A Working Mother's Perspective: A Guest Post

Along with many others, I have been both dismayed and disgusted by the attacks directed at Sophie Gregoire for her wish to have extra staff to handle the many speaking invitations and letters she regularly receives. A woman who obviously cares about the public good, she is being cruelly pilloried for that virtue.

I have refrained from commenting simply because many others already have, and I really don't have anything new to add to the discussion. However, a friend of mine, Jennifer Iachelli, a working mother of young children, wrote the following on her Facebook page. With her permission, I am presenting it here.
.......................................................................................................................................
I think when Ms. Gregoire-Trudeau asked for extra help, all of us working mothers, somewhere in our brains, whimpered "me too, please!" Some with resentment, others in steadfast support. It doesn't matter if you think the Prime Minister's wife is spoiled, or an overwhelmed working mom. The bigger questions are: Why is the role of the Prime Minister's wife systemically dismissed to the point where she has "no active duties" and it is therefore questionable whether she needs help? Why is the call for help on behalf of working mothers routinely dismissed?

To solve yet another one of these dilemmas of ingrained misogyny (God there are so many these days), let's get creative. Let's assume everyone is right. Families need more affordable daycare. Working mothers need help ploughing through the rough of this near path-less field of 21st century mothering. I mean really. If you saw the day a working mom puts in...I digress. Sophie Gregoire Trudeau needs some staff so she can be present in the moment with her children, and go to all of her charitable events, and be a good role model to all of us, and NOT be drunk by 5 pm everyday.

So what about this: Sophie says to Justin "Baby, (cause you know she does), the thing is, I am a leader too. And I need support. And the fact that all your buddies up on the hill don't even think respectfully of that request, well, it speaks to a larger issue for all us women. And quite frankly, I'm sick of it. So here is what you and your law-writing friends are gonna do. You're gonna write me a bill. Sophie's bill. I get three staff and a written acknowledgment of my role as PM wife, and you put that subsidized national daycare program in place, along with tax-credits for nanny fees. And I don't want to hear anymore shit."

This Looks About Right

H/t Graeme MacKay

Corporate Recognition Of Climate Change

When the insurance industry starts worrying, we should all be very, very afraid.

Bill Adams, Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) vice-president of the Western and Pacific Region, says the rising costs of insurance claims leaves no doubt that climate change is largely responsible:

"It’s happening. The wake-up call is now. There has been a radical shift in the frequency, severity and nature of insurance claims that we’re seeing as an industry in Canada."

According to IBC, insurance payouts from extreme weather have more than doubled every five to 10 years since the 1980s [emphasis mine], and since 2010, claims have hovered between $1 billion and a historic $3 billion, compared with an average of $400 million per year from 1983 to 2008.

Our head-in-the-sand approach is clearly counterproductive:

"I don't think we are adapting to our new weather reality nearly as quickly as we need to," Adams insisted. "I think most Canadians are largely if not (completely) oblivious. Those who are paying attention are those who have either always been engaged and had an understanding of it, or people who have been affected."

And besides the existential peril climate change presents, higher insurance premiums are on the way:

While the Fort McMurray fire alone is not enough to raise insurance premiums, he explained, a rash of wildfires across the country certainly could. It could take anywhere from one to three years to establish a trend, and once a trend is established, the costs will likely rise.

They certainly did after the 2013 floods in southern Alberta, he said, where some insurance companies are reported to have raised their average home insurance premiums by up to 20 per cent.

The Bureau predicts that things are only going to get worse, much worse, over the coming decades, and suggests all homeowners take measures to protect their properties. These measures include installing back-flow valves, using fire-resistant shingles, making sure wall cracks are sealed, etc.

It is a somewhat sad commentary that only when climate disaster strikes do most people take climate change seriously. Long-term planning and vision, it would seem, have never been our species' strong suits.

In The Service Of Truth

There are many truths today that, thanks to the almost reflexive, visceral response of an often vitriolic social media, few dare to speak. Most recently, linking the terrible fires in Fort McMurray with climate change has been one of them. Is it insensitive and opportunistic to draw such a connection, or is it only stating the obvious?

In a recent column, Thomas Walkom did just that:

If the world’s leading climate scientists are correct, global warming raises the probability of extreme weather conditions occurring – from drought to ice storms to floods to the kind of unseasonably high temperatures experienced this spring in Fort McMurray.

To say that the inhabitants of Fort McMurray brought this disaster on themselves is dead wrong. But to say that climate change played a role is not.

The Fort McMurray wildfire is not just a freak accident. Neither was the 2013 ice storm that crippled much of Toronto.

True, these things can happen without global warming. But climate change dramatically increases the probability of their occurring.

So perhaps the politicians should get over their squeamishness and begin to ask the tough questions.

Fortunately, Toronto Star readers show no such squeamishness, as the following letters amply demonstrate:

I’ve been accused of being insensitive for talking about the climate irony of the Fort McMurray wildfire, which continues to dominate the news in Canada. Many people have argued that now is not the time to discuss global warming and climate change.

I insist that now is precisely the right time to make the link between epic wildfires and climate change. Once the fire is over it will be too late. People will move on with their lives and the Fort McMurray climate disaster will be remembered as just another freak of nature as were the 2013 floods in Calgary.

Experts believe that the Fort McMurray blaze could be the new norm for wildfires as global warming continues to heat up the planet causing earlier and longer fire seasons with more severe and destructive fires. A warming climate has extended the duration of fire seasons – now 78 days longer than in 1970 according to the U.S. Forest Service.

Fort McMurray exists because of the tar sands, which produce a carbon-intensive bitumen that is adding to the world’s carbon problem. We are all consumers of oil products. This means we are all responsible for this raging inferno that has produced 88,000 climate refugees.

The climate irony continues to build. Premier Rachel Notley is now calling for the fastest possible return to full oil production by oil companies that have temporarily suspended operations. The circle is complete.

Rolly Montpellier, Ottawa

Congratulations of the highest order are due to Thomas Walkom for this column. At last we have a prominent journalist acknowledging that climate change “played a role” in this disaster.

Why political leaders, Elizabeth May excepted, have failed to admit the link is best known to themselves, but one wonders if Justin Trudeau fears that pressure may be brought to bear on him to get on quickly with transitioning from fossil fuels to electricity. This would put him at odds with the “international community,” which has, against common sense, agreed to delay action on climate change until after 2020.

What we must, regrettably, bear in mind is that the Fort McMurray fire is not a unique incident. It is part of a chain of disasters, some past, with many more to come. It seems that we cannot reduce the global temperature.

Even if the entire world switched to sustainable electricity at once (impossible), the Earth would go on warming for two more decades, then remain at the elevated temperature for 1,000 years, according to the Australian Academy of Scientists.

That’s all the more reason for drastic action, right now!

Ken Ranney, Peterborough

This discussion also begs the question of whether tar sands oil production is causing the temperature in that region to soar so high in the spring. I bet native groups would have an interesting opinion on this.

Rather than spending billions to rebuild Fort McMurray, so tar sands oil production can start up again, perhaps the federal government should be investing that money in renewable energy, wind and solar power.

