is apparently justification for doing the exact same thing. Instantly any concept of "truth" disappears and is replaced by the concept of competing propagandas. Any appeal to evidence is immediately seen to be a call on biased propaganda. "Things fall" is liberal propaganda, and any appeal to the senses (look out the window! Gravity is in operation!) as dismissed as biased and propagandistic nonsense ("that's just what they want you to believe! Gravity doesn't even work on those who believe in it!). This kind of thinking is completely resistant to argument; it is thouroughly magical and any appeal to reason, evidence, or even sanity is, by definition, biased and propagandistic, and can be dismissed out of hand. Logic and reason have no place in a hermetically sealed belief system, and are seen as enemies of faith or belief.
This program, on the part of the Amerikan Right, to create a political community where spiritual, economic, and political concepts are adopted and are then unchangeable proceeds apace. Mutually antithetical concepts like "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" are normal inside this doublethink groupmind. Regretfully, this type of thinking and political community building has spread into Canada as well. Alberta and Saskatchewan are hotbeds of it.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Corruption, Private and Public
Here in B.C., some of us have been paying attention to the Basi/Virk trial—these are the guys who got arrested in 2003 when the RCMP raided the Ledge, hauling off cartons of files and papers. B&V are charged with fraud and corruption relating to the sale of BC Rail to CN. More precisely,leaking information, rigging the deal, and taking payoffs. Their defense is based on “just following orders” to get the interest (and, by extension, price) up on the sale. They deny having accepted money in any way (other than their salaries, of course), but acknowledge that they leaked information—though on the instructions of higher ups, including from our premier. So their lawyers subpoenaed all emails relating to the sale of BC Rail, including those of the premier.
It turns out, to no one's surprise, that the email records were destroyed. Of course there are rules concerning such things; “Government records destruction must be suspended during court orders for Demand for Discovery.” Also “Records disposition must be suspended during legally mandated reviews (e.g. Litigation, document discovery, and commissions of inquiry).” “Well,” said the business charged with keeping track of government backups, “that was more than 13 months ago, and they've already been trashed.”(or words to that effect.) Except that now it comes out that some email backup records from pre-May 2004 were discovered during the election campaign earlier this spring—including some of the premiers email. And somehow, someone in a position of power decided that the tapes should be destroyed. And so they were, during a campaign in which the court case was an issue. Funny how that happens, isn't it?
And Gordon Campbell “cruised to an easy win,” returning as premier for the third time. “Cruised to a win” in an election in which 4,500 votes, in the right ridings, would have almost exactly reversed the outcome. This is the kind of crap that sent Dick Nixon down. It's sunk quite a few Canadian politicians as well.
The question of whether the sale of BC Rail was corrupt isn't in doubt; by admission of Basi/Virk, it was. But naturally this won't make a damn bit of difference to the sale. Nothing can be allowed to interfere with that. Instead, at best, it will cost a couple of flunkies their jobs and maybe some jail time. Gordon Campbell is expected to retire before the next election, and every effort is being made to see that he remains un-tarred by this particular brush (although his bio will always record that he was a convicted felon when elected for the third time (having been convicted of felony DUI in Hawaii)). He will, of course, be cared for by those for whom he's made boatloads of money over the last two terms. But anyone actually paying a price for corruption in government? Not gonna happen.
This is one of the failings in our current system of government; there is a real and serious lack of accountability. CN knew damn well that it was participating in a corrupt process, but there will be no piper for them to pay. A couple of schmucks will have their lives ruined (maybe—they too may be cared for in the end by the rich pricks ripping apart the commons for private profit).
But what would happen if the sale was nullified? The billion dollars BC took for BC Rail returned to CN, and CN not compensated for “improvements” (the line has not only not been improved, but in fact has been the scene of numerous speed-based derailments, including the one that dumped highly toxic chemicals into the river outside of Squamish a couple of years back. CN paid a few bucks for the massive destruction of salmon at the time, but apparently no changes have been made to the way they've been doing business in the region. The number of derailments since bear witness to that.), but what if CN was actually taxed to recover all the profit they've made on the line since its sale? After all, a case could be made that, by participating knowingly in a corrupt bidding process, these profits are in fact proceeds of crime, just like any pot dealer's car. Corruption flourishes because of economic benefits. If you remove the benefits, you can slow or stop corruption.
