The Truth Is Out There

Actually, it is much closer than that, hiding in plain sight.

A Powerful Voice Is Stilled

It was Henry David Thoreau who said, “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation."

Harry Leslie Smith was not part of that mass of men. Harry, who I wrote about several times on this blog, has died at the age of 95.

Smith, who escaped early British poverty and later moved to Canada, found his voice late in life, a voice that many heeded and were inspired by.

He was 91 when his bestselling memoir-cum-polemic in defence of the welfare state, Harry’s Last Stand (2014), was published, winning him a mass following in Britain’s ascendant left and beyond.

Harry became a regular commentator in newspapers, a fixture at speaking events in both Britain and Canada, and a prominent champion of the British Labour party. In the build-up to the 2015 general election, he recorded a party political broadcast for Labour on the NHS, and during the campaign he toured constituencies to drum up support for the party.

To get a sense of the horrors he faced as a youngster, you need only watch the following:



After the war, Harry and his wife moved to Canada and started their family, and for the last 20 years he divided his time between Canada and Britain. To appreciate his impact in Canada, you need only click on the link at the start of this post. No fan of the neoliberalism and austerity favoured by people like Stephen Harper, he was not quiet in his opposition, an opposition borne of his poverty-stricken early days. And it was in this opposition that he reached entire new generations of people on both sides of the Atlantic:

Harry became one of the biggest social media stars in British politics. Within several years, he had sent more than 80,000 tweets and accrued over quarter of a million followers. His widely shared tweets were on a variety of topics: fighting austerity and privatisation, opposing western military interventions, and challenging racism and fascism. He was increasingly preoccupied with rising xenophobia, as demonstrated by the increasing popularity of Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, and saw disturbing parallels with the rise of interwar fascism.

Harry Leslie Smith's was a powerful voice that has been stilled. May he have a well-earned rest, and may his words continue to inspire people to look beyond the cheap rhetoric so many politicians favour and fight for the justice everyone deserves.

Amerika's Formula For Success

As noted the other day, the United States or, as I like to call it, Trump's Amerika, no longer even bothers to conceal its contempt for the rest of the world. It's disgraceful threats at the the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly against Ecuador for sponsoring a resolution to encourage breastfeeding, thereby reducing the profits of the corporate behemoths that produce baby formula exemplifies its shameless corporate thralldom.

Today, Star letter-writers weigh in on the magnitude of Amerika's crime against newborns:

The World Health Organization estimates that 800,000 child deaths worldwide each year could be prevented by breastfeeding.

A 2016 Harvard study found that 3,340 infant and maternal deaths a year could be prevented by breastfeeding in the U.S. alone. In Third World countries where destitute moms dilute formula, often with dirty water, the rates are much higher.

They want their infants to look like the pictures of healthy babies on the advertising they are given by sales people dressed as medical professionals. So why would Trump threaten to withdraw military and other aid to Ecuador if they put forth a resolution supporting breastfeeding at the World Health Assembly?

Because Third World countries are areas of major growth for Nestlé and Abbott Nutrition, and they are big Trump supporters.

It is once again time to boycott the products from both of these companies, like we did in the 1980s. It helped then. Let’s make a difference now.

Gail Rutherford, Toronto

It is indeed stunning, but probably not surprising, that the Trump government would threaten countries with punishing trade measures to support American business interests against a breastfeeding policy that experience and science have proven to saves lives. Baby formula kills when mixed with polluted water that can be the only water available.

The U.S. is going back to the days when the American government would wage wars and depose elected governments to support an American company. We must acknowledge that Trump is at war with the rest of the world — except for the other strongarm dictators.

Ian McLaurin, Port Perry, Ont.

American Thuggery

By almost any metric, the United States is a rogue nation. The depth of its depraved thuggery was recently made evident to the world:

A resolution to encourage breastfeeding was expected to be approved quickly and easily by the hundreds of government delegates who gathered this spring in Geneva for the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly.

Based on decades of research, the resolution says that mother’s milk is healthiest for children and countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.

American officials sought to water down the resolution by removing language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breastfeeding” and another passage that called on policy-makers to restrict the promotion of food products many experts say can have deleterious effects on young children.

Then the U.S. delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations.

Captured by neoliberal forces, the once admired country resorted to mafia-like extortion to try to get its way:

Ecuador, which had planned to introduce the measure, was the first to find itself in the cross hairs.

The Americans were blunt: If Ecuador refused to drop the resolution, Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid. The Ecuadorean government quickly acquiesced.

Health advocates frantically sought another sponsor for the resolution, but none could be found as sundry countries cowered before the American behemoth. Then in a turn that amply demonstrates the inversion the world is currently experiencing, an unlikely ally came to the rescue:

It was the Russians who ultimately stepped in to introduce the measure — and the Americans did not threaten them.

The move to thwart maternal health benefits is part of a much larger pattern of strong-arm tactics from a nation clearly unmoored from moral underpinnings:

The Americans also sought, unsuccessfully, to thwart a WHO effort aimed at helping poor countries obtain access to life-saving medicines. Washington, supporting the pharmaceutical industry, has long resisted calls to modify patent laws as a way of increasing drug availability in the developing world, but health advocates say the Trump administration has ratcheted up its opposition to such efforts.

God bless America? Not on your life.

When Is A Scab Not A Scab?

When (s)he is a 'replacement worker'.

I have always loved the word 'scab'. A fitting description of strikebreakers, it is a word that conjures up ugly imagery, imagery quite appropriate for those who act without integrity by engaging in strikebreaking behaviour, which are essentially shameless public declarations of individual extollment of the self over the collective good. There can be few lower forms of human than scabs.