Max Moore, Toronto

The Saudis' Assurances Are Worth Nothing, As Trudeau Well Knows

The Trudeau government is adamant about seeing through the $15 billion sale of armoured vehicles to human rights' suppressor Saudi Arabia, trying to hide behind assurances given that they will not be used against its civilian population. That, of course, is absolute nonsense, a fiction intended to paper over the fact that our leaders are essentially saying that blood money is acceptable, as long as the price is right.

I hated it when the Harper government lied to us, but I hate it even more that our 'new' government is doing exactly the same thing. The Globe and Mail reports the following:

Footage analyzed by The Globe and Mail shows Saudi Arabia using armoured vehicles against minority Shia Muslim dissidents in the Mideast country’s Eastern Province, raising serious questions about Riyadh’s tendency to use these military goods against its own citizens.

Copies of the videos, which date from 2012 and 2015, were supplied by Saudi human-rights activists who want Canada to suspend shipments of combat vehicles to Riyadh in a $15-billion deal between Canada and the ruling House of Saud.

The Trudeau government in April approved export permits for the bulk of these vehicle shipments in what Ottawa calls the largest advanced manufacturing export contract in Canadian history. The vehicles, made in London, Ont., are expected to ship over four years, and will have machine guns and anti-tank cannons.

The combat vehicles in the videos are not Canadian-made, but they demonstrate the regime’s inclination to use such military assets against its own people in a region that is very difficult for Canada to monitor. It also casts doubt on the Liberal government’s assurances that the massive arms sale to Saudi Arabia presents no risks for the country’s civilians.

As Flies To Wanton Boys

As flies to wanton boys are we to th' gods.
They kill us for their sport.

King Lear, Act 4, Scene 1

In earlier times, we would have blamed the gods for their capricious acts of destruction. Today, we know better. We need only look in the mirror to see the truth.

Enemies Of The People

I hardly think that is too harsh a description of both those who park their money offshore to avoid taxes and those who facilitate such evasions. Indeed, an open letter signed by some of the world's leading economists makes the cost of such selfish and criminal behaviour eminently clear:

As the Panama Papers and other recent exposés have revealed, the secrecy provided by tax havens fuels corruption and undermines countries’ ability to collect their fair share of taxes. While all countries are hit by tax dodging, poor countries are proportionately the biggest losers, missing out on at least $170bn of taxes annually as a result.

... we are agreed that territories allowing assets to be hidden in shell companies or which encourage profits to be booked by companies that do no business there, are distorting the working of the global economy. By hiding illicit activities and allowing rich individuals and multinational corporations to operate by different rules, they also threaten the rule of law that is a vital ingredient for economic success.

To lift the veil of secrecy surrounding tax havens we need new global agreements on issues such as public country by country reporting, including for tax havens. Governments must also put their own houses in order by ensuring that all the territories, for which they are responsible, make publicly available information about the real “beneficial” owners of company and trusts.

The impact of such behaviour is felt everywhere, but never more than in developing countries:

... while estimates put the cost to Canadian tax coffers at between $6- and $7.8-billion per year, the effects on developing countries is far greater, said Haroon Akram-Lodhi an economist and professor of international development at Trent University.

“The amount of capital flight from sub-Saharan Africa is absolutely huge and it’s all going into these tax havens,” said Akram-Lodhi, one of the signatories of the letter. “This is reducing the ability to fight poverty on a global scale.”

Will governments merely go through the motions of doing something, and then go back to the old ways once the fierce glare of the public subsides? I don't know, but I am somewhat dubious of any substantive changes, since the rich and powerful are, well, rich and powerful.

Now that a searchable database is online, this interview with The Star's Marco Chown Oved sheds some light on what can be found there:



One hopes against hope that real change is in the offing.

We Are All Capuchin Monkeys

Or at least I suspect we will feel like the one on the left in the following video, once the Panama papers releases its database of tax cheats and avoiders this afternoon.

I Know It's Tornado Season, But

... this certainly doesn't seem normal to me:

When The Unhinged Have A Camerman

... this is what happens.

A Timely Reminder

I have been convinced for some time that the prevailing message of those who truly govern us is that protest is futile. The following puts the lie to that propaganda, and perhaps serves as a timely reminder of the dangers of our own pending trade deal with the European Union, CETA. (You know, the deal that Chrystia Freeland and Justin Trudeau are so jazzed about.) The warnings in the following video are equally applicable to that deal.



H/t trapdinawrpool

Measuring Democracy

One of the concerns that has motivated me throughout the years I have written this blog is public accountability. Far too often, whether examining politics at the federal, provincial or local level, it is evident that public accountability, when it occurs, is often an afterthought, not a prime mover of our overlords. It is safe to say, I think, that ours is not a particularly healthy democracy, given that secrecy, obfuscation and misdirection far too often seem to prevail.

This proclivity seems to be the default position of those who govern us, and unfortunately, like the metaphorical disease that it is, it spreads and infects an array of institutions. This is egregiously evident when one looks at policing.

I have written extensively about the abuses of police power on this blog, and despite the fact that it happens with alarming regularity, there is little evidence that the police culture of secrecy is changing, given that it is aided and abetted here in Ontario by both Kathleen Wynne's government and the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), which is called in every time a police action results in either injury or death.

Because there are limits to even what I can endure psychologically, I have refrained from writing about the situation of Andrew Loku, a mentally ill man who was shot dead by police less than a year ago for allegedly wielding a hammer at his housing complex. The SIU report, as per tradition, remains a secret, even to the family of the deceased. All we are allowed to know is that the investigation exonerated the police from any wrongdoing.

Given the reactive nature of the Ontario government, a topic about which I wrote yesterday, it tried to placate public fury over the killing and subsequent secrecy by releasing part of the SIU report, a move that satisfied no one. It was truncated and heavily redacted.

The following letters from Star readers are ample testament to both the inadequacy of the report and the failings of our democracy:

Censored report raises more questions, April 30

Some 74 per cent of this report is secret. This abuses the very basic platform of transparency. The 26 per cent transparency shows how little respect for the voter the government really has. When public trust is bankrupt, remediation is needed.

I suggest that all such reports be made public within three months of receipt, the timetable verified by the Ombudsman’s Office. The report will contain no redactions that have not been approved by an independent council of legal experts and voters and shall be housed at arms-length in the Office of the Attorney General.

It is a sad day when I pick up the Star to learn that once again I’ve been blindsided by politicians “committed” to transparency. It’s a vote of no confidence by the politicians of the people. Public trust has never been so … redacted.

Don Graves, Burlington

The abbreviated Special Investigations Unit report into the death of Andrew Loku is surely in its current form an insult to the intelligence of the people of Ontario. Here we have the attorney-general’s office hiding behind the convenient excuse that deletions are “a result of privacy and safety constraints as well as legal requirements,” delivering what is essentially a “nothing report” and no doubt keeping fingers crossed that the public will accept the whitewash.

Well, it is high time this government learned that we have had enough and that we want, no, we demand, answers. Too many men have died at the hands of police and it is time to put an end to the SIU charade that presents itself as the arbiter of an impartial judicial report.

So, what is going on? Is it Queen’s Park or the police union that is preventing us from learning what really happens when shootings occur? Or (perish the thought) are these two bodies in on the act together?

It is difficult to think of any other group that would seek to keep SIU reports confidential and it is long past time for decisive action. In such crucial issues the public has a right to know exactly what is going on.

