The Face of Integrity

With a transcript of the extended interview.

H/t Alex Himelfarb

The War Crimes of Our Political Leaders

Recently I wrote a brief post directing readers to a story written by Chris Hedges. Hedges' piece, entitled The Crucifixion of Tomas Young, conveyed the very sad story, one that has probably been lived out many times, of a young man, paralyzed in Iraq in 2004, who has made the decision to die by refusing to take nourishment. His is an age-old tale of a naive but well-intentioned response to the patriotic call to war by a government adept at cynically manipulating its populace for its own immoral purposes (think access to oil as an example) and then ultimately washing its hands of the consequences of that manipulation.

Of course, war criminals like George Bush, Dick Cheney and Tony Blair continue on their self-promoting way, enveloped by and insulated within a bubble of self-righteous hypocrisy that few dare to puncture.

Yesterday, The Huffington Post wrote about Tomas Young and his impending death. One of his legacies will be this letter, addressed to Bush and Cheney, indicting them for the great evil they have committed. I am reproducing only a small part below, but I hope everyone will take the time to read the entire missive:

I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. I write not because I think you grasp the terrible human and moral consequences of your lies, manipulation and thirst for wealth and power. I write this letter because, before my own death, I want to make it clear that I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow veterans, along with millions of my fellow citizens, along with hundreds of millions more in Iraq and the Middle East, know fully who you are and what you have done. You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans—my fellow veterans—whose future you stole.

Your positions of authority, your millions of dollars of personal wealth, your public relations consultants, your privilege and your power cannot mask the hollowness of your character. You sent us to fight and die in Iraq after you, Mr. Cheney, dodged the draft in Vietnam, and you, Mr. Bush, went AWOL from your National Guard unit. Your cowardice and selfishness were established decades ago. You were not willing to risk yourselves for our nation but you sent hundreds of thousands of young men and women to be sacrificed in a senseless war with no more thought than it takes to put out the garbage.

It is, without question a letter that all political leaders need to read and consider before they so blithely and heedlessly consign another generation of young people to disfigurement and death. And that includes Messieurs Chretien and Harper, under whose watches 158 young Canadians lost their lives in Afghanistan.

Parsing The Rhetoric

Oh, how I do love it when the rhetoric of the right-wing is exposed for what it is: hysterical hyperbole.

Watch Robert Reich first as he punctures the myths regarding the 'dangers' of raising the minimum wage:

The look at Elizabeth Warren's take on the same topic:

Egomania, Not Trudeaumania: Updated

Checking my Twitter feed this morning, I came upon a link to a story appearing in Sun News, an organization for which I usually refuse to spare the time of day, given its rather robust roster of strident, often hysterical voices desperately seeking to emulate the tone of Fox News. Nonetheless, I can recommend something that strikes me as balanced and fairly reasonable, terms I never thought I would use to describe anything emanating from the lair of people like Brian Lilley and Ezra Levant.

Writing on the subject of a merger between the Liberals and the NDP, a subject upon which I have previously posted in its more benign form, a co-operative pact for the next election, Warren Kinsella reminds us that a year ago, Justin Trudeau seemed open to the possibility of working more closely with the NDP. However, that has now all changed:

A year later, Trudeau doesn't talk like that anymore. He and his team dismiss any talk of cooperation between Liberals and New Democrats. The only Liberal leadership candidate who favours one-time cooperation is Liberal MP Joyce Murray, and she is routinely dismissed as a defeatist crackpot for her trouble.

Ditto for the NDP:

The same thing happened to Nathan Cullen when he ran for the NDP leadership - he favoured bringing together the progressive majority, too. The front-runner, Thomas Mulcair, didn't. End of Cullen's idea.

Kinsella goes on to predict the consequence of this intransigence - another Harper victory in 2015, after which, he wonders, whether ego and nostalgia will be trumped by more practical politics and cooperation/merger will proceed.

Perhaps Kinsella's piece is neither innovative nor particularly insightful; it is, however, another reminder of just how much the leaders of the Liberal Party and the NDP are willing to gamble on Canada's future going into the 2015 election, all for the sake of their lust for power and dominance.

H/t #canpoli

UPDATE: Here is a link to a thoughtful piece by James Heath on the need for cooperation among progressives.

Patterns

Hmm... do I detect a pattern emerging here and here and maybe here? Just wondering.

More On Harper's Censorship of Science

The other day I wrote a post about the Harper regime's ongoing efforts and measures designed to thwart government transparency; the Prime Minister's abuse of power is most flagrant in his suppression of the voice of science, thereby effectively denying information vital if citizens are to have any hope of evaluating government policy. Unfortunately, in a regime driven by ideology, as Harper's is, the end justifies the means, no matter how much those means might violate the basic underlying principles of democratic government.

I am taking the liberty of reproducing the editorial appearing in today's Star that rebukes the regime for this dangerous drift toward an autocratic rule that promotes and extols ignorance over knowledge and manipulation over meaningful deliberation. The bolded parts are mine, added for emphasis:

Apparently Stephen Harper is unmoved by the embarrassment of international reprobation.

It has been a year since Nature, one of the world’s leading scientific journals, chided the federal Conservatives for their antagonism to openness and declared, “It is time for the Canadian government to set its scientists free.”

Since then, other major international publications, including the Guardian and the Economist, have followed suit, calling on our government to take a more enlightened, democratic approach to scientific findings. Yet clearly not much has changed: the federal information commissioner is now considering a request to investigate the persistent and worsening problem of the government’s so-called muzzling of Canadian scientists.