During his time as Ontario Premier, Bob Rae passed legislation that banned these scourges, legislation that was repealed when Mike Harris, devoid of any semblance of integrity, became the next premier. Tellingly, subsequent Liberal governments were quite happy to continue his neoliberal labour view. Scabs therefore are alive and well in Ontario.

And yet, despite the fact that we live in a time when collective-bargaining rights are under regular assault by scabs and their enablers, the word itself seems to have disappeared from our lexicon. The euphemism, replacement workers, is an anodyne that attempts to conceal the ugliness of the act of strikebreaking. One is reminded of Orwell's observations about the insidious use of euphemisms:

Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements.

Tamper with the language and you tamper with the reality.

Take a look at the following article, about an ongoing strike at a Goderich salt mine.

A rural community is rallying around salt mine workers who have been embroiled in a strike since April, a disagreement that has involved wooden pallet barricades, demonstrations and busloads of replacement workers.

The workers at the Goderich mine have been off the job since April 27.

Unifor Local 16-O represents the workers, and alleges Compass Minerals has been flying in replacement workers from New Brunswick to break the strike while demanding concessions that include mandatory overtime, reduced benefits and a weakening of contracting-out provisions.

In a letter to the community on June 28, Compass Minerals said it has used contractors to produce salt to fill long-term orders, and had little choice to do so in a competitive market.

The strike ramped up when workers blockaded an access road to the mining site this past week to express their frustration over the use of replacement workers. Photos posted on Unifor Canada’s Twitter showed wooden pallets stacked high in a barricade on the road. Videos also showed Unifor national president Jerry Dias walking out the replacement workers from the mine as onlookers chanted “Don’t come back!”

Representatives from local Unifor unions across the country have rallied at the picket line with the Goderich workers and flooded social media with solidarity. Lana Payne, Unifor Atlantic Regional Director, shared an open letter on Twitter that had been written to Laura Araneda, CEO of Vic Drilling, the company Payne says has been allegedly flying the replacement workers from New Brunswick to the Goderich mine.

“By crossing the strike line and doing the work of striking miners, Laura Araneda’s replacement workers are undermining the bargaining power of fellow miners,” she wrote. “The fact is, there is always somebody willing to do your job for a lower wage in more dangerous conditions.

Now do a quick reread, this time replacing the term replacement workers with scabs.

You can see how language choices have a great impact on how we perceive things.

Perhaps the ugly reality about scabs is best reflected by Unifor national president Jerry Dias:

“Crossing a picket line is shameful behaviour that cannot be tolerated,” ... no job is worth stealing food from another worker’s family.”

I close with a video that should leave anyone who has ever crossed a picket line feeling deep, deep shame.

The Neoliberal Creep - Part 2

While Part 1 dealt with the neoliberal agenda influencing Bill Morneau's retraction of his pharmacare promise, today's post deals with that same influence, this time on Canada's 'evolving' position on foreign aid.

International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau says she wants to use the new $2 billion in extra aid dollars in the new budget to attract insurance and pension funds to invest in fight against global poverty.

Bibeau said her priority is going after wealthy private-sector investors, because governments can’t provide the level of spending needed to do development in a world where conflicts are lasting longer and displacing people for decades at a time.

Given the aversion too many people have to taxes and government expenditures, on the surface this proposal would seem to spread out the costs of doing good. A win-win situation, right?

Maybe. Maybe not.

The need for foreign aid is beyond question, both for the well-being of the recipient countries and the security of the larger world. Those who are suffering and disenfranchised today are the recruits for terrorist organization tomorrow. However, if improving the well being of those in the targeted countries is the overall goal, one has to ask a fundamental question: Is private investment the best vehicle by which to accomplish it?

Private investors, whether institutional or individual, are seeking a decent return on their money. If the goal of foreign aid is better the recipients' lives, how, exactly, is entering into partnerships with pension and insurance funds going to accomplish that? Unfortunately, Ms. Claude-Bibeau leaves that question unanswered. Perhaps she felt that given most Canadians' shallow engagement on public policy, simply making an announcement on cost-saving measures would satisfy them. But the key question to ask is whether or not the goals of private profit and foreign aid are compatible.

A report by the OECD-DAC sheds some much-needed light on this issue:


As you can see in the above, the first unspoken 'rule' is that 70% of the private investor's funds are guaranteed against loss. Guranteed by whom? The taxpayer, of course.

But surely that is not enough to attract such investment. There must also be the prospect of earning a healthy return on investment. And therein lies the tension and potential conflict between development and private sector goals. A 2013 study into the American experience with PPPs (Public-Private Partnerships) may shed some light:

Some development officials are concerned that opportunities to access private resources through partnerships can pull mission staff away from established country plan priorities. The availability of private funding, they argue, is hard to ignore, even when a proposed partnership does not fit well within an established mission priority. Given very limited staff resources at many USAID missions, the opportunity cost of following through on PPPs that are not necessarily aligned with stated mission priorities can be high.

In other words, the prospect of 'free money' can subvert a government's development goals.

There is a host of other problems associated with these partnerships, including overlooking needier countries in favour of more-developed ones so as to provide greater opportunities for the private sector to profit. This issue and many more you read about in the above report.

Will Canadian go blindly into this brave new world of foreign aid PPPs? Given the decidedly neoliberal bent of the Trudeau government, I think that is a distinct possibility.

Canada, and its foreign-aid recipients, deserve much, much better than this.

Star Readers Are Not Impressed

Star readers can spot a corrupt policy process when they see one, an acuity they make known as they opine on Bill Morneau's pharmacare plans:

Morneau’s unwise decision to backtrack pharmacare, Walkom, March 2

Every parent knows this: If you aren’t really going to take your kids to the zoo, don’t mention it at all.