Are you listening, Premier Kathleen Wynne and the Liberal government?

Eric Balkind, Ontario

The release of the SIU report into the death of Andrew Loku provides very little information that we don’t already know thanks to the daily reporting by the Star. The hiding of 34 pages of the report simply indicates that nothing has changed. We are left in the dark on key issues surrounding Loku’s death.

I continue to be amazed as to why a political party that has just won an election all of a sudden forgets that it should be reflecting what the vast majority of the people want and deserve. Instead, these Liberals ignore legitimate requests as is the case is here.

There is a strong need to know exactly how, why and by whom a man’s life was taken. This should not be a secret society. Who can possibly be against shining a light on terrible events?

Al Truscott, Collingwood

Once again the dysfunction of our democracy to police the Toronto police is clearly demonstrated. The systemic problem of our democracy is evident when the civilian elected officials and appointees are co-opted by the secret system of policing to preserve its bad practices.

It’s not enough for the Star to demonstrate in its pages regularly the secrecy concealing the truth about one case – the problematic shooting of Andrew Loku and its subsequent cover-up.

Citizens, who are the many, who won’t or can’t administer their police, who are the few, have no right to claim that they are a democracy. Shame on us.

Tony D’Andrea, Toronto

When A Government Overstays Its Welcome

I am convinced that all institutions have a 'best-before date,' after which it is time for massive renewal. Comfort with the status quo, a sense of entitlement, a growing separateness from those they serve are all compelling reasons for 'creative destruction.' We have seen that process of renewal take place recently with the election of Pope Francis to head the Catholic Church, a hoary old institution much in need of a shakeup from its massive corruption and complacency. Unfortunately, such dramatic renewals are the exception rather than the rule.

In the political arena, we saw it federally with the election of the Trudeau government, tantamount to a massive rejection of the old fogyism and abuse of power that had become rampant in the Harper regime after almost 10 years. Whether true renewal is actually taking place under the new administration is something that only time will determine.

Then there is the sad case of politics in Ontario. After almost 13 years in power, power that should have ended in the last election but didn't thanks to a new leader, Kathleen Wynne, the Liberal government is showing all the signs of one that is tired, directionless, corrupt and increasingly out of touch with the citizens it 'serves.' To be honest, I reluctantly voted for that party's re-election, but only because there was no viable alternative. NDP leader Andrea Horwath, who had held the balance of power, sacrificed that influence by forcing the election in a bold and venal gambit for power. Tim Hudak, the Progressive Conservative leader at the time, was never a viable option for anyone except those who fancy village idiots leading their province.

And so we are left with the current situation: a government that apparently wanted power for its own sake, has made a fetish of eliminating the deficit by 2017-18, (hence the horrifying sell-off of 60% of Hydro One), and appears to be engineering policy on the fly. It is an administration that has become highly reactive in nature.

Examples abound, and almost all of them result from Toronto Star investigations. Take the issue of fundraising. Thanks to investigative work by Martin Regg Cohn, Ontario is soon unveil new rules that will surely minimize the corrupt practices of the past.

While there is still some way to go, the sweeping measures would represent a dramatic departure from past decades of what amounted to limitless contribution limits by companies and unions in Ontario. The main thrust, announced in late March by Premier Kathleen Wynne after Liberal fundraising practices were detailed in the Star — notably secret targets for cabinet ministers — would be a complete ban on corporate and union money starting next year.

Healthcare in this province is deteriorating. I was talking to a neighbour the other day who told me that he is being treated for lymphoma, but confirmation of his disease was not an easy task. He needed what is known as an ultrasound directed biopsy, but because hospitals are only funded for two per day, they could not even give him an approximate date for the procedure. Fortunately for him, however, he knew a nurse who arranged for a technician to do it for free on his lunch hour. Without that advantage, he might still be waiting.

Again, thanks to another Star investigation, those facing an even more dire situation, leukemia patients awaiting a stem-cell transplant, will get some relief from the risk of long waits due to funding problems, waits that often result in the end of their remissions, making the transplant far less likely to proceed. Indeed, up until now, the Ontario government refused to authorize transplants for those whose remissions had ended.

Thanks to the reactive nature of this government, in response to that investigation the province's Health Minister, Eric Hoskins,

introduced a critical policy change on Sunday that will make an entire group of cancer patients — those who have relapsed after chemotherapy — eligible for life-saving stem cell transplants.

It’s one of several measures Hoskins announced in a statement following an ongoing Star investigation into the systemic collapse of stem cell transplant programs in Ontario hospitals.

The minister, among other things, has committed to:

- Expanding access for stem cell therapy treatment, in Ontario and out of country, where clinically recommended, to leukemia patients who are not in complete remission after chemotherapy.

- Opening a second stem cell transplant centre in Greater Toronto at Sunnybrook hospital to take pressure off of Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, which closed its doors to new transplant patients in March. Princess Margaret’s medical director told the Star it would be “irresponsible” for the hospital to add patients to its eight-month waiting list when they know these patients must receive a transplant within two to three months of diagnosis for the best chance of success.

- Streamlining the convoluted referral process for patients sent out of country, a process that takes weeks as Cancer Care Ontario stipulated that a special review committee must vet all cases before funding is approved.

- Creating a ministerial task force to provide the government with “immediate and ongoing advice.” (A ministry spokesman could not say which experts have been assigned to the committee.)

The Star, as it is fond of saying, "gets action," but is this the best way to formulate policy, as a response to public embarrassment and odium?

I could cite a wealth of other examples, but since I am not a believer in long blog posts, I'll end here as I began: reactive policy-making and visionless government are the hallmarks of a tired administration, underscoring once more that famous observation attributed to Winston Churchill:

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

Will A Change Of Tone Be All It Takes?

Over at Northern Reflections today, Owen has a timely reminder via Henry Giroux of what Donald Trump really stands for: fascism, hatred, bigotry and exclusion. I noted in my response to his post the following:

It is interesting to note, Owen, now that Trump has virtually clinched the nomination, his handlers are obviously busy reworking his public persona. While he still espouses the kinds of things that Giroux discusses, he does so with a more subdued, 'reasonable' tone.

Optics are everything these days, and one fears that those who paid little attention to Trump earlier will now begin to seriously consider him. To see what I mean, take a look at the interview he gave to Lester Holt last night:

Elizabeth May Goes Where Trudeau Fears To Tread

Some would say that to link the terrible losses in Fort McMurray to climate change is insensitive and political. Of course, they would be wrong, since climate change is not an ideological issue, however much the deniers try to frame it. It is a fact.

While Justin Trudeau calls making such a link unhelpful, (not to mention politically costly), Elizabeth May refuses to tow the tread the safe and narrow path.

Prompted by questions from reporters at a news conference, May said that scientists cannot link specific events to climate change, but noted that the disaster was following a pattern.

“The fact that the forest fire season has arrived so early in northern Alberta is very likely a climate event - very likely related to extreme high temperatures and very low humidity, very low precipitation and it is, as we saw in the quote from one of the firefighters - it’s a firestorm,” she said. “It jumped a highway, it jumped a river. It’s a devastating tragedy right now and I think our focus is always on the right now: to think for the firefighters, for first responders, for people who are losing their homes. It’s a disaster. But it’s a disaster that is very related to the global climate crisis.”