It turns out, to no one's surprise, that the email records were destroyed. Of course there are rules concerning such things; “Government records destruction must be suspended during court orders for Demand for Discovery.” Also “Records disposition must be suspended during legally mandated reviews (e.g. Litigation, document discovery, and commissions of inquiry).” “Well,” said the business charged with keeping track of government backups, “that was more than 13 months ago, and they've already been trashed.”(or words to that effect.) Except that now it comes out that some email backup records from pre-May 2004 were discovered during the election campaign earlier this spring—including some of the premiers email. And somehow, someone in a position of power decided that the tapes should be destroyed. And so they were, during a campaign in which the court case was an issue. Funny how that happens, isn't it?
And Gordon Campbell “cruised to an easy win,” returning as premier for the third time. “Cruised to a win” in an election in which 4,500 votes, in the right ridings, would have almost exactly reversed the outcome. This is the kind of crap that sent Dick Nixon down. It's sunk quite a few Canadian politicians as well.
The question of whether the sale of BC Rail was corrupt isn't in doubt; by admission of Basi/Virk, it was. But naturally this won't make a damn bit of difference to the sale. Nothing can be allowed to interfere with that. Instead, at best, it will cost a couple of flunkies their jobs and maybe some jail time. Gordon Campbell is expected to retire before the next election, and every effort is being made to see that he remains un-tarred by this particular brush (although his bio will always record that he was a convicted felon when elected for the third time (having been convicted of felony DUI in Hawaii)). He will, of course, be cared for by those for whom he's made boatloads of money over the last two terms. But anyone actually paying a price for corruption in government? Not gonna happen.
This is one of the failings in our current system of government; there is a real and serious lack of accountability. CN knew damn well that it was participating in a corrupt process, but there will be no piper for them to pay. A couple of schmucks will have their lives ruined (maybe—they too may be cared for in the end by the rich pricks ripping apart the commons for private profit).
But what would happen if the sale was nullified? The billion dollars BC took for BC Rail returned to CN, and CN not compensated for “improvements” (the line has not only not been improved, but in fact has been the scene of numerous speed-based derailments, including the one that dumped highly toxic chemicals into the river outside of Squamish a couple of years back. CN paid a few bucks for the massive destruction of salmon at the time, but apparently no changes have been made to the way they've been doing business in the region. The number of derailments since bear witness to that.), but what if CN was actually taxed to recover all the profit they've made on the line since its sale? After all, a case could be made that, by participating knowingly in a corrupt bidding process, these profits are in fact proceeds of crime, just like any pot dealer's car. Corruption flourishes because of economic benefits. If you remove the benefits, you can slow or stop corruption.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Yes, Thank You. Now Where's Ours?
President Barack Obama on Thursday outlined plans for a high-speed rail network he said would change the way Americans travel, drawing comparisons to the 1950s creation of the interstate highway system.
Obama was careful to point out that his plan was only a down payment on an ambitious plan that, if realized, could connect Chicago and St. Louis, Orlando and Miami, Portland and Seattle and dozens of other metropolitan areas around the country with high-speed trains.
From HuffPo
The question is, when is the Canadian government going to figure this out? 2070?
Bill Curry, writing in today's Globe and Mail (17 April 2009), points out how it is the fear of protectionism in the US that's driving Canada to begin the process of harmonizing our environmental regulations with those of the US. Not because human life on the planet is at risk. Not because it is the right thing to do. But because trade with the US is threatened. This is too little too fucking late. We really need to be getting out in front on global climate change--and if that means shutting down the tarsands, or going nuclear, or imposing a hard cap on carbon emissions, then that is what it means. Harper is so resistant to anything past 1950 that he actually makes me long for the days of Brian Mulroney. Yeah, that one. There was actual progress made on environmental issues under Brian, even while he pimped the country out. Harper is just so not the prime minister we need in these times. He's just intractable, incompetent, and just plain obnoxious. Revolution Now!
Obama was careful to point out that his plan was only a down payment on an ambitious plan that, if realized, could connect Chicago and St. Louis, Orlando and Miami, Portland and Seattle and dozens of other metropolitan areas around the country with high-speed trains.
From HuffPo
The question is, when is the Canadian government going to figure this out? 2070?