When we heard details included in the Liberal’s budget this week, we were delighted. That evening’s conversation around our dining-room table with our adult children was animated and optimistic. One of the most exciting elements in the budget was the announcement of the government’s commitment to pharmacare.

Then, came Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s near-immediate dialing back: not a “plan” exactly, more of a “strategy,” and other weasely sounding words. What a colossal disappointment.

I reluctantly excused the Liberal’s backtrack from their promise to reform our electoral system. Please don’t let the pharmacare “promise” go the same way. We need to hear their clarification and recommitment — and soon. Just be straight with us. Are we going to the zoo or aren’t we?

Jeannie Mackintosh, St. Catherines, Ont.

I was even encouraged by the enlistment of former Ontario health minister Eric Hoskins, whose provincial government recently implemented a long-overdue pharmacare program, albeit one only covering residents under age 25. It was a start and I hoped that coverage would increase eventually to provide coverage for all.

My feelings of elation and hope were soon dashed when Finance Minister Bill Morneau announced it wouldn’t be universal but would amount to a patchwork of coverage, with some people included in the government plan and others not.

This is unacceptable. We don’t need some mish-mash of a program. Let’s do it right and make a universal plan and, as the research indicated, the overall cost to health care should see a reduction. Perhaps Australia’s government could advise how best to meet this goal.

Norah Downey, Midland, Ont.

Drug-policy experts were stunned. Canada is the only advanced country with a medicare system that lacks pharmacare. Canadians spend so much on drugs because we don’t have a pharmacare program: drug prices are too high and too many intermediaries like insurance companies and benefit consultants drain money from the system.

Morneau’s approach would leave all that waste in place. The obstacle is that every dollar wasted is somebody’s income and the affected industries — drug manufacturers, drug insurers and drug benefits managers — fight back.

The minister effectively pointed to a potential conflict of interest and then restricted the mandate of the advisory council. I hope the minister will step back and let the council do its work.

Kim Jarvi, Toronto

An Update On The Fraser Institute's Essay Contest

OCDSB Trustees spoke out loud & clear against this distribution. Staff have responded by pulling it.

— Theresa Kavanagh (@ironmaamt) January 24, 2018

Last week, I posted about the deplorable essay-writing contest sponsored by the notorious Fraser Institute in which students were invited to write about why increasing the minimum wage is bad public policy. The flyer promoting the neoliberal contest was circulated by the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board.

Now, thanks to the tireless efforts of PressProgress, that board has pulled the contest from its schools:

Following complaints from parents, school trustees announced Wednesday that the Fraser Institute’s essay writing contest will no longer be promoted in Ottawa-area high school classrooms.

Bay Ward trustee Theresa Kavanagh announced Wednesday that OCDSB trustees “spoke loud and clear to staff,” calling the Fraser Institute’s contest “unacceptable.”

The outcry, once it was made public by PressProgress, must have been deafening, A statement from trustee Theresa Kavanagh says a great deal:

“OCDSB trustees were made aware of this contest being circulated in our schools through the media. We spoke out loud and clear to staff that this was unacceptable. Our Director of Education agreed as proper authorization to distribute the contest information was not given. It did not meet our Board’s standards because of the bias contained in the question. The resource materials should have made this contest ineligible. We are pleased to report that the distribution has been stopped and withdrawn.”

A small victory, perhaps, but any win over the neoliberalism undermining our society is something to be truly savored.

On Public Asset Sales

Selling off public assets that yield steady and lucrative revenue streams is rarely a good idea. In Ontario, Kathleen Wynne did just that with 60% of Hydro One so she could claim a balanced budget. It is a betrayal I will never forgive her for.

As I have written previously, Justin Trudeau would like to do the same thing, for similar reasons, with our major airports. It is a very bad idea, as are most of the schemes promoted by neoliberals.

Happily, the possibility of relief from such madness is shimmering on the horizon:

A Parliamentary committee is recommending against the Liberal government’s plan to sell off Canada’s airports to raise billions in capital to be used towards other public infrastructure projects.

“Limit rising passenger and operational costs by preventing the privatization of Canadian airports,” the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, said in its report of the Pre-budget consultations in advance of the 2018 federal budget.

The committee's report, Driving Inclusive Growth: Spurring Productivity and Competitiveness in Canada

summarized the strong opposition to airport privatization by various stakeholders, including the Air Transport Association of Canada (ATAC), which believes that the sale is near-sighted and will result in significantly higher costs for airlines and passengers.

“Recent experience in such projects, for example in Australia, has resulted in costs per passenger to increase by 50% in the decade following airport privatization,” ATAC told the committee in a briefing. “To add insult to injury, the government would impose a huge new burden on our industry and its passengers while not reinvesting one penny of the billions generated back into aviation.”

Empirical evidence like this should carry much weight, but the Trudeau government is refusing to release the privatization study by Credit Suisse Group AG that it commissioned. Therefore, whether such disquieting facts were even considered is unknown. This unwholesome secrecy is opposed by the National Airlines Council of Canada, which is calling for open and public discussion around the entire issue.

I seem to recall Justin Trudeau, upon taking office, promised an open and transparent government. What a difference two years in office have made to that promise, eh?

Guest Post: A Response To Flying Blind

Yesterday's post dealt with the announcement that a degree of self-regulation is to be conferred on the airline industry by the Trudeau government. Given the fraught history of self-regulation in this country, it is alarming news. BM, a frequent commentator, offered an analysis of the situation as well as an interesting perspective on what is driving that change. I am taking the liberty of featuring his insights as a guest post:

Well, it would certainly argue against flying Air Canada to San Fran, where the existing pilots seem to be having a tough job as it is. That second incident where the pilot ignored 6 request/orders to go around and couldn't see the flashing red light either was a doozy. The short interview I heard with the pilot, equipped with a plummy British accent, was revealing. Radio trouble. Oh yes? With at least three radios available, according to other pilots in various pilots' online forums. Not mentioned - blindness to flashing red lights from the control tower.