Predictably, there is hell to pay for such candour, as her comments provoked

a vicious backlash after they were reported on social media websites from critics who accused her of exploiting the tragedy to advance a political agenda.

But truth is truth, as

... her comments were consistent with assessments from climate scientists that have predicted increasing extreme weather events linked to rising heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels.

The Trudeau government was also advised by bureaucrats when it was sworn in last November that wildfires were getting worse. The bureaucrats at Natural Resources Canada told its new minister, Jim Carr, that governments across the country hadn't provided enough funding to help communities prepare for the worst.

One hopes that the disaster in Fort McMurray is soon brought under control. Unfortunately, the larger crisis confronting all of us continues unabated.

UPDATED: Taking On Sarah Palin's Idiocy

I would say Jimmy Kimmel does a pretty good job:

“I have a theory,” Kimmel said. “I think maybe Sarah Palin wants global warming. It’s cold in Alaska. It would be welcome up there. But, the idea that she knows more than 97 percent of scientists is offensive and dangerous. No matter what Sarah Palin and these geniuses she surrounds herself with try to tell you, climate change is not a liberal-versus-conservative thing.”



If anyone needs more convincing, well, there are always scenes like this:




Or these scenes from hell:

Morally Weak, Intellectually Contemptuous

That's how I regard the justifications for continuing with the Saudi arms deal offered by Stephane Dion and his puppet master, Justin Trudeau. I see I am not alone in that assessment:

Re: Approval of Saudi arms deal was illegal, lawyer argues, April 22

According to the Prime Minister, the Saudi arms deal must go forward, notwithstanding profound universal concern about the Saudi government’s cavalier attitude toward human rights.

According to Justin Trudeau, “We will continue to respect contracts signed because people around the world need to know that when Canada signs a deal it is respected.” That statement is odd and troubling on many different levels.

Does Mr. Trudeau believe himself to be Canada’s CEO or its head of government? Are we employees of Mr. Trudeau or are we citizen of this country? Is Mr. Trudeau our boss or our servant? Does Canada, as a political entity, sign commercial deals, or is it rather commercial enterprises within Canada that sign deals, and it is the government’s job to regulate those deals? Most importantly, perhaps: Is Canada a large commercial enterprise or a nation that calls itself a democracy?

A likely explanation of Mr. Trudeau’s statement is that he has a habit of improvising rationales that are at odds with rationality, such as his perplexing statements to the effect that Canada will use fossil fuel production to combat fossil-fuel-induced climate change.

Stephane Dion has turned into a quick study in the art of sophistical rhetoric and improvised rationales. On the subject of the Saudi arms sales, he says he had “reviewed the issue with ‘the utmost rigour’ and will continue to do so over the life of the 14-year deal.” It seems I have been under a false impression that his government had been elected for a four-year term.

Earlier, he had cleverly stated that the sale was justified because the Saudi government has promised not to use the armoured vehicles to suppress domestic dissent. Even if we were to believe the Saudi claim, what about the serious concern about the Saudi ruling family’s hobby of invading neighbouring countries and massacring their civilian populations? Do we need that blood on our hands?

Al Eslami, North York

Jobs worth killing for? Online video April 24

Full marks to Scott Vrooman for, like many other Canadians, pointing out the rank hypocrisy of Justin Trudeau and the Liberal government. Could there be a more blatant example of this than the Saudi Arms deal?

While our Prime Minister will happily show up at any photo op for a Pride Parade or similar event (as he should), he quite clearly has no problem selling arms to a regime that executes people for the crime of being gay. If he can’t see the hypocrisy of that, he’s a fool.

This government’s supposed fresh new approach (transparency and honesty and optimism) is looking more and more like a variation of the half truths and manipulated facts that contribute to many people’s default setting with politics and politicians: distrust and cynicism.

Paul Romanuk, Toronto

And To Round Up The Week

Yet one more reminder of our collective folly:

Four Days In A Wild Weather Week

I admit I am a bit of a weather geek. To witness nature's fury and our powerlessness in its face is truly humbling. However, the other reason for my fascination with our increasingly volatile and destructive weather is the rueful recognition of our collective refusal to make any changes that might mitigate the worst effects of climate change. If given the option of sacrifice (losing some convenience, changing our lifestyle, taming our bloodlust for beef, paying higher prices for energy, etc.) or enduring the destructive force of climate change, it seems that for almost everyone, both leaders and the led, the choice is lamentably clear.

We get what we deserve:

A Rich Businessman's Humility

Far too many employers see their employees as disposable, fungible, or, even worse, targets to exploit. I am happy to report that the CEO of Chobani yogurt, Hamdi Ulukaya, is not one of them. He is giving his people a 10% share in his company, shares that they will be able to sell, once the company goes public. The money that these workers will soon receive means a lot, they say, but being appreciated means even more.

Watching this report, I couldn't help but wonder how different our world would be if more owners felt the same way about the people who make their success possible.



Should you want to read more about this remarkable gesture, click here.

The Truth Is Not Out There - It's Right Here

Fox Mulder of the X-Files got it wrong. He believed that the truth was 'out there;' in fact, it is right here, but as the Mound of Sound said in a recent post, we live in "a world full of fact-resistant humans."

Our capacity for denial seems almost limitless, perhaps most tragically attested to by our ongoing nonchalance about climate change. Despite increasingly severe weather events, melting arctic ice and rising sea levels, we insist on whistling past the graveyard. The time is growing very late.

Consider what Gwynne Dyer had to say recently:

We cannot count on the average global temperature rising steadily but slowly as we pump more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It may do that -- but there may also be a sudden jump in the average global temperature that lands you in a world of hurt. That may be happening now.

"We are moving into uncharted territory with frightening speed," said Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization, last November. He was referring to the fact that the warming is accelerating in an unprecedented way.

2014 was the hottest year ever, until 2015 beat it by a wide margin. 2016 may beat that record by an even wider margin. It was the hottest January ever and the average global temperature in February was a full fifth of a Celcius degree higher than January.

To take solace by blaming recent event on El Niño is folly:

As for the frightening acceleration in the warming in the past three months, that has no precedent in any El Niño year, or indeed in any previous year. It could be some random short-term fluctuation in average global temperature, but coming on top of the record warming of 2014 and 2015 it feels a lot more like part of a trend.

Could this be non-linear change, an abrupt and irreversible change in the climate? Yes. And if it is, how far will it go before it stabilizes again at some higher average global temperature? Nobody knows.

What was once thought to be many decades, if not centuries off, is now starting to materialize. Watch the following two videos to consider what may very well be in store for us, perhaps in the lifetime of some alive today, but almost certainly in that of our children and grandchildren:





Such scenarios are no longer in the realm of science fiction, but we continue to treat them as such, and it doesn't appear that anything will shake us and our 'leaders' from this state of denial. It therefore seems appropriate to end this post with Jimi Hendrix's version of Bob Dylan's All Along The Watchtower, a song that I have always interpreted as depicting impending doom:

Guest Post: A Manitoban Reflects On His Province's Choice of Brian Pallister's Conservatives

I have a friend in Winnipeg with whom I regularly speak and correspond. Although he does not work in the field, he is possessed of a keen mind and a journalist's instincts and methodology that enable him to frequently uncover an array of misbehaviour on the part of public officials and organizations. I have urged him to devote himself to these pursuits when he retires, perhaps in a blog or some other forum.