Bill Curry, writing in today's Globe and Mail (17 April 2009), points out how it is the fear of protectionism in the US that's driving Canada to begin the process of harmonizing our environmental regulations with those of the US. Not because human life on the planet is at risk. Not because it is the right thing to do. But because trade with the US is threatened. This is too little too fucking late. We really need to be getting out in front on global climate change--and if that means shutting down the tarsands, or going nuclear, or imposing a hard cap on carbon emissions, then that is what it means. Harper is so resistant to anything past 1950 that he actually makes me long for the days of Brian Mulroney. Yeah, that one. There was actual progress made on environmental issues under Brian, even while he pimped the country out. Harper is just so not the prime minister we need in these times. He's just intractable, incompetent, and just plain obnoxious. Revolution Now!
Powered by ScribeFire.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
A Note To The ICC
And any lawyers trying to jail members of the Bush administration on war crimes charges. There's a pretty good timeline of events here.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Conservative dirty tricks--not just in Amerika anymore
From Rabble.ca:
By Rebecca Granovsky-Larsen, Editor-in-Chief and Nora Loreto, News Editor
By Rebecca Granovsky-Larsen, Editor-in-Chief and Nora Loreto, News Editor
Audio recordings, photographs and documents that were leaked from a recent Conservative Party student workshop at the University of Waterloo expose a partisan attempt to take over student unions and undermine Ontario Public Interest Research Groups (OPIRGs) on campuses across Ontario.
At a session held in early February by the Ontario Progressive Campus Conservative Association (OPCCA) and the Manning Centre for Building Democracy, campus Conservatives, party campaigners, and a Member of Parliament discussed strategies to gain funding from student unions for the Conservative Party and ways to run for-and win-positions within student unions.
The leaked materials were posted on WikiLeaks.org over the weekend and add to the growing body of evidence that the Conservative Party has a strategy for interfering in campus student unions. In early 2002, the campus press first learned of a secret Millennium Leadership Fund that the party's campus wing used to fund candidates in student union elections. Now it appears that strategy has evolved into a campaign to falsely obtain student union funding and destabilize student clubs with a social justice mandate.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Stewart/Cramer--The Brit Reaction
For the past 10 days the US has been gripped. Even President Obama tuned in as the country's foremost TV comic, Jon Stewart, unleashed an extraordinary broadside against TV's top financial commentators for their part in the unfolding economic crisis.
Jon Stewart recording an episode of The Daily Show. Photograph: Evan Agostini/AP
The review of Stewart/Cramer from The Guardian.
Jon Stewart recording an episode of The Daily Show. Photograph: Evan Agostini/AP
The review of Stewart/Cramer from The Guardian.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Why Am I Laughing?
No, seriously. This isn't as funny as my laughter would indicate. But something about this video just cracked me up. Okay, the Jack Black cameo was funny, and so is Newt Gingrich (not something I ever thought I'd say). Ah well, check it out. It's from Funny or Die.
HIGH-FIVE INAUGURATION! - watch more funny videos
Powered by ScribeFire.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Even Britain is Having Trouble
Government buildings emit more CO2 than all of Kenya
The Houses of Parliament and the Bank of England together consumed enough
electricity and gas to emit 21,356 tonnes of CO2 a year.
Photograph: Russell Boyce/Reuters
According to the Guardian, public buildings aren't doing that well at reducing their carbon footprint. Buildings in England and Wales cost more than 11m tonnes of CO² yearly. And the Brits actually kind of get Global Warming. Even the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, is embarrassed--his department's head office in Whitehall Place one of the worst offenders, costing some 1,336 tonnes of CO² a year.
"Earlier this year, the government's own architecture adviser, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, said the majority of government departments were "failing to make their new buildings and refurbishments sustainable" and that those operating them had little idea how to improve their efficiency," reports the Guardian.