In a proper quality assurance system, amply documented and thus verifiable to process under an outside audit, where procedures are detailed to a very fine degree, letting the industry "run" itself is just fine. Electricity and Gas meters are inspected under this regime in Canada - I was involved in setting such a system up. In the 1990s, not now. It does require that company executives be part of the system as well, and part of the audit. Everyone has procedures they must know inside out, no excuses. There are avenues for considering improvements, and documentation of everyone's training and ability to follow the system. In other words, some shop foreman in a lousy mood cannot come in one morning and change what everyone does, just because HE/SHE feels like it, or there is a recorded miscompliance report which anyone can make without fear of retribution. Keeps 'em all sane.

When it comes to meatcutting or piloting, you are dealing with situations that are not boringly standard, like instrument testing. Turnover of personnel is highly likely in the meat business, and low wages with perhaps poor English skills only exacerbate problems with written procedures. Oversight is necessary. And pilots, well they all believe they know what's best and which SOPs they can disregard. You just have to go to the TSB's website and read accident analyses to see that.

The driving force for self-regulation in industry is no doubt driven by the same Public Service pointy-heads who cannot see the difference between an ordered industrial process and situations where the humans require continual oversight. The politicians are merely attracted by the promise of saving money given them by their public service advisers, so I cannot blame either Liberals or Conservatives myself. Politicians sometimes have trouble tieing their own shoelaces, let alone understanding anything complicated. And the average person hasn't a clue about the difference between quality inspection and quality assurance, the latter being the self-regulation system, the first where outsiders check every bit. You don't need to inspect every single widget if the process is under control. That's the way cars are made these days, with the possible exception of FCA.

Lack of commonsense is the problem. One process is not the same as another and may not be amenable to auditable self-regulation.

Flying Blind

Many will recall that during the Harper era, our country moved toward greater self-regulation in various industries, often with disastrous results. From tainted meat to railway disasters, the lesson is clear: leaving safety up to the corporate sector, whose prime directive is to maximize profit for their shareholders, is a dangerous gamble with the health and lives of Canadians.

Now the neoliberal Trudeau government is taking a page out of the Harper agenda, a move that will put those who fly at greater risk.

Transport Canada is planning to stop evaluating pilots who perform checks on their counterparts at the country’s largest airlines and will instead give the responsibility to the operators, a change critics say erodes oversight and public safety.

The current practice of having Transport Canada evaluate those pilots who evaluate other pilots in the airline industry will stop as of April 1 for airlines with planes that fly more than 50 passengers. This, as reported today, is a drastic departure from accepted practices in other countries, which stipulates that pilots be evaluated twice a year.

Greg McConnell, chairman of the pilots association, said the changes are pushing Canada’s aviation safety system onto the industry itself.

“I think it’s very, very important that people understand we are getting closer to self-regulation all the time.” he said in an interview. “It’s just more cutting, more dismantling of the safety net.”

The safety compromise inherent in this decision is not going unnoticed:

New Democrat MP Robert Aubin, the committee’s other vice-chair, said the decision was “curious” because Transport Canada said it was doing more oversight, not less.

“I have concerns if the pilots who evaluate their pilots are not evaluated by Transport Canada. We have to have the same standards,” he said in an interview. “We have to increase the resources at Transport Canada to make sure we can do that job.”

For the Star article carrying this story, no Liberals were available for comment, hardly a surprise given the shameful nature of their decision here.

The fear of progressive taxation that the current government has shown seems to working its way through the system. It cannot be a comforting thought for those planning their next trip by air.

The Art Of Misdirection

While it is difficult in some ways to attribute anything resembling a method to the madness of the American Moron-in-Chief, it would be wrong to think he is totally unmoored and rudderless. Trump's tax-reform plan attests to this. As does the furor that was stoked over U.S. Health Secretary Tom Price's obscene and very expensive use of charter flights on the American public's dime, for which he has now walked the plank. Both serve, I believe, as a misdirection to obscure a much more sinister long-term goal, one that all citizens of so-called liberal democracies, including Canada, should be concerned about.

The first misdirection comes in the preamble to the tax plan:

It is now time for all members of Congress — Democrat, Republican and Independent — to support pro-American tax reform. It’s time for Congress to provide a level playing field for our workers, to bring American companies back home, to attract new companies and businesses to our country, and to put more money into the pockets of everyday hardworking people.
- President Donald J. Trump

I won't belabor the obvious here about the risible and false association drawn above between tax cuts and economic growth, but let's just say the fact that corporate Canada was sitting on about $700 billion in 2014 is a sterling example of how ineffective a low tax regime is in creating jobs.

And there is no doubt that corporations and the wealthy will disproportionately benefit from the proposed changes, which aims to:

- Cut the corporate tax rate to 20 per cent, down from 35 per cent. Conservatives are framing the lower corporate tax rate as something that will increase investment and help businesses create jobs.

- Lower the top tax rate for so-called "pass-through" businesses to 25 per cent. These businesses, such as partnerships, S corporations or limited liability companies (LLCs), are only taxed on individual income.

- Eliminate the state and local tax deduction for individuals, thus taking away a break for taxpayers in highly taxed states such as New York, New Jersey and California.

- Scrap the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which was designed to prevent high-income earners from using loopholes to pay zero tax.

- And repeal the estate tax, a provision that affects very wealthy people who leave money to their heirs. The tax is currently set at 40 per cent.

Then there is the Trump claim that he will not benefit from the tax cuts, something that is demonstrably false.