He has given me permission to publish a missive he sent me about the recent Pallister victory in his province. For very good reasons he wishes anonymity, so he will remain unnamed, but here is, slightly edited, what he had to say:

Montreal Simon is a well-informed man and also knows the importance of history. If only people remembered things, especially political history.

The point that bothers me the most regarding the conservative victory here is that it is so large. I was hoping for a miracle such as a minority government but the unwashed have spoken. It will take more than one term to extinguish this government just because there are so many ridings held by it. Back in 1977 I remember when the Lyon government came to power. As a political rube at the time (I was a wet behind the ears high school student in grade 12) I had no idea how partisan politics could become. Manitoba was perhaps a more ‘balanced’ place at that time as Lyon only lasted one term before the electorate threw him out. Now no one seems to remember the legacy of the Filmon government.

In the late eighties came the Filmon government. Thanks to the spread of neo-liberal thought Gary was able to win three elections in a row. I remember his puckish grin during a news interview for the latest triumph. He called his third mandate a ‘threepeat’, echoing his competitive jock background (was a big basketball star at Sisler High). Nobody now remembers his lies (‘We have no plans to sell MTS”), bureaucratization of health care (creation of regional health authorities with resident bean counters who ‘manage’ care), big investments in casinos (great jobs, right) and cutting funding in education and healthcare (16-20 million for each department); also a bald attempt to privatize segments of provincial healthcare.

Meanwhile as cuts and austerity were implemented in the public sector no one paid much attention to the money showered on the private sector. Let’s see; 16 million gift to the Winnipeg Jets pro hockey team, increase in funding to private schools, subsidies for international companies: an American phone centre company called Fanueil and a Korean computer outfit call Wang. Both folded their tents within a couple years and quietly left the province with who knows how much government cash. I think the crowning financial toilet flush of public money occurred in the late nineties when the government was preparing to host the Pan American Games. The final price tag was never really pegged but of course to ask the total cost would cast a pall over the festivities enjoyed by Manitoba’s class conscious elite. They wanted this so bad that I remember one of the province’s leading plutocrats actually coming out into the public light of day and demanding that the Filmon government spend more money on the games (or else he would quit the organizing committee).

Ahh Lorne, memory is such a curse. Why do I torture myself? Guess I will be living through ‘interesting times’ as the Chinese say.

To cap it off the news brings word of more victory for the dark forces; Duffy acquitted, no one in the PMO even charged. The CBC continuing to ignore stories of importance and merit. Here is a link to the Huffington Post. It published an AP story on South Korea. Maybe CBC avoided publication because it might affect its bid for broadcast rights for the 2018 games?

P.S.: John Ralston Saul was right in that we are an ‘unconscious civilization.’

Words, Words, Words

Talk, as they say, is indeed cheap.

During his New York trip, the prime minister touted an all-of-the-above approach where additional oil production can coexist with cleaner technology, and more wealth gets spent on energy innovation.

Not so sure that passes the smell test.

Rationalizations: The Slippery Slope To Hell?*

In response to a recent post on the Liberals' refusal to re-examine the $15 billion arms deal originally struck by the Harper regime with the repressive human-rights violator Saudi Arabia, an anonymous commentator wrote:

Who will tell the 5,000 workers and their families that they are going to lose their jobs? Will you contribute money from your fatty pensions to put food on their table so their children don't go hungry? Or don't you care?

I responded:

What you are arguing here, Anon, is that jobs are more important than people's lives. It is an argument that likely holds sway during a time when the neoliberal agenda prevails, but it is, at bottom, a totally amoral position, in my view. If followed to its natural conclusion, perhaps we should be attempting to offer incentives for handgun manufacturers to set up shop here as well. They would certainly provide jobs, but at what social and moral cost? As well, should we stop all efforts at mitigating global warming since they will inevitably lead to unemployment in the oil patch and all the industries that supply it?

Short-term gain for long-term misery is a devil's bargain.

In a similar vein, Scott Vrooman recently asked Canadians this question: "Are jobs worth killing for?"




Clearly, many would like to equivocate and take the issue outside of the arena of morality. Are such rationalizations the slippery road to hell?



* For the literalists out there, I am using hell in a metaphorical, not a literal sense.

Oh, That Ben Carson

Perhaps someone should tell the medical savant that the $2 bill no longer exists in the U.S.?

UPDATED: Obama: On Bended Knee To The Saudis

I'll defer to others much better versed than I am in the vagaries of international politics to offer a more informed analysis, but the recent deference of the U.S. toward Saudi Arabia warrants a closer look. Despite, or perhaps because of, an unfortunate recent characterization by Barack Obama of the repressive Middle East kingdom as free riders eager to drag others into the region's sectarian conflicts, he has made a 'mea culpa trip there to soothe over tensions.

But why the apparent deference? The obvious answer involves the Saudis' massive oil deposits as well as their strategic location, but another issue has arisen in which the American president is acting as a hindrance to those 9/11 survivors who want to sue Saudi Arabia:



As you can see, a real fear is the Saudis' threat to liquidate $750 billion in American holdings. That fear has likely prompted this deferential visit by an American president. Better, it seems, to deny your citizens justice than to face an economic upheaval.

The argument that Obama gives for trying to impede the bipartisan bill that would allow citizens to sue the Saudi Arabian government seems weak to me. He claims it could open the floodgates to other countries suing the U.S., but as far as I know, there is nothing to prevent such action now. The following report probably offers the most realistic assessment of the sorry situation:



The Saudis have consistently received special and deferential treatment from the U.S. Some will recall that shortly after 9/11, when all air traffic in the U.S. was grounded, a group of Saudis, including relatives of bin Laden, was whisked back to their kingdom. And as indicated in the above video, now it is trying to keep classified 28 pages of a congressional report into the attack.

Vox says this:

In 2002, shortly after a Joint Congressional Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks concluded its report, the Bush administration ordered that the inquiry permanently seal a 28-page section that investigated possible Saudi government links to the attack. It has remained sealed ever since.

Some members of Congress who have read the report, but are barred from revealing its contents, describe it as potentially damning. An unnamed member of Congress told the New Yorker, "The real question is whether it was sanctioned at the royal-family level or beneath that, and whether these leads were followed through."

"The 28 pages primarily relate to who financed 9/11, and they point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier," former Sen. Bob Graham, who is leading the charge to release the document, said in February.

It is an unwarranted protection of Saudi interests that must end, according to Andrew C. McCarthy, who, as described in a Wikipedia entry, led

the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks.[4] He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He resigned from the Justice Department in 2003.

Says McCarthy,

it is long, long past time — for the United States government to come clean with the American people, and with the families of Americans slaughtered on 9/11 by 19 jihadists, 15 of them Saudis. The government must disclose the 28 pages of the 2002 congressional report on the 9/11 attacks that it has shamefully withheld from the public for 14 years. Those pages outline Saudi complicity in the jihad.