the straightforward and brutal method for reducing carbon emissions is, I'm starting to become more and more convinced, a hard cap for the country (I'm speaking of Canada here, but the idea is translatable). The allowed amount of carbon is set, auctioned off to industry (or, frankly, whomever wants to buy it) and the income generated is returned quarterly directly to the taxpayer. The cap decreases yearly until it sits at less than half of our current emissions by 2015, and if you use your share of the revenue to reduce your own carbon costs (your footprint), you end up ahead of the game. If you don't, the revenue won't begin to cover your increased carbon costs. Everybody plays by the same rules, carbon-expensive projects just won't get built, while greener, or zero-emission projects, will get built. Imports can be dealt with through a series of tariffs that account for manufacturing and shipping carbon costs, the revenue is directed in the same way as the national auction revenue, and with any luck, we can make a real difference. If the US really wants our horribly polluting bitumen-based oil (and the tar sands projects are, if not the number one, certainly in the top five most polluting point sources in the world (see Andrew Nikiforuk's new book Tar Sands: dirty oil and the future of a continent). Will this solution be brutal? Damn right. But we're about 200 years behind where we should be at the moment, and waiting has its costs. The infrastructure we need to build isn't fucking roads, its green energy projects. I'd even be willing to see a transitional use of nuclear power to get us out of this carbon death trap. Gaia has no patience left with us--she's a self-correcting system, and if we keep shitting where we eat, we are gone. There might be twenty or thirty thousand of us left--we are a very tough animal, after all--but the rest of us are worm food. Kiss tomorrow goodbye.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Censoring Science
HuffPo is reporting that "[a] high-ranking Interior Department official tainted nearly every decision made on the protection of endangered species over five years." Apparently, according to a new report, Julie MacDonald, the former deputy assistant secretary overseeing the American Fish and Wildlife Service "did pervasive harm to the department's morale and integrity and may have risked the well-being of species with her agenda, Interior Inspector General Earl Devaney said." More from the story:
The Interior Department last year reversed seven rulings that denied endangered species increased protection, after an investigation found that MacDonald had applied political pressure in those cases. The new report looked at nearly two dozen other endangered species decisions not examined in the earlier report. It found MacDonald directly interfered with at least 13 decisions and indirectly affected at least two more.
MacDonald, a civil engineer with no formal training in natural sciences, resigned in May 2007. Department employees reported that they used her name as a verb _ encountering political interference from senior managers was called "getting MacDonalded."
Devaney said "MacDonald's zeal to advance her agenda has caused considerable harm to the integrity of the ESA program and to the morale and reputation" of the Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as potential harm to animals under the Endangered Species Act.
"Her heavy-handedness has cast doubt on nearly every ESA decision issued during her tenure," from 2002 until 2007, the report said. MacDonald was deputy assistant secretary from 2004 to 2007 and a senior adviser in the department for two years before that.
This is not unusual. When it comes to climate change and science, the Bush administration has done a great job of keeping scientists in line. Earlier this year I read Censoring science : inside the political attack on Dr. James Hansen and the truth of global warming (©2008 by Mark Bowen)
which talked about how NASA was pressured to keep Hansen's work and views away from the public. Much of this is typical; governments don't want information to be free for mostly political reasons. Studies are buried, polls disappear, all this is old news. But what we are seeing--both south of the border and here--is a new attempt to simply deny anyone access to the basic information on which we can make informed decisions. This is not disagreement on what information means, or whether a study is at all important. What it does mean is that the essential information is being repressed (in allegedly open and democratic societies). this is not an argument, for example, over whether stuff falls at 32 feet per second squared in a vacuum, but is closer to an attempt to repress the knowledge that stuff falls at all. Our governments--particularly south of the border, but I don't except the harper government (particularly after the lies and hysteria they spread when their hold on power was recently threatened)--currently most resemble the Catholic Church during the intellectual struggle over the change from a Ptolemaic to Copernican systems of thought. It is a situation where ideology is far more important than observable facts or even consensus reality. We've seen where this has left Bush (wondering why people are throwing shoes at him, and believing that his legacy will be awe-inspiring--clearly de-linked from reality). What we don't pay enough attention to is where this is leaving the public, both here and in the US.
Where it leaves us is in deep trouble. The world is being badly thrashed by environmental problems, religious problems, and a host of issues that are at heart, political. And the public is being harshly mistreated by our political and corporate masters, brainwashed, brain-damaged, and being left drowning in a stew of incoherent ideology and magical thinking. When we finally come to terms with the need to do something about a problem, magical thinking is all we're left with. Which is great for the Overlords--they get to keep doing whatever they want, free of any threats to their dominance. There is, over on Finlayson Road a garage door that must make the neighbours crazy: brightly painted with a large peace symbol and the words "peace now!" But a couple of years back, the door was changed. The peace symbol was painted over with a large "No" bar (the circle with a slash symbol), and the words "peace now" crossed out and replaced with "Revolution Now!" Can't say that I disagree.
Powered by ScribeFire.
There is an explanation
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)