But the fiction surrounding these tax cuts conceals a far more diabolical truth, one that will become apparent, I suspect, in the not-too-distant future. But to get at that truth, one more fiction needs to be dismantled, the one that says this kind of deficit spending will burden future generations. That assertion presupposes that at some point, taxes will have to be raised, and one's children and grandchildren will be paying them.

Personally, given the neoliberal nature of democracies today, I think that is absolute rubbish.

Putting aside that politicians generally lack the fortitude or the integrity to rescind tax breaks (look, for example at the fact the Harper TFSA still exists under the Trudeau government), let alone raise taxes, the truth is that future generations will pay for these deficits, just not in the way one might expect.

Payment will be extracted, not through increased taxation, but with the gutting of American social programs, entitlements like Medicaid and Social Security, etc. This will be coupled with an increasing rate of privatization of public resources, the neoliberal wet dream. And who will feel these cuts the most? The poor and the working class, most immediately, followed by the middle class through the much higher rates they will pay for newly privatized services, utilities, etc.

Already we have seen this plan being enacted in Canada, with more just around the corner. Consider the great privatization of Hydro One that has taken place under Premier Kathleen Wynne, something about which I have posted in the past. A boon to Bay Street and a bane to Main Street, it was done under the pretense of allocating all of the profits to green infrastructure initiatives. Predictably and cynically, however, Wynne has instead used some of the money to balance the books while also serving as a willing vessel for the neoliberal agenda.

There is every indication that the federal government is watching such betrayals of public ownership with avid interest. I have previously written about Justin Trudeau's secret study to privatize Canada' major airports. Again, the argument being advanced is that it would free up billions for infrastructure projects; more accurately, as Craig Richmond, the chief executive officer of the Vancouver Airport Authority, says,

“This idea of a one-time payment, that’s like selling the family jewels and then regretting it forever..."

Except, of course, there is never any semblance of regret when it comes to the nabobs of neoliberalism and their government functionaries, all of whom view public assets as fit only for corporate plunder.

So yes, everyone should evaluate each policy and event on its own merit. People are right to be disgusted with Tom Price's profligate abuse of taxpayer money, and people should be outraged that Trump's "middle class miracle" will benefit mainly the wealthy. But they should also be acutely aware of and outraged by one other thing: the purposeful misdirection that all such things represent, and should consequently rise up in deep protest as more of the neoliberal agenda is carried out by their kleptocratic Commander-in-Chief and his assorted masters and minions.

When It Serves Economic Interests, Ignorance Is A National Policy

Burying their heads in rapidly disappearing sand is something of a national characteristic of Americans when it comes to climate change. However, when it is aided, abetted and promoted by monied interests, all should be concerned.

I think it is reasonably well-known that several states have banned any references to climate change or global warming in official government documents. Florida, recently pummeled by monster Hurricane Irma, was one of the first to take such measures back in 2011, when current governor Rick Scott took office. Earlier this year, the state of Idaho stripped any references to it in its revised K-12 science standards. In 2012, North Carolina banned the state from basing coastal policies on the latest scientific predictions of how much the sea level will rise.

Of course, on the federal level, since Trump took office, intensive scrubbing worthy of Mr. Clean has taken place on the White House website. Predictably, that ardour has infected many federal departments. Even those researchers seeking grants from the US Department of Energy are being asked (?} to excise references to 'climate change' and 'global warming' from their proposals.

The mechanism behind this censorship is fascinating and worthy of deep study, but I will offer only a brief overview of the influence being wielded by powerful interests to suppress scientific fact. Not surprisingly, lobbyists for the real estate and housing development industries are leading the charge, striving to keep as quiet as possible some very, very inconvenient truths:

... a storm of scientific information about sea-level rise that threatens the most lucrative, commission-boosting properties ... warn[s] that Florida, the Carolinas and other southeastern states face the nation’s fastest-growing rates of sea-level rise and coastal erosion — as much as three feet by the year 2100, depending on how quickly Antarctic ice sheets melt. In a recent report, researchers for Zillow estimated that nearly two million U.S. homes could be literally underwater by 2100.

Given the rapid progression of climate change, I suspect the 2100 date is far too optimistic. I believe I may see some of the worst within my own lifetime, even though I am admittedly getting a tad long in the tooth.

Truth is frequently unpalatable, and realtors and developers are proving especially resistant to it:

Some are teaming up with climate-change skeptics and small government advocates to block public release of sea-level rise predictions and ensure that coastal planning is not based on them.

And they are getting some assistance from the top:

Last month, U.S. President Donald Trump rescinded an Obama-era executive order that required the federal government to account for climate change and sea-level rise when building infrastructure, such as highways, levees and floodwalls. Trump’s move came after lobbying from the National Association of Home Builders, which called the Obama directive “an overreaching environmental rule that needlessly hurt housing affordability.”

Back in North Carolina, Willo Kelly, who represents both the Outer Banks Home Builders Association and the Outer Banks Association of Realtors

... teamed up with homebuilders and realtors to pass state legislation in 2012 that prevented coastal planners from basing policies on a benchmark of a 39-inch sea-level rise by 2100.

The legislation, authored by Republican Rep. Pat McElraft, a coastal realtor, banned the state from using scientific projections of future sea-level rise for a period of four years. It resulted in the state later adopting a 30-year forecast, which projects the sea rising a mere eight inches.

In South Carolina, the state Department of Natural Resources in 2013 was accused of keeping secret a draft report on climate-change impacts. In Texas, the 2016 platform of the state Republican Party states that climate change “is a political agenda promoted to control every aspect of our lives.”

Fortunately, not everyone is wallowing in, and extolling, ignorance:

In eastern North Carolina, geologist Riggs resigned from the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission’s science panel in 2016, citing legislative interference. He has since teamed up with local governments on the Pamlico and Albemarle Sounds to address problems of flooding, windblown tides and saltwater intrusion, a threat to local farming.