Since the Conservatives took power in 2006, Canadian media have had little direct access to government scientists. In Friday’s Star, Kate Allen reported on the difficulty this paper has had working around the government’s unusual restrictions. Requests for information are usually routed through communications officials, yielding either perfunctory, inexpert responses, or circumscribed interviews with scientists often days past deadline. One way or another, scientists are kept from sharing their work with the public.

This silencing poses a significant democratic problem. How are Canadians supposed to evaluate energy or fisheries policies, for instance, when we aren’t exposed to even the most basic information about their environmental consequences? Moreover, the muzzling creates a problem for science itself, an endeavour that depends on the widespread dissemination, scrutiny and discussion of data. As Dalhousie University ecologist Jeffrey Hutchings wrote on thestar.com last week, “When you inhibit the communication of science, you inhibit science.”

That ought to be unacceptable. But as the thousands of scientists who gathered in protest on Parliament Hill last summer made clear, this government seems to regard evidence as worse than irrelevant. It regards it as a hindrance. Why else scrap the Experimental Lakes Area, the world’s leading freshwater research centre, despite the steep economic and scientific cost of that decision? Why else do away with the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, the national science adviser or the long-form census, among other integral parts of our scientific infrastructure lost in recent years?

Keeping Canadians in the dark is undemocratic; governing in the dark is reckless. Good government needs good science, and good science needs a level of openness this government may be incapable of.

What People Want From Leaders

Part of the neoconservative agenda, I suspect, is based on encouraging everyone to see life as a zero-sum game, where the world is a place in which there are only winners and losers; the implicit message is that if we are smart, we will be the winners at the expense of others. For example, my enjoying a generous tax cut that permits me to keep more of my money must come at the expense of something else, perhaps the proper funding of a programme such as Employment Insurance. Never will such choices be so baldly articulated, but they are real.

Another term that is sometimes used to discuss and promote this imperative is homo economicus or economic man, another rather soulless perspective in which a person is characterized as a rational person who pursues wealth for his own self-interest.

Or, as Gordon Gecko once said, "Greed is good."

Of course, those with the ability to think know that such a constricted and blinkered view of humanity is patent nonsense. Yes, we are selfish, yes we are greedy, but that is only part of the human equation, a part that ignores the nobler impulses we have, our concern for others, our compassion for the poor and suffering, our desire for a better life for everyone.

One can see how that side of human nature can interfere with the ardent 'messaging' of the extreme right-wing agenda.

I found myself thinking about these things this past week or so as worldwide interest in the selection of a new Pope peaked. The other catalyst was a thoughtful column by the Star's Royson James.

First, to the Pope. As one who is very cynical about the politics of the Catholic Church, and it is a cynicism and disaffection felt by millions worldwide, I was quite surprised to see the wide-ranging and comprehensive media coverage of the conclave. If the Church, because of its restrictive policies, arrant hypocrisy and egregious homophobia, has indeed become increasingly irrelevant to people, as I believe it has, why so much interest? Is it possibly the expression of an innate hope that a new Pope will somehow provide a purity of leadership that is so sorely lacking in the public arena? Do we pine for someone who will feel empathy and oneness with people?

Then I read Royson James. Although his column, entitled The mayor Toronto needs will start by loving us, is directed at the qualities Torontonians seek and need in a mayor, it occurred to me that they are the very qualities we yearn for in all of our leaders, both religious and secular, qualities that are, for example, largely lacking in municipal, provincial and federal politicians, no matter their stripe.

As you read the following excerpts, simply replace mayor for the position of your choice. James begins by talking about the desire to have a leader

to embrace and welcome; a leader to inspire and motivate; someone to make us proud ....who challenges us and inspires us to do better ourselves and improve our city. And do so by setting the right example.

We are not “taxpayers” only. Everything does not begin and end with the desire to reduce government and taxes. We are neighbours, fellow travelers, citizens of a metropolis whose people, natural charms, and agglomeration of dreams and strivings have created a bit of magic in our lives.

A leader, as opposed to a selfish manipulator, cultivates the things that bind us together so as to foster greater social cohesion:

We feel a kinship, share special memories, from Hurricane Hazel to oft-forgotten Stanley Cup parades; army patrols on a snowy day; the blackout; the Ex; the hole up Yonge St. to make way for the first subway.

We make room on the street for the Pride Parade and Caribana and Santa Claus and John Clarke and OCAP. And bikes.

We love the streetcar.

Emblematically, what we are not, according to James, is Mike Harris or any other rampaging, marauding magnate seeking to smash and burn the careful creation of our civic artisans.

And so it would seem that our deeper and better impulses direct us, with hope, to a world that can be much better than it is. They direct us to look for the kind of leadership, both secular and spiritual, that does not exploit our weakness and our selfishness, but instead demands that we all participate in the renewal of a broken world.

So far, sadly, I see no one on the horizon willing to challenge us in this way. The search continues.

UPDATE: For an indication of how short of the mark leadership in Ottawa falls, this article is worth checking out.

Unpaid Internships: Updated

I wrote a brief post the other day on the proliferation of unpaid internships, whose ostensible purpose is to give young people experience in a field, open up networking opportunities, and possibly lead to gainful employment in the not-too-distant future. Unfortunately, the chasm between the ideal and the reality is ever-widening, the result being that in many cases internships are devolving into a form of modern-day slavery.

My own ungainfully underemployed daughter, who has a master's degree yet works part-time in discount retail, has had three internships, only one of which might have led to a contract had circumstances been more propitious. The one she is currently completing has her performing such 'educational' tasks as inputting computer information, signing her boss' signature when she is 'too busy', etc., the sorts of labour that would have once been performed by an entry-level paid employee.

Many in the media are recognizing what is happening, people like Carol Goar at The Star, who wrote a solid piece the other day on the problem, as did Marco Oved, also of the Star.

Also by Oved is a story in today's paper, reporting that Ontario NDP MPP Taras Natyshak is calling on the Wynne government to properly regulate the field. My own research suggests that the problem exists largely because all parties (the 'employer', the intern, and the government) are prone to turning a blind eye to the letter of the legislation that currently govern internships, rules that can be accessed here. Although it is the law that all six rules have to be observed to allow unpaid internships, the fact is that that requirement is being widely overlooked. And the article makes clear why this is happening:

“Sure, interns have paper protections, but no intern is going to endanger their future by complaining,” said employment lawyer Andrew Langille, who writes a blog about abuses of unpaid interns. “The problem is that there’s no pro-active enforcement.”

“If the government of the day is not prepared to mandate that intern work be paid work, these workers should at least be afforded other basic rights of employment, such as a maximum on the hours of work, the ability to refuse unsafe work, etc.,” said Ottawa-based employment lawyer Sean Bawden.

While there may be some truth in Labour Minister Yasir Naqvi's assertions that sufficient protections already exist, and that anyone who feels their employment standards rights have been contravened can file a complaint ... and it will be investigated, the fact of a desperate young workforce eager curry favour in the hope of landing a job militates against that solution.

If this is allowed to continue unchecked, the insatiable work-world propensity for labour exploitation may be emboldened even further in the future.

UPDATE: For a series of thoughtful letters on the issue from Star readers, click here.

Police Workout Video

No need to join a gym, I guess, when police have so many on-the-job-workout opportunities.

Raymond Costain, afterwards.

H/t trapdinawrpool

The Quasi-Police State In Our Midst: UPDATED

He who controls the media controls the minds of the public. - Noam Chomsky

In some ways, it is very much reminiscent of what occurred during the time of the Soviet Union, when athletic or cultural figures would visit the West, always accompanied by 'escorts' whose ostensible purpose was to act as facilitators and translators, but whose real purpose was to keep a very close eye on their fellow citizens lest they bolt for freedom or say something 'unscripted', thereby causing the homeland some embarrassment. Control of information was paramount.

And ironclad control would seem to be both the guiding model and ethos governing the Harper regime. Already infamous for its war on transparency, about which I have written before, Canada is now ranked 55th in the world for upholding freedom of information, a designation Harper disputes (black is white, freedom is slavery, etc. etc.). Another ongoing international embarrassment and affront to democracy is the muzzling of our scientists. But perhaps a measure of relief from that oppression is possible.

A story appearing in today's Star reveals the following:

Federal Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault is being asked to investigate the “muzzling” of Canadian government scientists in a request backed by a 128-page report detailing “systemic efforts” to obstruct access to researchers.

“She is uniquely positioned, and she has the resources and the legal mandate, to get to the bottom of this,” says Chris Tollefson. Tollefson is executive director of the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre, which issued the request with the non-partisan Democracy Watch.

And make no mistake about it. This regime is desperate to control the flow of information that is at odds with, among many other things, its current propaganda campaign to convince the world of how environmentally 'progressive' it is. Readers may recall, for example, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver's recent trip to Chicago on behalf of the Keystone XL pipeline in which he touted Canada’s unmatched environmental record. This was quickly followed up by Oliver's attempt to repudiate Thomas Mulcair's comments in the U.S. about Keystone and the tarsands.

The stakes are indeed high, which may explain the extraordinary lengths to which the 'Canadian Kremlin' is going to censor and control information. The piece in The Star goes on to describe the ease and with which an information request on how climate change is affecting the Arctic and Antarctic was answered by NASA scientists, usually the same day and with offers to talk in person or by phone.

However, the same request to scientists at Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada,

led to apologetic responses that the request would have to be routed through public relations officials. Public relations staff asked for a list of questions in advance, and then set boundaries for what subjects the interview could touch upon. Approval to interview the scientists was given days later. In all cases, a PR staffer asked to listen in on the interviews. (italics mine)

I wish Democracy Watch and the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre the best of luck in its attempts to break the embargo on unfiltered information through Information Commissioner Legault. Yet I can't help regret that Canada has sunk so low that now the efforts of non-governmental agents are so desperately needed in a country that was once a proud and open democracy.

UPDATE: For those who feel strongly about this government control over information, here is a petition worth considering.

Heresy Alert!

Hmm, it seems someone from the Office Of Corporate Orthodoxy needs to have a chat with this fellow:

H/t Daniel Tseghay

Just Another Pretty Face

Those of a certain age will remember the much beloved 1970's sitcom, The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Set in a television newsroom in Minneapolis, the series chronicled life both inside and outside the studio of its many and varied employees, who ranged from the gruff but ultimately lovable Lou Grant, played by Ed Asner, to the vapid but ultimately harmless news anchor, Ted Baxter, played by the late Ted Knight. The handsome broadcaster was essentially a sendup of all those 'pretty faces' one sees on TV who in reality are as sharp as the proverbial bag of hammers.

Reading Thomas Walkom's piece in today's Star about Justin Trudeau and his now unimpeded march to the Liberal leadership, I couldn't help but think of good old Ted. Walkom makes the following tart observations about Justin:

That Trudeau has such charisma is a given. In public, he is confident and engaging — earnest but with a sense of humor.

He presents himself as genuinely likeable, a trait that should serve him well against Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

But the fault for which Garneau once chided him is real. Trudeau’s public utterances don’t have much content. To listen to him at, say, a university campus event is to emerge disappointed.

He sounds and looks fine but doesn’t say much.

And it is, of course, this latter observation that should be of concern to those who see Trudeau fils as the one who will lead them out of the political wilderness. A man long on platitudes (he, along with the other contenders, as Walkom notes, is in favour of youth employment, transparency, openness and democracy,) but shockingly short on specifics, Trudeau and his supporters may come to realize that the so-called 'wow-factor' associated with his 'leadership' will wear thin very quickly, given that today's citizens, when they bother to vote at all, are a far more cynical lot than those who existed in the sixties and pledged their fealty to his father.

Yes, on the Mary Tyler Moore Show, everyone loved Ted Baxter but few, I suspect, would have wanted him to sit in news director Lou Grant's chair.

Unions Are To Blame For Impeding Consumer Access To Low Prices

At least Fox News believes that is true.

H/t Media Matters

The New Pope

The new Pope, the former Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, has a very interesting past; I can't help but wonder if our press will want to resurrect it.

H/t Nickie

A Corporate Fantasy Fulfilled

While much has been written of late about the proliferation of precarious work and unpaid internships, the latter the perfect opportunity for employers to exploit the desperation of young people, it may come as a surprise to some that even The Atlantic is expecting the same from many of its writers.

The Manning Doctrine: I Won't Let My People Go

By now, those who follow such things will be aware that the Manning Networking Conference was held last weekend in Ottawa, during which the main message seemed to have been, if I may use the old cliche, "Loose lips sink ships." Conservatives, apparently not content to censor the flow of government information to its citizens, are now being urged to monitor their own thoughts and words, lest they do damage to 'the brand.'

Given that others have already reported on other aspects of the conference, including Owen over at Northern Reflections, and Andrew Coyne at The National Post, I shall take the liberty of reproducing a letter from today's Star that offers an additional insight:

Know when to shut up, Tories told, March 10

How convenient for Preston Manning and his Alliance, er, Conservative cohorts that by only subscribing to a subset of core values, anyone able to win a seat in parliament is welcome into their fold. Sorry Pres, it doesn’t work that way.

We need to know, by allowing these people the freedom to speak freely and expose their beliefs, what kind of integrity they possess. Those of us who have been paying attention know that there has always been a muzzle of sorts put on the Alliance, er, Conservative caucus.

Perhaps, comfortable with power, some of these caucus members feel emboldened to share some of their beliefs with us. Come on Pres, let them speak. Surely you don’t condone the censorship of free speech? What do you have to lose . . . oh.

David Ottenbrite, Mississauga

The Consequences Of Corruption And Venality

Although his is a painful story, I think we owe Tomas Young the respect he deserves by reading it. And while we read it, we might want to remember the corrupt, venal and craven politicians who are responsible for his fate.

Gated Democracy in Calgary

Last June, I wrote a series of posts about the lack of constituency representation I and many others were receiving from our local Conservative M.P. David Sweet, the catalyst being his obsequious though not unexpected uncritical acceptance of the budget Omnibus Bill C-38. As a consequence, we conducted demonstrations at his constituency office until the police were called and interdicted our entrance into the strip mall where the office is located.

It seems that that anti-democratic trend is spreading westward, right to the strip mall housing our Prime Minister's constituency office:

Just one more very obvious sign of something I think the majority of Canadians are coming to realize: the absolute contempt in which the federal government holds both ordinary citizens and their 'rights.'

H/t Ugottabekiddin

A Brief Reflection On Irony

Given the rather limited scope of the conservative mind, few, I have observed, seem in possession of anything remotely resembling a sense of the ironic.

Sparked by Stephen Harper's recent insensitive 'condolences' to the people of Venezuela on the passing of Hugo Chavez, I was pleased to see a letter in The Star demonstrates that recognizing the ironic has not been lost on those outside the Conservative fold:

Re: Hugo Chavez: Venezuelans can build a better future now, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper, March 5

Our Prime Minister said on the death of Hugo Chavez: “I hope the people of Venezuela can now build for themselves a better, brighter future.” I would first remind Stephen Harper that Venezuela elected Chavez with a 54 per cent majority. Harper rules with a measly 40 per cent and acts as if he has a majority. Chavez improved the lives of the poor in his country, whereas Harper has rarely mentioned the poor let alone tried to improve their lot. The big corporate guns and Washington did everything in their power to oust Chavez and yet he prevailed until now. I think that what Harper is really speaking of when he speaks of “people” are the rich people who ran Venezuela like a private enterprise before Chavez was elected. I hope Canadians are listening to Harper when he speaks of democracy and people and freedom because it doesn't include the poor.

Larry Bruce, Georgetown

On second thought, maybe the above letter is less an observation of irony than it is of our Prime Minister's arrant hypocrisy.

On Kettles and Teapots

With apologies, this timeworn metaphor was the only one that came to mind upon reading about this singular example of Church hypocrisy.

Pining For A Non-Existent Past

It occurs to me that perhaps the limited appeal of young Tim Hudak, the increasingly out-of-touch leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, might be related to the retro mentality that periodically pops up in North America. You know, that nostalgic pining for a non-existent past where everyone lived harmoniously in a semi-suburban environment, when men would daily don their work attire (usually a suit and tie), go forth bravely to earn the family's bread, and then return home to be greeted by the loving, doting wife, clad, in the mode of June Cleaver, in apron and pearls. And, of course, there was the malt shop, were teens had good clean fun.

Perhaps that era's main appeal lies in its alleged lack of ambiguity. The answers were there for all who cared to look: good-paying jobs, the car as king, and clearly-defined roles for all. Environment and ecology were words used only by specialists who had little to do with their time.

That is the kind of fictitious past that young Tim seems to be drawing upon for policy formulation, and it is that kind of simplistic thinking that fewer and fewer people, I believe, are willing to uncritically accept, at least if this letter from The Hamilton Spectator is any indication:

Build new Fort Erie-to-Hamilton highway: Hudak (thespec.com, March 7)

I have just read the article wherein Tim Hudak is again quoted as saying he will go ahead with a new highway between Fort Erie and Hamilton.