It is nothing short of disgraceful that the Bush and Obama administrations, relying on the president’s constitutional authority over foreign intelligence and the conduct of foreign affairs, have concealed these materials.

Injustice frequently prevails in our fractured world. Despite all of the public clamour, I somehow doubt anything will soon change for those victims of terrorism currently seeking redress.

UPDATE: Thanks to Alison for providing this link:

Award-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh talked in a wide-ranging interview with journalist Ken Klipperstein about the complex relationship between the United States, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which he reported on extensively in his new book, The Killing of Osama Bin Laden.

Among other things, Hersh said in the exclusive AlterNet interview that the Saudi government bribed Pakistan with “hush money” to hide Osama bin Laden from the U.S. because the Saudis didn’t want the Americans to interrogate him.

“The money was from the government … what the Saudis were doing, so I’ve been told, by reasonable people (I haven’t written this) is that they were also passing along tankers of oil for the Pakistanis to resell. That’s really a lot of money,” Hersh told Klipperstein.

The bribe, in the form of money and tankers of oil, was in the amount of “hundreds of millions [of dollars],” but he didn’t have solid figures to share.

As well, be sure to check out Alison's post on the history of Canada's cozy arms-dealing relationship with Saudi Arabia.

No Simple Solutions

Over the years, I have learned to be wary of those who promise simple solutions or argue issues within a black and white framework. People who embrace, for example, Donald Trump's promises to 'bring jobs back to America' without asking the key question, 'How?' are acting like those religious fundamentalists who accept The Bible as literal truth. Similarly, when a particularly contentious issue arises in public policy, to reflexively embrace or reject it based on personal values, beliefs or ideologies is to negate the crucial role that critical thinking must play in informed and effective policy formulation.

Such, I believe, is happening in the assisted-suicide legislation introduced by the Liberal government. It is, admittedly, very cautious and conservative legislation:

The government’s proposal is more restrictive than some proponents of legal assisted suicide had sought. It does not include provisions for minors who may be capable of making decisions about their own medical care to choose to end their lives, nor does it allow for people in the early stages of illnesses like dementia to request an assisted death while they are still competent.

As The Star's Tim Harper points out, this compromise legislation satisfies few:

It created a void that is rapidly being filled by progressives who are understandably upset that the rights of those suffering grievously from mental illness, mature minors, or those who wish to provide advance directives have not been respected in this legislation, providing two tiers of those who are eligible to die with dignity.

It also left enough holes in the legislation for conservative opponents, in this case, many of Canada’s churches, to exploit concerns from their perspective.

In other words, almost no one seems satisfied with the proposal as it stands, including many Liberal senators, who want a bill that grants far greater accessibility.

But I am satisfied with the bill as it now stands.

I have given the issue a lot of thought, and although my position is perhaps no more valid than that of others who have devoted similar time to considering the notion of assisted death, allow me to state my view, for whatever it is worth.

First, I am totally in favour of the right to choose death for those who have terminal conditions and are facing a great deal of suffering as their disease progresses. ALS is one of the cruel diseases that comes to mind. Without any effective treatment or symptomatic relief, its terminal stages are terrible to even contemplate.

That said, I am also in favour of the very cautious approach evident in the proposed legislation. I have surprised myself by also being in agreement at this point not to allow those in the early stages of dementia to request assisted suicide after their disease has progressed.

This position, which I have come to after much thought, is not the one I thought I would hold.

I suspect that the majority of us fear dementia more than almost anything else. I certainly do, and for a long time I agreed with the notion that it would be good to be able to prearrange one's exit from a hopeless situation. However, two experiences, upon reflection, have altered my view and caused me to ask a fundamental question: Whose interests are really being served by allowing a dignified demise to the demented?

My mother suffered from dementia for the last five years of her life. Additionally, due to protracted stays in the hospital, she developed gangrene, first in one leg and then the other, both requiring amputation. During her full-blown dementia, which seemed to manifest itself with her first hospital stay for a broken hip, she was quite delusional, never really aware, it seemed to me, of her actual situation. Objectively speaking, by most people's standards, she had little quality of life - bedridden, confused, a mere shell of who she had been.

Yet she was sufficiently aware, until the last few months of her life, to know us whenever we visited her, and I like to think that those visits brought her some pleasure. Although she had been having earlier memory problems, my mother's abrupt transition into dementia seems to have also protected her from any awareness that would have produced profound suffering. If anything, she seemed always to be in good cheer.

Unlike my mother, my mother-in-law was aware that she was developing dementia, something she had always feared. Her descent was gradual, as is usually the case. It caused her some distress for a time as she realized what she was losing. Yet again, after being in assisted living and eventually a nursing home, as her disease progressed, she no longer seemed in distress, as her awareness of what was happening decreased to the point where it was ultimately non-existent. Again, I can't say that she was suffering, except perhaps due to what she once told me was her discomfort over 'communal living.'

Eventually, at some level, my mother-in-law decided it was time to die; she no longer ate, and drank very little. Quite rightfully, the family respected her wishes and allowed her a dignified exit without imposing a feeding tube, etc. to keep her alive. It was the right choice.

So I now return to my earlier question about whose interests are being served by allowing a dignified demise to those suffering from dementia. As my two examples suggest, it is not necessarily for the one suffering such a terrible fate. Could it not, at least in some cases, be for those loved ones who are distressed to see a parent, husband, wife, brother or sister in such a broken state, assuming theirs are lives no longer worth living?

My point in writing this is a simple one: while currently in our right minds, we may indeed feel that it would be best to prearrange our assisted death to avoid a protracted and undesirable demise. However, can we really know what we will feel like once the acute awareness stage of early dementia passes? If we cannot answer that question with any degree of certainty, it is best, I believe, to err on the side of caution, as the Trudeau government is currently doing.

Play The New Liberal Game

I believe it is called bloodshed for dollars.

I'm Just A Poor Boy, Nobody Loves Me

That famous line from Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody might have been the inspiration, and is certainly the subtext, for James Forcillo and his lawyer's pleas that poor baby James be allowed to serve whatever sentence is passed down to the killer of Sammy Yatim as house arrest.

The officer’s acquittal on a charge of second-degree murder means his use of lethal force was justified and the mandatory minimum penalty he faces is grossly disproportionate to his conduct, his lawyers argue in written submissions filed in Ontario Superior Court.

“The moral culpability of the applicant [Constable Forcillo] is at the lowest end that can be reasonably contemplated for an attempted murder conviction and there was no attendant harm to Mr. Yatim,” writes lead defence lawyer Peter Brauti.

In analyzing the verdict and the actions of Constable Forcillo, his lawyers maintain that it is not appropriate to impose a prison sentence. “The logical and legal effect of the jury’s verdict is that they accepted it was reasonable and necessary to kill Mr. Yatim,” states Mr. Brauti. “The second volley did not accelerate death in any way; it had no meaningful impact on Mr. Yatim’s health and it was incapable of causing Mr. Yatim any pain,” he adds.

Constable Forcillo’s lawyers also intend to appeal the actual verdict, but can not do so until after the sentencing.

Incidentally, unless he goes to jail, I assume Forcillo will continue drawing his police salary, as he is now.