Further east, the Hyde County town of Swan Quarter has built a 27-kilometre dike around homes and farms to protect $62 million in flood-threatened property. The dike helped prevent windblown flooding during recent storms, but county officials have some concerns about the future.

Climate change is growing increasingly dire, and it is clearly not the time for citizens to cede control and authority to those whose only interest seems to be squeezing out as much profit as possible in the finite time ahead.

Indeed, some might call such massive venality a massive crime against humanity.

Guest Post: A Provocative And Fascinating Thesis

I recently published a guest post by BM entitled, The Creep Of Corporatism. In a followup, he has written something that I think many will find both fascinating and thought-provoking:

Thank you for featuring my comment as a blog post. In line with your other recent post on Canadian sovereignty, and my mention of the monetary crisis in India which everyone glosses over, I'd like to expand on the latter situation a bit, since new information has come to light, and it rather puts Bill Gates and parts of the US government in a very bad light if one values personal and own country freedom as I do. In other words, I'd like someone other than myself to have a read and a think about what's going on. Forget Trump, he hasn't even heard about this well-advanced scheme of the ultimate oligarch.

You may recall this Paypal controversy from February this year. A similar horror story occurred in the UK earlier btw. " A Canadian community newspaper wanted to enter a feel-good story about a family of Syrian refugees in an awards competition and sent a fee to the organizer of the competition. As the purpose of the payment it gave the name of the article, which included the word Syrians. This prompted PayPal to freeze the account of the media organization and to send a letter stating: “You may be buying or selling goods or services that are regulated or prohibited by the U.S. government.” It then asked some entirely impertinent questions of the paper.

What happened? Bugger all. Everyone went back to sleep. If only Freeland could concentrate on Canada instead of Ukraine!

So, anyway, India is being used as a testbed for a World ID. That's right, we''ll all have an ID unique to us if Billy Gates' scheme goes through and it's almost there. Do I sound like a mad conspiracy theorist? On the face of it, yes, but read on. The idea was hatched by Obama back in 2010 or so either as a poodle of Gates or the other way around.

The entire story can be read here. Get over a billion Indians to go cashless by the end of next year, and use only mobile phones for payment. Every transaction scrutinized by nameless dicks in the good ole USA. It's the ultimate 1984. The author is German. Read it in disbelief until you realize it's coming down the line. The U.S. is worried that the Chinese will have alternative reserve currency besides the dollar. Can't have that, now can we?

The author doesn't speculate much - he quotes publicly available source. And you know, when every transaction is monitored by the U.S. bureaucracy, just like our phone calls and emails, well freedom does not exist. Revolution not allowed - the rich must get richer. And Trump will still be firing staff not knowing a thing about his bureaucracy. This is ultimate NeoCon territory, I'm afraid tied in with the Democratic Party, ISDS provisions of free trade.

So what do you think of this coming basic attack on our individual and sovereign rights? All done that we may become poodles for our U.S. lords and masters. Completely sickening, but sold as efficient and personal. The drones of the smartphone world will suck it back like a Starbucks, and I've read articles here in Canada with Visa saying that purely cashless payments could occur in Canada by 2022, but darned if I can find them.

The Creep Of Corporatism

Responding to my post on the secret study conducted by the Trudeau government on privatizing our major airports to raise much-needed cash, BM offered the following, which I am featuring as a guest post today:

Well, this is the usual way corporatism works. Change a capital investment into an eternal loan with rent due sharpish at the beginning of each month, paid for by the citizens. When paper money is abolished in the next five to ten years (already started as an experiment in India by withdrawing low-denomination notes to see what happens - disaster - but who cares, they're brown people and not in the West; full story on the countercurrents.org Indian site last fall, studiously unread by white men in the West of all political persuasions), we'll be well on the way to mere electronic representations of our paid-for labour. Every transaction under full surveillance by our masters, no under the table cheapy house-painting, no cash at the farmer's gate for decent veggies and real eggs, taxes paid in full, citizens in thrall, and so on. It'll be sold as the Bright New World, like a super-duper schmarty-phone. All will cheer at how advanced we are.

No wonder Bitcoin thrives.

But as Amazon flogs groceries online, takes over Wholefoods, ruins supermarkets, what happens to old people? I see it all the time when I run from my rural lair into Halifax, old ladies carrying full shopping bags miles. Halifax is a food desert city, bus routes are organized at right angles to where people live to get to a supermarket, that is, they are 100% utterly useless. These old folks don't have PCs or even mobile phones. They're screwed in our brave new world, slain on the fields of corporatism. I drive them if they'll accept a lift, those old gals still dressing up to look presentable, living on OAP and a supplement if they're lucky, trying to keep up appearances. Makes me weep in frustration. The destruction of civil society on the bed of profits and eff-you attitude.

Don't know if JT has the brains to understand the consequences of flogging off public property, or doing the Canadian internal equivalent of an ISDS governed free trade pact called the Infrastructure Bank, I really don't.

But Morneau does, look at that Economic Council of his, set up in February last year with all the corporate and university academic wannabe rich types "advising" him. Telling him, more like. A $1 a year each, such noble types donating their valuable time, reduced to eating sandwiches from the caff at their Ottawa meetings in order to do their bounden duty for Canada, chaired by a man from a big accounting firm. It was then that I knew we were truly effed, seduced by hair and a smile.

Nothing has occurred in the last 18 months to make me change my mind at the neoLiberal's canny backing of JT, the intellectual waif with an aw shucks um and an ah at public speaking events that makes people buckle at their knees in abject adoration. Behind his back, the people that matter are planning ways to pilfer our back pockets.

