
H/t Occupy Canada
"You can't control people by force anymore, but you can get them to focus on nothing but maxing out five credit cards, okay you got them."
H/t Noam Chomsky
Reflections, Observations, and Analyses Pertaining to the Canadian Political Scene
I wrote the following on January 14, while vacationing in Cuba:
While I consider myself to be a cynical man, one deeply suspicious of the corporate agenda, my wife, a woman of sunnier disposition, recently suggested something that shocked even me.
We were reading poolside in Cuba, me with an e-reader lent to me by her sister, she with her physical book, when I questioned why two publishers, Simon and Shuster and Macmillan, do not sell their ebooks to libraries, and Penguin is only just beginning a test project with the New York City system,. Her theory took me aback, namely that the two publishers have the goal of weakening and ultimately destroying public libraries.
Initially I dismissed her speculation as cynically paranoid even by my own standards, asking her if this were true, why do they continue to sell their physical products to lending institutions? Her answer both surprised and unsettled me.
Arguing that ebooks are growing increasingly popular, Janice, a former librarian, suggested that the withholding of their virtual products is part of a long-term business plan to starve libraries of their resources and thus of their relevance to the tax-paying public. She posits that the reason they haven't removed their physical products from free public access is that such a move would be too obvious and provoke outrage from people who hold ready and equitable access to information to be a sacred trust, part of the social contract that underpins any democracy worthy of the name. Hence, like the slow boil of the frog, first comes the withholding of the ebooks, ever-growing in popularity, the aforementioned goal waiting to be realized in a not-too-distant future.
Is my wife correct in her dire prognostication? I obviously have no way of knowing. However, given that she is a woman of uncommon discernment, one whose judgement and advice I rely on and trust more than anyone else's, I am now very troubled by the prospect she has raised.
For further reading on this provocative subject, and to learn about the restrictions other publishers place on libraries' use of their ebooks, click here, here, and here.
My very wise friend Dom pointed out something to me recently. "Lorne," he said, "the genius of the corporate world has been to get us addicted to cheap stuff from China, even though that cheap stuff comes at a very high cost: the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs, as well as the spread of retail positions (think Walmart) that refuse to pay a living wage."
On some level, I suspect we are aware of this truth, but choose not to ponder it as our search for bargains encompasses an increasingly wide swath. In her column today, Heather Mallick confronts the issue head-on in a meditation prompted by Wall Street's reaction to Apple Tim Cook's recent announcement about bringing a small amount of Apple jobs back from China. What should have been a cause for celebration in the depressed American job market turned out to be anything but:
Wall Street’s instant response was to drop the stock several percentage points. Apple is the biggest company in U.S. history. But despite its might and inventiveness, the market judged it solely on its merits as a behemoth built mainly on cheap Chinese labour.
But it seems that it is not just the stock market that takes a dim view of such a move:
Ten years ago I paid $250 for a coffeemaker. Today I pay $80. Would I pay even $60 more to restore Canadian jobs?
Yes, I say. But am I being truthful? I buy books from Amazon.ca because they offer me 37- to 50-per-cent discounts and free shipping. But I could buy them locally at full price if I were of a mind. I am not.
So yes, we would like to see a return to good-paying jobs, but not if we have to pay more for our goods as a result. While I realize this may be an over-generalization, Mallick really does speak an unpleasant truth about our contradictory natures.
On a separate topic, Dow Marmur writes about the irony of how our best impulses, our philanthropic ones, may have undesirable and unintended consequences. Echoing a concern I recently voiced here, Marmur opines that private efforts to relieve hunger in fact make it easier for governments to ignore the problem of growing and intractable poverty.
He writes about Mazon, a Jewish group whose aim is to feed those in need irrespective of background and affiliation. So far it has allocated more than $7 million to food banks and related projects across Canada.
Its founding chairman, Rabbi Arthur Bielfeld, recently
... challenged the government to render it and all organizations of its kind obsolete. In reality, however, the need continues to increase multifold. A quarter of a century ago there were 94 food banks in Canada; today there are more than 630.
Citing recent data, Rabbi Bielfeld said that some 900,000 Canadians use food banks every month. Last year more than 150 million pounds of food were distributed to families in need; 38 per cent of recipients were children. This year many will have to make do with less because of growing demand and diminishing resources.
Marmur observes the irony of it and many other organizations committed to the reduction of poverty:
... as essential as it is to help those in need, ironically, the relative success of such efforts helps governments to get off the hook. At times it even seems that charities find themselves inadvertently colluding with the inaction of politicians.
And so we have it. Two very good writers making some very relevant observations about the contradictions that define our humanity. On the one hand we want to be oblivious to the economic and social consequences of our propensity for bargain-hunting; on the other hand, even when we allow our better angels to come to the fore, the results are anything but an unalloyed good.
I guess, as always, the answer to this conundrum ultimately does lie in our own hands.
Today was one such day to draw inspiration. After all of the recent shameless government exploitation of our war dead, many of whom died for noble reasons in the past, and many of who have sacrificed their lives or wholeness of body and mind to unknowingly serve unsavory agendas, an observation from Vincent Colucci of Aurora was most welcome.
I reproduce his entire letter below:
On my way to the cemetery Sunday, I drove by several gasoline stations. Last night the price of gas was $1.20 per litre; this morning it was $1.25.
I looked at the handful of poppies on the passenger seat I was taking to the cemetery, thought of the 5-cent overnight increase that coincided with this particular day, and felt disgusted.
To all those insensitive and egotistical CEOs, to those uncaring members of same corporate boards and to those self-serving shareholders of the petroleum conglomerates: may you all choke on the profits you made Sunday. These profits were made on the backs of all those whose lifeless bodies washed ashore on foreign beaches, were buried in mud-filled trenches, were never found, whose bodies are now only small white crosses in fields throughout the world and whose lives are sadly, for many of us, only a distant memory.
Those lives were readily sacrificed to protect all that is right, just and decent in societies everywhere. Little did the fallen know that their lives also disappeared from the arms of their loved ones to protect the freedom of corporations to exploit and gouge, and provide governments with the licence to oppress their citizenry and straightjacket their rights.
Regrettably we also live in a global society where substance has given way to fluff, where values are determined by the size of bank accounts and where hope continues to fall to the ground along with our tears. This current world state, however, is just fine with the power elite.
There are now, and there have always been, viable options for people to exercize. Unfortunately we live in a global society that fears fear itself, where complacency is the order of the day and where we can’t wait to rush home and lock the door behind us at night.
The bells toll, but there is no one left to bravely confront the cold wall that is corporate and political. The French may have been on to something more than 200 years ago.
Lest we forget.
One of my favorite writers, Chris hedges, continues to do via alternative news what is so rare today in the mainstream media: challenge the status quo.
His latest salvo is against the tyranny of conformity endemic in post-secondary institutions which, he posits, are no longer places where one goes to learn how to think, but rather where one goes to be told what to think.
Hedges suggests that the veneration of athletes and their coaches, admittedly greater in the United States than in Canada, is symptomatic of the pervasive influence of the corporate agenda on places of higher learning.
Hedges reserves his greatest contempt for the Big Ten Conference colleges where, he suggests:
The student is implicitly told his or her self-worth and fulfillment are found in crowds, in mass emotions, rather than individual transcendence. Those who do not pay deference to the celebration of force, wealth and power become freaks. It is a war on knowledge in the name of knowledge.
He says much more in the column, which I hope you will get the opportunity to check out on Truthdig.