Since I started with Queen lyrics, I'll end with them too, again from Bohemian Rhapsody:

Essy come, easy go, will you let me go?
Bismillah! No, we will not let you go. (Let him go!)
Bismillah! We will not let you go. (Let him go!)
Bismillah! We will not let you go. (Let me go!)
Will not let you go. (Let me go!)
Never, never let you go
Never let me go, oh.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Oh, mama mia, mama mia (Mama mia, let me go.)

Come to think of it, the entire song seems applicable to Forcillo:

Not An Obsession

Looking at the sidebar that lists the tags on my blog posts, I see I have written well over 100 entries on the police, most of them dealing with their abuse of authority; some of those abuses include the murder of unarmed or barely armed people, others the senseless beating of people. All of them attest to a constabulary, whether Canadian or American, out of control and contemptuous of any efforts to bring them to accountability of justice.

Some might say I am obsessed with the topic, but they would be wrong. What I think I am obsessed with is the desire for fairness and justice and an utter and complete contempt for those who abuse their power and authority.

Here in Ontario, that abuse is rampant, and true accountability is rare. The responsibility for such a sad state of affairs resides largely with the provincial government.

Governments seem loathe to incur the ill-will of those sworn to protect and serve us. With their 'us against them mentality,' the police have proven to be formidable forces to fear when politicians and other prominent people incur their wrath.

Legislators are failing us, and it has to change.

Consider, for example, the secrecy that surrounds SIU investigations of police actions. When their investigations are complete and they exonerate, as they almost always do, police officers who have either beaten, shot or killed a person, the public is not allowed to know the basis for exoneration, the names of the officers involved, or anything else that might provide an inkling of how the investigatory body reached its conclusion. What I didn't know until the other day is that such secrecy is not mandated under the Police Services Act.

As revealed in The Star,

the report prepared by the director of the SIU, the agency that probes deaths, serious injuries and allegations of sexual assault involving police in Ontario, goes straight to the desk of the Attorney General — and nowhere else.

The Police Services Act, the law that governs the SIU, says the watchdog’s director must report the results of investigations to the Attorney General. It doesn’t state the reports cannot be sent elsewhere or made public.

So what is stopping a wider release of SIU reports?

The spokesperson for Attorney General Madeleine Meilleur [says] the reports contain information protected under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, “including information relating to affected persons (e.g. persons seriously injured), witnesses and officers under investigation.”

According to Brian Beamish, Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner, this is a bit of an evasion:

“While the name of a police officer who has been the subject of an investigation by the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) would likely be personal information, there may be circumstances of significant public interest where the SIU may disclose the name or other information associated with its completed investigations for the purposes of fostering accountability and public confidence in police services, and ensuring transparency in its operations,” Beamish told the Star in a statement.

While public consultations will soon be announced by the Wynne government into Ontario's police oversight mechanisms, there really is nothing that exists in current legislation to either encourage or prevent much greater public accountability and scrutiny right now.

The bright light of public scrutiny is something the police themselves seem to fear, and while our political 'leaders' allow themselves to be bullied by our public 'protectors,' horrible situations like the killing of Rodrigo Gonzalez at the hands of police will continue:



Clearly, the dire situation demands strong, unambiguous and immediate remediation.

Andrea's Damascene Moment

In the Book of Luke, Jesus is reported to have said the following:

I tell you that ... there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.

In Acts of the Apostles, Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus is described:

As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

The pure of heart might indeed feel that those passages resonate when contemplating Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath's recent conversion to the belief that the minimum wage should be $15 per hour, latching on to a movement that has been gaining a great deal of traction over the past few years.

The more cynical might be inclined to see Ms. Horwath's new stance as rank political opportunism. Consider, for example, how she felt about such matters just two years ago:

"Well, look, I respect the work of the grassroots movements that have been calling for the $14 minimum wage, but I think that what our role is right now is to consult with families that are affected, as well as small business particularly that’s also affected”.

At about the same time, Ms Horwath was calling for the Ontario minimum raise to rise only to $12 per hour in 2016.

Apparently, however, she has some people fooled by her newfound allegiance to the working poor, as is evident from this Star reader's letter:

Raise the minimum wage, Letter April 11

At a recent speech for the Broadbent Institute, Andrea Horwath publicly demonstrated that her party has finally seen the light on a $15 living wage.

Her announcement is all the more noteworthy in a week when the North American Fight For $15 campaign had some rather momentous victories south of the border.

Governor Jerry Brown stared down the powerful business lobby within his own California Democratic Party to sign into law a path to $15 per hour. In New York Governor Andrew Cuomo stood up to Wall Street fear-mongering and signed the Empire State’s own $15 minimum wage law.

So the question for Ontarians, in a week awash in reforms and revelations, is whether any other party leader in Ontario will stand up to Bay Street bullies and bring Ontario standards into the 21st century by finally ending the shameful institution of government sanctioned working poverty.

If we can trade carbon with California can’t we also trade good ideas or will Ontario, California beat our Ontario to $15?

Mike Vorobej, Ottawa

I have never been a member of a political party. Perhaps if the day ever comes when I detect a leader acting out of principle and integrity instead of rank political expediency, I may join one.

A Powerful Statement

And one that needs no words:

A Shameful Exploitation

At the risk of overgeneralizing, it is easy to see why a reactionary institution like the police occupies a Manichean, bifurcated world, where the law of the jungle demands, "You are either for us, or you are against us." Even though such a world view depicts a lamentably shallow mentality, the frontline people who we rely on for our protection can perhaps be forgiven for that shortcoming. It is cowardly, indefensible and reprehensible, however, when those same protectors, in response to criticism that is not only valid but absolutely essential for a healthy functioning democracy, exploit both those criticisms and police tragedies, for their own selfish institutionalized reasons.

Consider, for example, this fact:

Black Lives Matter recently ended a two-week protest outside Toronto police headquarters protesting the SIU’s decision not to lay charges in the July 2015 death of Andrew Loku. The South Sudanese man, who lived in an apartment building rented to people with mental health difficulties, was shot dead by Toronto police while holding a hammer.

Because that sit-in resulted in some much-needed but most unwelcome (in the view of Toronto Police) attention to systemic racism within the force, Toronto Police Association president Mike McCormack mounted a counter-offensive that forced this show of support from Toronto mayor John Tory:

"I strongly support the men and women of our police service and the job they do day in and day out for us,” Tory said from China, where he’s leading a delegation of business and academic leaders. “It’s a difficult and complicated job.”

What forced this avowal of fealty from Toronto's chief magistrate?

Tory was responding to a Toronto Police Association internal memo to the rank-and-file, issued Tuesday, that raised concerns about new provincial regulations limiting the use of street checks and “broad scale lack of police support from provincial and local politicians and other public leaders.”

The TPA leadership also criticized a city council motion that passed unanimously earlier this month calling for a provincial review of Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit (SIU) “with an anti-black racism lens.” The SIU is the province’s police watchdog, which investigates incidents of serious injury or death involving police.

If the motion is acted upon, TPA president Mike McCormack and his board warned in the memo, “officers risk judgment based on political considerations and agendas driven by special interest groups.”

So in other words, the very legitimate grievances against the police are reduced to 'agendas driven by special interest groups'? Clever, but disingenuous and despicable. And also futile. The protest over the Loku killing has led to a decision to call an inquest, one that will force both the identities of the officers involved and the details of their shooting to become part of the public record, where such things belong.