Succeeding!

And we love it!

Trudeau Dissected: A Guest Post By Pamela MacNeil

In response to yesterday's post on Justin Trudeau, frequent contributor Pamela MacNeil left the following response, which I am taking the liberty of featuring as a guest post today:

Bill McKibben is spot on in his assessment of Trudeau and his hypocritical betrayal of supporting climate change, Lorne. While climate change is one of the most important issues he has back tracked on, there are numerous others.

His full embrace of Harper's neoliberal agenda is a guarantee that his policies are being created to support the corporate/political/military domestic and global elite. In other words, he is giving away control of Canada's wealth to global corporations. In order to do this he must eliminate Canada's sovereignty as an independent nation. This is something he is happily proceeding with.

I say happily, because he bragged in an interview with the Guardian that Canada will become the first "post nation state." Governing for the interest of Canadians is not part of his neoliberal equation.

His asserting of Canada's foreign policy with what US policy dictates is deeply entrenched and it goes way beyond military demands, such as the intent of Bill C-51 bringing Canadian security and immigration more in line with those in the US.

There is actually a disturbing, but excellent article written in the Tyee titled "Anti-terror laws already eroding free speech debate." It is about an Italian philosopher barred from visiting Canada to speak at the UBC University of Calgary. His name is Antonio Negri. He has visited Canada before and is a major critic of global neoliberalism.

Trudeau completely supports any military, economic, or political action of the US.

Does the Canadian government speak for Canadians? Do Canadians really think it's okay that [people are] victims of US military violence which has obliterated their countries, had their wealth plundered, had millions of their lives lost and created millions of refugees, who for the most part wander aimlessly looking for a country that will give them refuge?

What does it mean that Canada supports this kind of military violence and injustice? It means we are complicit, complicit in the violence and in the injustice.

Trudeau's alleged support of human rights is a farce.

The US is a country that is an imperial power; its educational system has all but destroyed the conceptual foundation of learning, making knowledge almost impossible to pursue; it is a country where intelligence and ideas are replaced by scripture and myth making, a country whose government, whether Democrats or Republicans, is comprised mainly of thugs who are really just a criminal cabal. This is the country that Trudeau has most aligned Canada with, even if it means submerging Canadian identity in the process.

Because of Trudeau and his cronies, Canadians can very well lose their sovereign independent nation. Can we rebuild our country if the foundation of our democracy has been destroyed? No we can't!

Watch what Trudeau does with Bill C-51. His amendments will only be cosmetic. He and his government will want to keep it for their own use. After all, Canadians will figure out sooner or later, that they have been lied to and will start to protest and fight back. They will have to be stopped and Bill C-51 is just the legislation to do it.

There seems to be a rule of thumb evolving with Trudeau. Anything that involves the creation or reinforcement of the rights and freedoms of Canadians is either ignored or violated, such as in the corporate-controlled, sovereignty-destroying "trade deals" he so loves to promote and the anti-BDS motion he so dogmatically supported.

Harper's arrogant, vindictive personality was a reflection of his political authoritarianism. The authoritarianism is harder to see with someone like Trudeau, whose charm and oozing pseudo sincerity come across as being genuinely truthful and caring.

His continued ongoing authoritarian neoliberal policies that are a threat to Canadians' rights and freedoms, including the destruction of Canada's social democracy, pegs him as a tyrant to me.

Harper has not left the building. Trudeau's sunny-ways are going to lead to some very dark days.

The Haves Certainly Have It

This from today's Letters To The Editor, to which I have nothing to add:

Re: Two richest men as wealthy as poorest 30 per cent, Jan. 16

It is telling that this news report was not a front-page headline in the Star.

As if the world needed any more data on the abject failure of capitalism and the neoliberal free market experiment, Oxfam has released yet another report once again documenting the egregious and unconscionable wealth of a minuscule number of individuals in Canada and around the world.

Report after report has documented the skyrocketing expansion of inequality around the globe and the inexorable march of wealth to the top of the social ladder. If capitalism were a new drug being developed to cure cancer and it failed in all but a few cases out of billions it would be abandoned immediately but we continue to prescribe the economic thalidomide of capitalism to the world’s population without remorse.

However, despite this overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence, the world media, economists and politicians seem blasé regarding its dismal and destabilizing failures and the deep and comprehensive reforms that are needed to ensure that global wealth is shared equitably. There are no front-page hue-and-cry headlines calling this an economic crisis or extended coverage of this issue on the news channels. This gross status quo inequality seems to be accepted and normalized as an inherent part of capitalism that cannot be changed.

In fact, with the election of Donald Trump in the United States, the American public has decided to firmly put on its rose-coloured glasses and double-down on the neoliberal nightmare of “cancer capitalism.”

Despite this political St. Vitas Dance, there is a desperate need for a government regulated, moderated and managed economic system that is actively structured to serve the needs of all in society as the historian and economist Karl Polanyi asserted. Such a system places clear limits on wealth accumulation and claws back excess wealth and profits through progressive taxation.

If we were smart enough to invent capitalism, we are smart enough to invent its replacement.

It is time to radically change our global economic system to serve the needs of humanity, not a few humans.

Robert Bahlieda, Newmarket

Do you find it amusing that we the public anxiously follow the media to be aware of the daily interaction between nations, cultures, religions, terrorists, politics and, oh yes, economies? Such a multitude of players in mankind’s unfolding history and future.

But perhaps there’s really only 16 – based upon the knowledge (and fact) that eight men own half the world’s wealth. Perhaps there are 16 players served by millions who accommodate them for reward while billions of others live in war and death and poverty and the rest of us are relegated to being blocks of pieces on an endless series of game boards that lead to millions of winners and billions of losers — just sayin’, perhaps.

But history says nations fade as empires rise. And our supposed representatives in governments are silenced by their parties who serve the players and their accommodators. Global democracy with globalization is sadly our “paradise lost” because globalization without global democracy is the globalization of poverty.

Ask yourself this. When it comes to big banks, big business, big oil, big money (non-pursuit of offshore accounts) and big talk, is Justin Trudeau really that much different than Stephen Harper?

Randy Gostlin, Oshawa

(Bitter) Fruits Of Our Neoliberal Governments

It would seem that Star reader Douglas Porter of Peterborough sees with unusual clarity what so many prefer to ignore:

It seems that many things in history do a repeat cycle about every 80 years. I hate to think that we are on target for another societal unravelling evidenced by what we are seeing in the EU, U.K. and the U.S. that’s similar to what happened in the mid 1930s Europe prior to World War II.

But when 40 to 50 per cent of everyday working people are experiencing a steady 30-year decline in living standards and feel nothing but despair for the future, they often fall for the appeal of a charismatic strongman (or woman) who promises prosperity and better times ahead.

We are seeing a polarization of people that is worsening with more and more of us living in our silos and social media and sneering elites fanning the flames. It’s pretty clear the major cause is increasing income inequality and poverty.

Here in Ontario we are seeing hundreds of thousands of people driven into financial distress, low income status or poverty by an essential public service called electricity. Our government can’t even provide the basics of life any more in an affordable manner. Not housing, energy, child care, pharmacare or basic dental care.

Canada is the only Western democracy without a food security program, if you can believe it. What the hell kind of society are we creating? Water, electricity, food, affordable housing and even Internet in today’s world should be considered human rights, not luxuries. And remember that people outside of the bigger cities pay several times more for hydro, and those with electric heat and hot water pay about three times more again. Some 60,000 people had their hydro cut off last year and 600,000 were behind on their bills.

The Ontario government’s answer to everything is more booze — to kill the pain I suppose. Their electricity pricing is economic insanity and cruel social policy like nothing I’ve seen in 50 years. A vicious attack on the poor and utterly immoral. As if booze, drugs and gambling weren’t enough.

Meanwhile, Back At Home

While the Gong Show unfolding in the U.S. will likely continue to preoccupy a great many of us in the weeks, months and years to come, we would be remiss to ignore disquieting occurrences in our own country. Many of these occurrences are unfolding under the blinding glare of our prime minister's sunny smile; indeed, many of them are being orchestrated by Mr. Trudeau, under the not-so-subtle aegis of his neoliberal agenda.

One of these issues is the Infrastructure Bank Trudeau is establishing, one that seeks to meld public and private money to finance projects. The key question one must ask, of course, is what is in it for the institutional and consortia investors he is trying to attract. Kate Chucng, a Toronto Star reader, recently raised a very pertinent point.

So the federal government plans to start an “infrastructure bank.” But we already have one. It’s called the Bank of Canada, and it was set up for this very purpose.

The Bank of Canada exists to make low-interest loans to all levels of government. So why are they wanting to borrow at high interest rates from private investors? Could it be that the 1 per cent controls the government?

It is a question all of us should be asking.

In his column today, Paul Wells writes about a meeting the prime minister and nine of his ministers had on Monday in Toronto at the Shangri-La, where they were guests

of Larry Fink from New York’s humongous BlackRock investment firm, pitching Canada as an investment destination to some of the deepest pockets on the planet.

Around the table were all your favourite emissaries from global capital. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority, with $360 billion (U.S.) in assets. Norway’s Norges Bank, which may be the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, though it’s hard to tell and the Norwegians hope to keep it that way. The Olayan Group from Saudi Arabia, with assets somewhere north of $100 billion. Singapore’s Temasek Holdings, closer to $200 billion. The Qatar Investment Authority. The Lansforsakringar, which is Swedish for “If you have to ask, you can’t afford it.”

Interestingly, for a government that promised openness and transparency,

the whole day happened behind closed doors and surrounded by heavy security.

This kind of secrecy and preferred access, so typical of the former Harper regime, should cause all of us concern:

The novelty of it all, and the long trains of zeros and commas following all these visitors around, has generated a very large amount of skepticism among the relatively few Canadians who’ve been following this project so far. How will the investors generate returns? Toll roads? Jacked-up hydro rates? What kind of bargain is it if Canadians pay for all this fancy new stuff through their daily out-of-pocket expenses, rather than through their taxes?

Nearby, at Nathan Phillips Square, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union was staging a protest of the whole business. “When people find out how much of their money private contractors are skimming off the top, they don’t want anything to do with it,” Smokey Thomas, the OPSEU president, said in a news release.

There is no philanthropy in business. Everything is done with an eye to the bottom line. This fact alone should give Canadians deep, deep cause for concern over the direction our 'new' government is taking us in.

The Youth Voice is Our Voice

If ever there was ever any doubt about the neoliberal agenda being pursued by our 'new' government, Finance Minister Bill Morneau's recent comments removed all uncertainty. He asserted that precarious work is here to stay and Canadians must adapt to having a variety of jobs throughout their lives as they experience the euphemistically phrased 'job churn.' Never have I read a more bald admission of submission to the corporatocracy agenda.

The above was just one of the frustrations about the Trudeau government that a group of youth was voicing yesterday as a number of them turned their backs on the Prime Minister at the Canadian Labour Congress National Young Workers Summit in Ottawa. While precarious work is the problem they most immediately feel, they also did not forget about climate change, pipelines, and a litany of other issues that reveal the disparity between Trudeau's lofty rhetoric and the reality of the Harperesque policies the Liberals are following.

In my mind, we owe these young people a debt of gratitude for their refusal to be polite and pretending all is well. They are the voice of all who care about our world.