I am a retired Ontario ministry of transportation employee who was involved in the mid-peninsula highway project and the later Niagara-GTA corridor study project. I am also a resident of Flamborough.

Tim Hudak scares the bejabers out of me.

All the studies have shown that the type of highway he wants is not needed in the foreseeable future. Why can’t he accept this fact?

I don’t think he is an uneducated man, but he seems to be unable to read or to comprehend. He is willing … no … he is anxious, to bulldoze through sensitive wetlands and prime farmland because he thinks it might get him more votes in the Niagara area.

Hudak appears to be a small-thinking man who cannot accept that his ideas just don’t work in today’s society. Most of his comments about jobs are red herrings when it comes to a new highway. While he talks about well-paying skilled trades jobs, he is also talking about getting rid of the unions that helped ensure those types of jobs are well-paid. Again, he doesn’t see the disconnect in his statements.

Although I lean to the right politically, I could never vote for the Ontario Conservative Party with Hudak as its leader. It is incredibly sad that those of us who do lean slightly to the right have no one to vote for.

Will MacKenzie, Flamborough

UPDATE: Perhaps young Tim would be wise to heed this advice from the father of the new conservatism, Preston Manning.

The Strange Economics of Stephen Harper

Even though he only has a Master's degree in economics, our Prime Minister likes to present himself as an economist. And, like the myriad other untruths propagated by his regime, perhaps the biggest lie is that resource extraction, especially tarsands oil, is the most prudent activity around which the Canadian economy should revolve. Indeed, the Harper propaganda machine is so powerful that when anyone dares question the wisdom of such a narrow approach, he or she is automatically labelled anti-Alberta, anti-growth, and profoundly un-Canadian. One doesn't have to search too far back in memory for the pilloring Thomas Mulcair endured over his 'dutch disease' remarks.

Yet somehow, the most potent criticism hurled against Hugo Chavez as President of Venezuela, his reliance on oil exports to the exclusion of a more diversified economy, is supposed to have no application to Canada in Harperworld.

In today's Star, Thomas Walkom attempts to set the record straight. Entitled Alberta’s oil woes mean trouble ahead for Canada, his piece observes that oil, the unilateral basis of the federal government's trade policies, is in trouble. Citing Alberta's deficit budget in which spending will be slashed, he examines the similarities between Alberta and Venezuela:

Curiously, Alberta has much in common with the Venezuela that Hugo Chavez bequeathed to the world. Both rely on heavy oil exports to the U.S. Both are one-party states (Alberta more so than Venezuela). Both are utterly dependent on the price of oil and both have economies that, in different ways, have been deformed as a result of this dependence.

Venezuela faces a reckoning and so does Alberta. So, indeed, does Canada as a whole.

Echoing the 'dutch disease' currency inflation problem articulated earlier by Mulcair, Walkom says, as a result of the decline in oil prices for the tarsand product,

We are already seeing a decline in the Canadian dollar as a result of the resource slowdown. In the long run, this should be good news for Canadian manufacturers who export their goods. In the short run, it means all of us are a little poorer.

Where we don’t see any change is in the federal government’s approach to the economy. The Harper Conservatives remain dazzled by resources. They believe that if the markets want Canadians to hew wood and draw water, that’s what we should do.

But markets are notoriously fickle. This is a fact the entire country will have to face. Alberta is just getting there first.

As Walkom's piece suggests, expect no new understanding or economic insights in the world that Stephen Harper and his cabal inhabit.

Some Thoughts on 'Tea Party Tim'

I wish I could take credit for the title sobriquet describing Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak, but that distinction lies with Val Patrick of Hamilton whose letter, along with several others that appear in today's Star, I am taking the liberty of reproducing below. Enjoy!

Tea Party Tim Hudak has launched into another round of union-bashing. This time he is focused on the thousands who have no right to strike and are required by law to have wage and benefit disputes settled by arbitration. His target this day was the firefighters of Stratford.

Attacking the decision in their case, he asserts a need for new legislation requiring arbitrators to “factor in the ability to pay.” Either Mr. Hudak is actively misleading the people of Ontario, or is too lazy to read the current legislation.

The Fire Protection and Prevention Act already requires arbitrators to consider: 1. The employer’s ability to pay in light of its fiscal situation; 2. The extent to which services may have to be reduced, in light of the decision, if current funding and taxation levels are not increased; 3. The economic situation in Ontario and in the municipality; 4. A comparison, as between the firefighters and other comparable employees in the public and private sectors, of the terms and conditions of employment and the nature of the work performed; and 5. The employer’s ability to attract and retain qualified firefighters. Similar requirements exist in the legislation covering others who are denied the right to strike.

Mr. Hudak is simply on a Republican-style campaign seeking to mislead and divide enough people to let him squeak to power. The only pay that needs legislating is that of the corporate CEOs who bankroll Mr. Hudak’s attack on workers and their unions.

Val Patrick, Hamilton

Tim Hudak has become a crashing bore. It’s always the same tired old right-wing bromides from this guy: unions bad, business good, cut, slash, burn.

We’ve been there, done that in the 1990s and what did we get? Longer wait times at hospitals, an education system more focused on test scores than critical thinking, a shredded social safety net that tosses the poor and disabled on the scrap heap of society and imprisoned them there financially.

Blind faith in business landed us in the worst recession since the Great Depression. The only good thing about an election now would be the end of Hudak’s tenure as party leader. So he should be careful what he wishes for, he just might get it.

John Bruce, Niagara Falls

Tim Hudak’s claim that unions are stalling Ontario’s economic recovery is factually incorrect. Corporations and their CEOs are making historical profits and salaries on the backs of Ontario’s workers.

Making such inflammatory statements only fosters resentment and anger; clearly, a more substantive and logically articulated policy is warranted. Inflating unemployment ranks, selling off profitable crown corporations and killing unions is mediocre thinking. Ontarians experienced that same kind of neocon economic policy during the Mike Harris era, we don’t need another dose of revisionist history.

As a retired pensioner, please don’t give me any guff about corporations being abused by union bosses, I pay a higher rate of tax than your corporate friends and I don’t have the luxury of tax loopholes.

RBC chief Gordon Nixon took a million dollar salary cut in 2011, but he rebounded to make $12.6 million the following year. Somehow I don’t feel sorry for him. What could he possibly have in his head that’s worth more than $12 million a year?

Hudak’s former boss, Mr. Harris, attended 18 corporate meetings last year and earned $780,000; that’s obscene. With that as a backdrop, Hudak wants to deny Ontarians a decent standard of living?

Nicholas Kostiak, Tottenham

So Mr. Hudak is once again attacking members of unions and environmentalists, blaming them for Ontario’s economic woes. If he is truly concerned about controlling spending and reducing debt he should look at himself, his party and the very wealthy, many of whom suppot his party.

Instead of attacking unions, that made many workers middle class, and those who believe that companies need to be part of the solution to our environmental problems, Hudak should do the following: cut his own salary, benefits and perks; increase his short working year; make the wealthiest pay their fair share of taxes; and close loopholes that allow the wealthy to financially benefit in ways that the average Ontarian cannot.

These suggestions, though supported by many, would never be supported by Hudak and the Conservatives because they would adversely affect many of those who support his party. Mr. Hudak should stop putting profit ahead of people and recognize the real pro-family beliefs of earning a livable wage and saving our planet.

Ken Walters, Toronto

A Portrait of Ambition

While even I can reach my saturation point when it comes to tales of Senate fraud and corruption, I found this portrait of Senator Pam Wallin in today's Toronto Star rather interesting. Apparently the former broadcaster is known for her political ambitions, having unseated and replaced Liberal Colin Kenney from the chairmanship of the powerful Senate committee on national security and defence.

The article notes that since her elevation, the committee has become far less critical of government policy. As well,

The ascendancy has fuelled speculation in some circles in the red chamber that she has her eye on the top job, government leader in the Senate, a position that means she would be a member of cabinet.

Tim Harper has more to say about the prospect of Wallin taking over the position, currently occupied by Marjory LeBreton, in his column, also found in today's edition.

Expect this soap opera known as the Senate to continue playing on indefinitely.

A Graphic Depiction of Unfettered Capitalism

The true believers in unfettered capitalism will not like this video:

H/t Alex Himelfarb

Absolutely!

For me, one of the biggest offenses against logical thinking is absolutism, which essentially says there is only one right answer, that everything is black or white, with no gradations of gray. An example would be Vic Toews infamous assertion, when controversy erupted over his deeply flawed Internet surveillance bill, that those who opposed the legislation were siding with child pornographers. Another would be George Bush's claim, after 9/11, that 'You are either with us, or with the terrorists.'

Despite what the above examples might suggest, such thinking, sadly, is not the exclusive domain of those with limited intelligence; we all have the potential to fall into the absolutist trap. I am no exception, despite the fact that I try as much as possible to practise critical thinking.

Yet sometimes, there seems to be only one ineluctable conclusion to be drawn, as absolutist as it may appear. Such is the way I felt this morning upon reading Tim Harper's latest column. Entitled A hand stretched across the aisle in the print edition of the paper, the piece details the efforts of the NDP's Nathan Cullen and Liberal leadership candidate Joyce Murray to promote a one-time co-operative pact among the three parties in order to unseat Stephen Harper in the next federal election. Elegant in its simplicity, the plan would work as follows:

... seats held by the Conservatives in which the governing party received less than 50 per cent of the vote would be targeted for co-operation... Each of the three parties would nominate their own candidates and, assuming all three parties backed co-operation, the single candidate would be chosen in a run-off.

This way, of course, the centre and left would not be siphoning off votes from each other, which is what occurred in the last election, allowing Stephen Harper's crew to come up the middle and form a majority government despite being supported by only a minority of voters.

Joyce Murray avers that the majority within the three parties (this includes the Greens) support the notion, but what is telling is the reaction of the party leaders and leadership aspirants: NDP leader Thomas Mulcair has forbidden his MPs from responding to a letter from Green Party leader Elizabeth May championing the notion. Montreal MP Marc Garneau accused [Murray] of giving up on her party. And Justin Trudeau, of no fixed ideology, and, who once flirted with the idea of co-operation, has slammed the door on the prospect.

For me, there are no shades of gray, no nuances, in their flat rejection of the one strategy that could break Harper's stranglehold on Canada. Each is consumed with the bald lust for power. All other considerations, including what is best for the country, are secondary. I can see no other explanation.

So whether I am guilty of absolutist thinking or have drawn the only reasonable conclusion possible, I leave to the reader to decide.

Why Companies Love 'Guest' Workers

But sometimes, as in the case of Hershey's Chocolates, they bite off more than they can chew:

H/t Oh Canada... Speak Up

He Was A Man...

While many in the so-called liberal blogosphere tend to see the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as an unalloyed saint striding far above the corruption that infested that country's politics before his arrival on the scene, the truth is far more nuanced. A man who had a genuine empathy for the poor and did much to relieve their most egregious suffering through education, healthy care, land reform, etc., he also had the vindictiveness of the autocrat toward those he perceived as his enemies, and, like our Albertan cousins, did little to diversify his economy, preferring to rest on the largess brought about through his country's oil reserves.

However, I am writing this post neither to praise Chavez nor to bury him, but to simply point out probably one of the best sources for balanced news coverage, both of Chavez's legacy and all other world events. Available online, Al Jazeera's work makes me pine for the days when our national broadcaster, The CBC, could be counted on for in-depth reportage that made all Canadians proud. Neither seeking to curry favor with political masters nor beholden to ratings, Al Jazeera last night provided very balanced and extensive coverage of Chavez's life and legacy.

That's all for now.

Intelligent Thoughts on Intelligent Design

While I firmly believe in a transcendent reality, I have no patience or tolerance for the promotion of ignorance in the guise of religious freedom in education. This intelligent and articulate young man sets the record straight:

'Master of the Universe' Tim Speaks Again

And, as usual, has nothing to say to anyone with the capacity to think.

H/t Kev

A Tale of Two Moralities

A message from your Harper Government to all E.I. claimants:

A message from your Harper Government to all Canadians regarding allegations of fraud in the Senate:

Fortunately, the NDP didn't get the memo.

The Incorrigible Deb Matthews

That Ontario Health Minister Deb Matthews, who presided over the Ornge scandal, remains in her portfolio in the new Wynne government is unfathomable to me. A woman of breathtaking incompetence who steadfastly refused all calls for her resignation as each sordid detail of corruption and sybaritic spending within the air ambulance was revealed, Matthews continues to oversee the agency with her consistently deftless hand.

The latest revelation comes in today's Star, which further solidifies Matthews' reputation for ineptitude:

Ontario Ombudsman André Marin warns there will be no “credible accountability” at ORNGE unless long-awaited new legislation to reform the troubled air ambulance service gives him oversight powers.

Instead, Matthews has opted for a patient advocate's post which, according to Marin,

will be seen as toothless because the patient advocate’s office reports to the health ministry.

“They would not be independent of government. Far from being watchdogs, they would operate on a ministerial dog leash,” Marin wrote in the two-page letter. “The ombudsman is a fully independent officer of parliament . . . by contrast, the patient advocate reports to an ORNGE vice-president, not even the board of directors.”

And exactly what will be the function of this patient advocate? Apparently, according to the job description posted last year, the advocates’ office will “investigate, resolve, document and report organization-specific patient and visitor compliments and concerns.”

As Marin tartly observes, “... a position that involves reporting compliments back to management ought not to be confused with the role of the Ombudsman.”

So, brickbats and bouquets, rather than substantive legislative oversight of the deeply-flawed ambulance service with the profligate misspending problem, seems to be the order of the day.

With regard to Health Minister Deb Matthews, I rest my case.

An Eloquent Plea

Even though her speech isn't completely clear, Cathy Jordan, who has been suffering from ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease) for 20 years, issues an eloquent plea for the use of medical marijuana, the drug she believes is responsible for her atypical longevity with the disease; ALS kills the majority within two to five years of diagnosis.

What makes Cathy's story so compelling is that despite the apparent efficacy of the drug, her home in Florida was recently raided by the Manatee County Sheriff's Department. With black ski masks and guns drawn in an intimidating fashion that has become all-too familiar for medical cannabis patients across the country, sheriff's deputies came into their home and seized all 23 of Cathy's plants.

You can read the full story here, and watch the video below:

Ongoing Outrage

The host of letters appearing in today's Star attests to the ongoing public outrage over the Senate porkbarrellers. Although in many ways a mere sideshow to the endemic and systemic problems that face our governance, it nonetheless illustrates that Canadian anger, when it can be aroused, can be formidable.

I am taking the liberty of reproducing a few of the shorter missives below, and I also highly recommend Thomas Walkom's column, in which he lambastes the almost jesuitical reasoning being propounded by defenders of this Senate malfeascence:

They preach austerity but secretly practice gluttony, stealing from the poorest of the poor to pad their many mattresses. For those Senators their day is nigh.

Richard Kadziewicz, Scarborough

Always the outspoken critic of everyone else, I think it’s time that Mike Duffy and his Cheshire Cat smile disappear and head back to Blunderland.

Dave Lower, Brampton

If you have lost your job and are collecting EI, the government might send someone to your home to check if you are cheating the taxpayers.

If you are a senator, the prime minister and government House leader will defend your expenses in the House of Commons.

Why the difference? Because they know where you live, but they do not know where the senators live.

Keith Parkinson, Cambridge

Surely smart people like Ms Wallin and Mr Duffy had some question in their minds as to the validity of their expenses and residency status as they completed their expense forms and filed their residence confirmation documents. These actions from our appointed leaders are disgusting and Canadians do not deserve this treatemnt.. Let’s boot them out of the Senate now.

Doug Gameroff, Toronto

If Mike Duffy was unable to read the rules and understand them when most of the senators did, then it follows he is too dumb to be in the Senate. Shame! Resign!

Stella Watson, Toronto

They Still Walk Among Us

I have always felt a deep, abiding respect and affection for people of integrity. During my career as an English teacher, I took special delight in teaching plays like Arthur Miller's The Crucible and Robert Bolt's Man For All Seasons, which told stories of real-life people who made the ultimate sacrifice to stay true to themselves and their beliefs.

Happily, those with integrity are not confined to either the history or literary pages. They still walk among us. People like Munir Sheikh, the former head of Statistics Canada who resigned his post rather than have his name, reputation and work brought down into the slime by the Harper regime. People like Nelson Mandela, who, rather than grasping at early release from prison in exchange for renouncing the African National Congress, served 27 years in prison and later became both the president and moral leader of South Africa.

People like Kevin Page.

Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer about whom I have written several times on this blog, will be completing his mandate and leaving office on March 25, no doubt much to the relief of the Harper regime, which has been persistently reminded of its fiscal ineptitude, lies, and manipulation of public information by his indefatigable quest for truth and accountability. The F-35 fighter jet debacle is perhaps one of the most obvious examples of the above litany of Harper shortcomings, and a steady target of the PBO, but not the last.

The Star's Tim Harper has a profile of the self-effacing Page in today's edition that is well-worth reading. As well, this editorial in the Montreal Gazetter, this piece in The Star, and this article from Macleans are also well-worth perusal.

For the sake of our national psyche, I believe it is incumbent upon us to honor heroes while they still walk among us.

One Book

Although it has been many years since I read it, I was very pleased to see that the Toronto Public Library has chosen Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 for its One Book annual community reading event. Although first published in 1953, this eerily prescient novel tells the story of a world where people are globally deterred from thinking by the banning of books, the addictive use of 'seashells' that whisper sweet nothings in their ears (read IPods), and the constant diversion of omnipresent large-screen televisions that broadcast the most empty forms of diversion imaginable. Sound familiar?

Without question, Fahrenheit 451 puts to the lie the fashionable notion that fiction has little to offer for the mind. And if that whets your appetite, give Aldous Huxley's Brave New World a try. Again, the parallels to today's world are stunning.

On Child Poverty

Late last year I wrote a post expressing my discomfort with the proliferation of foodbanks. Despite the fact that I volunteer at one, I can't escape the notion that it has become an enabler of government inaction on poverty in this country. As well, the fare available from foodbanks is generally of the canned and processed variety, high in salt and preservatives, hardly the basis of a healthy diet.

Over the years I have volunteered there, I have noticed that more and more of the clientele is not the chronically unemployed, but rather the chronically under compensated, those who are working at minimum-wage jobs that are wholly inadequate to meet their and their families' needs. I especially feel for the children who often accompany their moms on their monthly visits to our establishment.

While Ontario has made some progress in reducing child poverty, austerity measures and corporate tax reductions that have yielded few jobs have halted that progress. A story in this morning's Star paints a rather grim picture of what life is like for the 383,000 Ontario children still ensnared in rather dire living conditions:

In 1989, 240,000 Ontario kids lived in poverty, when the child poverty rate was 9.9 per cent. The rate in 2010 was 14.2 per cent, representing 383,000 kids.

One in 10 Ontario children in 2010 lived in households that couldn’t afford things like dental care, daily fruit and vegetables and “appropriate clothes for job interviews,” up 15 per cent from 2009.

35.6 per cent of kids in a household with a single mom lived in poverty in 2010.

92,500 Ontario kids living in poverty still have one parent who works full time, year-round.

In 2010, 7.1 per cent of children in the province lived in “deep poverty,” where household earnings amounted to less than Ontario’s median family income.

You can read the entire sad story here.

This One Isn't Much of a Challenge

But apparently our Prime Minister heartily disagrees, constitutional requirements notwithstanding (BNA Act 23:5).

Villagers With Pitchforks

Looks like these folks need some direction:

I suspect young Tim Hudak would like to provide it for them.

Tim Speaketh Again

The only trouble is, everytime he does, he affirms his incompetence. Yes, young Tim Hudak, the leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, has weighed in on yet another 'obstruction' that he believes can be remediated through his simplistic prism. This time it is that pesky perennial problem of those darned endangered species, or more specifically, [g]overnment regulations protecting endangered species [which] are throttling business:

In a speech Tuesday to the Rural Ontario Municipalities’ Association (ROMA) conference at the Fairmont Royal York Hotel, ... Hudak told 700 rural municipal politicians he would slash “the more than 300,000 regulations, outdated rules, and runaround that you have to cope with just to get something done.”

To drive home his point for those listeners whose thoughts might have wandered away from the prattling stripling in their midst, the lad who would be Ontario premier pronounced:

“The problem is that these rules are ... not allowing our agriculture and business sectors to grow.”

As an illustration of the evil obstructionism of government, Hudak tartly observed: In 2003, there were exactly 19 species listed — today, well over 121” - clearly a sign of government regulation run amok, and surely not an indication of a deteriorating ecosystem, a concept I doubt that young Tim subscribes to.

Unaware of his irony, he vowed to use “verifiable science not political science” to determine what animals to protect. This, despite the fact that, as pointed out by Natural Resources Minister David Orazietti, the assessment and classification of endangered species is conducted by experts on the arms-length Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario.

But then again, I doubt that the hapless Hudak ever lets facts get in the way of a good ideological rant, and would seem to prefer this as the only sign of real progress:

The Precariously Employed

The other day I made reference in a post to a study showing that half of the workers in the GTA are precariously employed, meaning they have unstable and unreliable employment with no benefits, a reality sharply at odds with the triumphalism of the right over the putative unalloyed good achieved by free trade.

This morning's Star editorial calls for changes in social assistance programs to ease the plight of these workers. Among the ideas being bandied about are more flexible child care, reforms to pensions, and new insurance models “that could create more economic certainty for people in precarious employment.”

While these ideas undoubtedly have merit, I think it would be a profound mistake to exclude corporations from the solution; despite the fact that it has become conventional wisdom that governments cannot consider increasing taxes, direct and indirect, on large businesses, that is one of the many reforms that needs to be included. Otherwise, of course, the rest of us will be alone in picking up the tab.

Canada in general, and Ontario in particular, offers a host of advantages to business ranging from a well-developed infrastructure to an enviable health-care system and a very educated workforce. Being able to shrink its permanent work force while exploiting these advantages has added tremendously to the corporate bottom line. It is time they started paying a larger portion of their lavish profits for those privileges.