But the above police efforts at deflection are pretty mild indeed compared to what follows.

No one but the depraved would wish a police officer killed, but when such tragedies occur, no intelligent, sensitive and critical-thinking individual would countenance the police taking advantage for the purposes of propaganda. Watch the following report to the end, and you will see what I mean:



In the above, Craig Floyd, National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund spokesman, explicitly places the blame for such shootings on the criticism of police, criticism that has become increasingly vocal thanks to their well-publicized murders of unarmed civilians, many captured on camera, like this one:



The police would much prefer that citizens turn a blind eye to their sometimes murderous tactics and worry only about themselves. Sorry, but this is not the way of democracy, and it is not the way a healthy society responds when their legal protectors go rogue. My advice to the police is simple: learn from your egregious mistakes, and don't try to justify or conceal them. Otherwise, much tighter restrictions will have to be imposed upon you. Somehow, I don't think you would like that, eh?

A Reader's Response

In response to yesterday's blog post, a reader had some well-considered commentary and observations that I am offering as today's post. I hope you enjoy them. Here is what BM wrote:

Many years ago in the late 1980s, I was asked to comment on the Brundtland Commission Report insofar as it related to our company.

That report talked about sustainable development. Within a couple of months, that sobriquet had already been changed to sustainable "economic" development by the various talking heads of the time. I criticized this co-opting of the terms compared to what Brundtland had actually said in my essay. Economics as such were not part of the report, sustainable development was, but none of the nitwits could see the difference.

BTW, there is a decent enough article on Wikipedia about the commission, the main point(s) being this"

""...the "environment" is where we live; and "development" is what we all do in attempting to improve our lot within that abode. The two are inseparable."

The Brundtland Commission insists upon the environment being something beyond physicality, going beyond that traditional school of thought to include social and political atmospheres and circumstances. It also insists that development is not just about how poor countries can ameliorate their situation, but what the entire world, including developed countries, can do to ameliorate our common situation."

This degree of cerebral thought went right past the heads of nearly everyone, including all I read in commentary about the report at the time. No, it was instead taken as a signal to rape and pillage the earth, because the new buzzwords were "sustainable economic development", which is a completely different thing to mere "sustainable development."

By 1993 I had become convinced that there was no chance that anyone would voluntarily cut back, sitting as I did one day on a plane to Ottawa next to David Suzuki sucking back his champagne and orange juice, wasting jet fuel.

The way I saw it then was that we had only the one chance to really cut back and examine what we were really up to on this earth, and we had better get down to it right away.

I also sickeningly realized that there wasn't the slightest hope in hell that anything would actually get done. Man doesn't exist like that. The selfish gene means that as biological entities we go on reproducing without limit come what may. Furthermore, any state control of child numbers to one per couple a la China still meant population increase, as mathematics will easily show if a generation is assumed to be 20 or 25 years. And in our primitive basic selves, government control of something as basic as the reproductive urge will never work.

So we are basically effed as a species. I don't think I've ever become despondent other than in an intellectual way about this. Back in the 1970s, I had worked out that the ideal world population was about 200 million humans. Then everyone could enjoy a reasonably comfortable physical and cerebral existence basically for ever. But the shrill environmentalists of the time turned me off. Just as today, everything has to be done IMMEDIATELY, frightening the general population, who just want to get by with a job, shelter and food.

It's too late now, but the same tactics are still being used. Panic, panic, you're either with us or agin us and thus an almighty fool. I really don't know if there is an answer, but am pretty convinced that the general population is highly unlikely to be swayed by logic of the LeaP variety, no matter what we may all would like to think.

I therefore declare myself as a fatalist rather than a defeatist.

BM

Here is what I wrote in response to BM's comments:

Thank you for your informed and insightful comments, BM. I can't disagree with your assertions, and, like you, the selfishness that seems to permeate our natures will surely be our undoing. Here are two small examples that I observe every day attesting to selfishness and egoism that goes beyond biological imperatives:

So many people are still driving huge vehicles that they don't need, be they trucks o SUVs. Indeed, every time the cost of gas drops, their sales increase.

People continue to spew greenhouse gas emissions through idling of their vehicles, whether they are waiting for a spouse in winter and keeping warm in their vehicle or in summer, when they keep the engine going for air conditioning.

If people cannot even make wise choices in these two very small matters, the big ones are obviously well beyond their capacity.

You are absolutely right: humanity is screwed.

Seeing Is Believing

While on the official level there is much todo about the best way to keep the world's temperatures from rising above 2 degrees Celsius, those who follow such things closely make it clear that that is likely a forlorn hope, given the feedback loops that seem to now be in play. And we are reminded almost daily not only of the destructive weather that climate change is bringing about, but also our powerlessness in its face:




So the uproar about real measures to ameliorate the situation, as found, for example, in the Leap Manifesto, seems almost quaint and is clearly indicative of our collective failure to truly contemplate our extinction as a species. In today's Star, Thomas Walkom tries to put that uproar into perspective:

Alberta NDP Premier Rachel Notley has called its centrepiece recommendations naive and ill-informed.

Writing in the Star, former party official Robin Sears has dismissed it as the product of “loony leapers.”

In the media, it is usually described as radical. When delegates at the NDP’s Edmonton convention last weekend voted to debate the manifesto at the riding level, some fretted that the party was about to ride off into a Quixotic dead end.

In fact, the Leap Manifesto, which first surfaced last fall, is neither radical nor uniquely left-wing.

Authored by Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis, the central premise of the manifesto is that carbon emissions can be reduced to zero by 2050. One of the cornerstones of that goal is an end to new gas and oil pipelines, something that naturally is vehemently opposed in Alberta, but not so much in almost all of the rest of the country. Additionally,

[l]ike Ottawa and virtually every provincial government, the manifesto calls for investment in clean energy projects. As Ontario has found with its windmill policy, this isn’t always a politically painless process. But except for the manifesto’s suggestion that, (as in Germany and Denmark) such projects be community-controlled, it is hardly novel.

Like Ottawa and virtually every provincial government, the manifesto calls for investment in clean energy projects. As Ontario has found with its windmill policy, this isn’t always a politically painless process. But except for the manifesto’s suggestion that, (as in Germany and Denmark) such projects be community-controlled, it is hardly novel.

Like the federal NDP (sometimes) and both U.S. Democratic presidential candidates, the manifesto opposes trade deals that limit government’s ability to regulate in the public interest.

Like former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin, the authors favour imposing a financial transaction tax to help pay for all of this.
They also call for a carbon tax (like that levied by British Columbia’s right-of-centre government), higher taxes on the wealthy (like those imposed by the Trudeau Liberals) and higher corporate taxes (as suggested by the federal NDP).

Workers displaced by the move away from the carbon economy would be retrained.

Walkom's point is clear: these are hardly radical or outrageous proposals, but rather ones that ultimately are necessary if we are to have any hope at all of saving ourselves.

Where Ignorance And Racism Reign Supreme

Yep, that would be Fox News. Watch the following 'deep' sociological discussion between Bill O'Reilly and Donald Trump as the former discusses why black youth are unemployable. How many stereotypes can you spot?

Start at about the 3:50 mark: