Such A Delicate Balance

One of nature's most intelligent creatures, elephants, are facing an uncertain future in Burma thanks to government efforts to halt deforestation, a crucial step in trying to restore some semblance of ecological balance. However, as with all things in nature, each change, whether for good or ill, has consequences, as you will see in the following brief video.

Also, please read the accompanying story to appreciate how, like humans, when they lose their sense of purpose elephants live shorter lives and often suffer from obesity. Sound familiar?

Magical Thinking, No; Progress, Yes

As every critically-aware person well knows, we are facing some pretty daunting challenges; the most pressing is clearly climate change, more urgent with each passing day as we are regularly reminded of the ravages it is wreaking around the world. Responses continue to range from denial, complacence and magical thinking to outright proclamations of doom.

While I remain deeply pessimistic about our chances here, I am willing to embrace neither surrender nor the perspective of the pollyannas in our midst who uncritically await a technological solution or, as I like to describe it, a deus ex machina. Nonetheless, technological progress is being made, progress that will surely be part of the arsenal in our survival kit.

Now that renewable energy costs are fast approaching parity, and in some cases below parity, with fossil fuels, the next major challenge is the engineering of storage capacity so that energy can be tapped into as needed. On that front, I am happy to report that things are moving ahead at an exciting pace.

First, there is the Tesla Powerwall, a home and industrial power storage device that can store power both from renewable sources and conventional utility sources when rates are low. It has the potential, given its pricing, to ultimately supplant home generators and help curb greenhouse gas emissions in the process. And there are other similar products with various price points on the market, each with its own advantages and disadvantages and most with both domestic and industrial applications.



Battery storage is but one of several technologies that can aid in the transition to greater reliance on renewable energy sources. And the beauty of energy-storage technology is that in many cases it will obviate the need to build costly mew power stations, as it will be doing essentially the same things they do: provide power on demand.

In the UK, the first plant to store electricity by squashing air into a liquid is due to open in March, while the first steps have been taken towards a virtual power station comprised of a network of home batteries.

In case the jurisdiction does not have mountains, as required in the above system, another method would seem to effect the same benefits:

Its new £8m demonstration plant, at Pilsworth, near Manchester, and funded by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc), is set to start in March. By compressing air 700 times into a cold liquid, it stores power which is released by evaporating the liquid air into a high pressure gas to turn a turbine. The 5MW system will be able to power many thousands of homes for a few hours. Gareth Brett, CEO of Highview, says it is like pumped storage, but can be sited wherever it is needed.

There are other storage approaches being implemented as well, including using the degraded batteries of electric cars, all of which you can read about here.

I think the point demonstrated by these emerging systems is that we really can be on the verge of dramatic changes in the way we secure and store our power that will contribute to a significant lowering of the greenhouse gases that are so imperiling our world. But both imagination AND political leadership are necessary for successful transition. I am confident about the former but not so much about the latter, despite the fact that the future of our world is at stake.

UPDATED: Some Americans Sure Do Love Their Ignorance

Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz says we should follow the scientific evidence about climate change, and then goes on to ignore it with confabulation and obfuscation. In Cruz world, it is all just a cover for the government's desire to have total control over everyone's lives.

Some Americans sure do love and embrace their ignorance, don't they?


Cruz is a fellow traveller with the other main contenders for the Republican nomination, Donald Trump and Marco Rubio, the latter denying that climate change has anything to do with human activity. All of which serves as prelude to the acerbic Bill Maher, who offers up his own assessment of such ignorance:



UPDATE: If the above doesn't sate your political hunger, perhaps an explanation for Ted Cruz will:

Two men with mirrors and a wooden cross interrupted a campaign event in Raymond, New Hampshire to perform an exorcism on Ted Cruz on Monday, saying that the Republican presidential candidate was “possessed by a demon.”

“He’s possessed by a demon!” the man yelled. “The demon has to leave. That’s why the body is so disgusting to look at!”

A second man holding a mirror urged Cruz to look at himself so “the evil can confront itself.”

“Evil body! Evil spirit. Look yourself in the mirror!” the man said.

This is as good an explanation as any I have heard thus far for the more than passing strange nature of current U.S. politics.


ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos

Will Any Woman Do?

There's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other.

So said the first woman to become the United States Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, at a rally for Hillary Clinton. Surely I am not the only one disgusted by the implication of that statement, that every woman has a moral obligation to support one of their own gender in her quest for the presidency, no matter how odious or inappropriate that woman might be:

While introducing Mrs. Clinton at a rally in New Hampshire on Saturday, Madeleine Albright, the first female secretary of state, talked about the importance of electing the first female president. In a dig at the “revolution” that Mr. Sanders often speaks of, she said that the first female commander in chief would be a true revolution. And she scolded any woman who felt otherwise.

“We can tell our story of how we climbed the ladder, and a lot of you younger women think it’s done. It’s not done,” Ms. Albright said of the broader fight for women’s equality. “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”

Not to be outdone, veteran feminist Gloria Steinem got into the act, somewhat ironically, on Bill Maher's show:

Explaining how women tend to become more active in politics as they become older, she suggested younger women were just backing Mr. Sanders so that they could meet young men.

“When you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie,’ ” Ms. Steinem said.

Realizing that this was potentially offensive, Mr. Maher recoiled. “Oh. Now if I said that, ‘They’re for Bernie because that’s where the boys are,’ you’d swat me.”

But Ms. Steinem laughed it off, replying, “How well do you know me?”

Take a look, starting at about the 4:00 minute mark:



One hopes, as one does with men, that critical-thinking will determine how a woman votes, not gender-identification.

UPDATED: It Isn't Just About Jobs

Although we live in a time that seems to demand almost constant preoccupation with the economy and jobs, sometimes there are more important considerations, such as a country's moral standing. Right now, that moral standing is in jeopardy thanks to the apparent inflexibility of the Trudeau government on the Saudi Arabian armaments deal. While it is worth a tremendous amount of money ($15 billion), many are saying it's just not worth it.

A poll released today is instructive:

Nearly six out of 10 Canadians surveyed by Nanos Research for The Globe and Mail say they feel it is more important to ensure arms exports go only to countries “that respect human rights” than it is to support 3,000 jobs by selling weaponized armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia.

Other countries are growing increasingly uneasy about dealing with the repressive Middle East kingdom that has little respect for human rights:

On Thursday, an all-party committee of U.K. MPs called for a suspension of British arms sales to Saudi Arabia pending a probe into Riyadh’s devastating military campaign in Yemen. A UN report last week said a Saudi-led Arab coalition has conducted “widespread and systematic” bombing of Yemeni civilians – killing more than 2,600.

Germany’s Minister of Economic Affairs and Energy Sigmar Gabriel recently signalled Berlin’s increasing unease over arms deals with Riyadh, saying in January the government needs to review future shipments. In the past 24 months, Berlin has denied key applications for arms exports to Saudi Arabia, including several hundred battle tanks and G36 rifles.

In Belgium, the head of the Flemish government, Minister President Geert Bourgeois, announced in January that he has refused an application for an export licence to ship weapons to Saudi Arabia and hinted he would continue to do so in the future.

While the Canadian government is adamant about the deal going ahead, pollster Nik Nanos believes the poll results provide an opportunity "... for the Liberals to cancel, stop, delay or modify the transaction”.

The question yet to be answered is whether Trudeau, especially in this case, is willing to put his money where his rhetoric about collaboration and transparency is.

UPDATE: Things are getting very interesting on this file:

Opponents of Canada’s $15-billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia are taking Ottawa to court in an attempt to block shipments of the combat vehicles, a move that could force the governing Liberals to explain how they justify the sale to a human-rights pariah under weapon-export restrictions.

Daniel Turp, a professor of international and constitutional law at the University of Montreal, is leading the effort, supported by students and a Montreal law firm with a record of class-action work and anti-tobacco litigation.

Turpin gives voice to what many Canadians undoubtedly feel:

“The idea that military equipment made in Canada could contribute to human-rights violations against civilians in Saudi Arabia and neighbouring countries is immoral. But we also believe that the authorization to export armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia is illegal”.

One can only hope that at the very least, the government will be forced to lift the cloak of secrecy around whether an actual assessment of the deal was done as required by law, and if it was, what that assessment revealed.

Heartbreaking And Shameful

Given our membership in the species, all of us should feel deep shame over the actions of our fellow humans:

The town has been under attack for years by Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces, yet the rebel fighters in Moadamiyeh won't give up; so the whole town is being punished.

Pro-regime checkpoints ring Moadamiyeh, preventing food and medicine from being brought in. Cut off, the town has become filthy. Locals say disease is spreading. The power is dead.

Siege warfare is an ancient tactic. Christian crusaders did it to Muslim towns and cities. Muslim armies encircled and strangled Christian holdouts. Kings, dukes and princes besieged each other's town all across Europe.

Now, in Syria, this medieval form of warfare is making a bitter comeback. And it's not just the regime's forces who use the collective punishment of innocent civilians to achieve their military goals. Rebel forces are guilty of the same crimes.

We Can Do (And Be) Better Than This

While I continue to have a guarded optimism about our new government, there are troubling signs that suggest that it has some conspicuous blind spots. Not only are the Trudeau Liberals showing every sign of carrying through with the very contentious Saudi arms deal, but it appears now they are expanding their Middle East customer base.

The Canadian government is busy promoting Canada’s defence industry in Kuwait even as a United Nations report accuses a Saudi-led coalition, which includes Kuwait, of “widespread and systematic” bombing of civilians in Yemen.

Essentially embroiled in a civil war between the Houthi and the elected government, Yemen has become part of a regional power struggle between Shia-ruled Iran and Sunni-ruled Saudi Arabia, which shares a long border with Yemen. Unfortunately, that power struggle is costing many, many civilian lives.

A leaked UN panel report last week attributed 60 per cent, or 2,682, civilian deaths and injuries in the Yemen conflict to air-launched explosive weapons and said the Saudi-led coalition’s actions are a “grave violation of the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution” and violate international law.

Targets in Yemen, the UN report found, have included refugee camps; weddings; civilian vehicles, such as buses; homes; medical facilities; schools; mosques; factories and civilian infrastructure.

Like many countries in the Middle East, Kuwait has a sorry human-rights record:

According to Amnesty International, even peaceful criticism of Islam and the emir, the ruling head of state, remains criminalized. The rights watchdog says human-rights activists and political reformers are among those targeted for arrest, detention and prosecution. Authorities have prosecuted and imprisoned critics who express dissent through social media and they have curtailed the right to public assembly, Amnesty says.

Although sales to Kuwait at this point seem to be limited to a flight simulator, the problem is Canada's openness to other military sales to the country. The head of the business Council of Canada, John Manley,

cautioned that blocking trade with foreign countries is a decision that should not be made lightly.

“It’s grounds to have a conversation,” he said of the UN report, adding, however, that “you’re not going to get the next deal if you can’t be relied upon.”

For its part, the Trudeau government is pleading both ignorance (the Foreign Affairs depart claims not to have read the UN report) and a historical relationship with Kuwait:

... department of Global Affairs spokeswoman Rachna Mishra said, “Kuwait has been a strategic partner for Canada in the Middle East for over 50 years, and we value our close relationship with them.”

So there we have it: a bit of obfuscation, some corporate influence/pressure and a vague departmental justification - not exactly a recipe to inspire confidence in our new government.

Thinking Beyond The Conventional

We are regularly told, both by governments and their corporate confederates, that these are tough times, and that only patience and a freer hand for business will bring about eventual relief. To the seasoned observer, such a prescription is utter nonsense, of course. Neither an expansion in good-paying jobs nor a contraction of the income gap has occurred under that roadmap.

The fact is there are solutions to many of the problems we face today, whether it be climate change, the grinding poverty that so many contend with, or the sad plight of our native peoples, to name but three. Yet these solutions, while well-known and well-researched, always seem just over the next horizon, never to be realized.

Consider the matter of the guaranteed annual income, which I have written about previously on this blog. A recent piece by Glen Hodgson and Hugh Segal suggests the time is right for such a program, especially since countries in Europe are giving it serious consideration.

How does a guaranteed annual income system work? Basic income support would be delivered as a tax credit (or transfer), administered as part of the income tax system. Existing social welfare programs could be streamlined into this single universal system, thereby reducing public administration and intervention. Earned income for GAI recipients could be taxed at low marginal rates, thereby lowering the existing “welfare wall” of high marginal tax rates for welfare recipients who try to break out of welfare by working and providing a stronger incentive for recipients to work and increase their income.

The benefits of such a program would be many: poverty reduction, better health outcomes, greater labour force engagement, etc. And to top it all off, it would likely save money since it would replace the siloed benefit programs that currently exist, thereby significantly reducing administrative costs.

Even if you don't believe that a guaranteed annual income would be cost effective, there are other untapped sources of revenue that could fill the gaps and do much, much more. One of those sources is a form of the Tobin Tax, a tax on financial transactions.

The New York Times writes:

A financial transaction tax — a per-trade charge on the buying and selling of stocks, bonds and derivatives — is an idea whose time has finally come.

A well-designed financial transaction tax — one that applies a tiny tax rate to an array of transactions and is split between buyers and sellers — would be a progressive way to raise substantial revenue without damaging the markets. A new study by researchers at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has found that a 0.1 percent tax rate could bring in $66 billion a year, with 40 percent coming from the top 1 percent of income earners and 75 percent from the top 20 percent. As the rate rises, however, traders would most likely curtail their activity. The tax could bring in $76 billion a year if it was set at 0.3 percent, but above that rate, trading would probably decrease and the total revenue raised would start to fall.

As the editorial points out, it is already being applied in a limited number of countries:

There are already financial transaction taxes in Britain, Switzerland and South Korea as well as in Hong Kong and other developed markets and emerging nations, generally at rates of 0.1 percent to 0.5 percent on stock transfers. In addition, 10 countries in the European Union, including Germany and France, have agreed to apply a common financial transaction tax starting in 2017, though relentless lobbying by investment banks and hedge funds threatens to delay and even derail the effort.

That last sentence, of course, epitomizes the main obstacle to implementation, the opposition of the moneyed forces who seem to see any taxation as a capitulation to some kind of socialist scheme. Unfortunately, those forces seem to almost always have the ear of government.

So despite the propaganda, there are ways to bridge the yawning gulf that separates those who have a lot, and those who have little. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

A Well Of Humanity

Sometimes the world seems to be a cold and uncaring place. But at other times, it proves itself to be anything but:

This Does Not Sound Good

Given that the government of Justin Trudeau is in favour of trade deals such as the TPP, its approval seems a foregone conclusion, despite its many grave potential drawbacks:



For a fuller discussion of the above graphic, please click here for both text and links.

To Serve And Protect Who?

Were I so inclined, I could probably devote this blog solely to police misconduct, so extensive does it seem. Perhaps it is due to the Forcillo conviction for the attempted murder of the late Sammy Yatim that we are more sensitive to the issue, but each day seems to bring new information about police behaving badly. A crisis of public confidence is not too strong a phrase to describe the public's growing distrust of those sworn to protect and serve.

And to make matters worse, as I observed in a post earlier this week, the police, or at least their unions, are reacting with outrage rather than humility at these charges and convictions, a fact that does not bode well for changing the culture and profile of our protectors.

In its letters section today, The Toronto Star features an entire page of public reactions to the Forcillo conviction. Each letter is worth reading, but I reproduce just a few below to offer you a sampling of sentiments:

.... Police spokespeople have publicly worried that the verdict will “send a chill through the force.” But if a chill is what it takes to soothe the itchy trigger fingers of cops like Forcillo, then it’s exactly what we need. These men and women are given public permission to patrol our streets armed with increasingly deadly force. It’s time they understood that public scrutiny is part of that privilege – scrutiny that will become a bit uncomfortable now and then. Or are we supposed to look the other way when a citizen is killed?

As your editorial notes, the verdict will be small comfort to the Yatim family, but at least it’s something. And the Star deserves credit for its excellent series on police abuse and accountability in the GTA, “Breaking badge.” I believe that it has helped to shift our outdated attitudes towards the police.

Andrew van Velzen, Toronto

The TPS police union boss, Mike McCormack said he is “disappointed with the guilty finding and it sends a chilling message to other cops.” I agree. Indeed, disappointing the original charge was reduced and chilling that the blue wall choose to close ranks to protect a criminal in their midst rather than “serve and protect” the public.

Time for handlers at the senior police levels and politicians to take note. No more impunity for bad cops who have previously executed the emotionally or mentally upset among us. Rather than deescalating the situation. A overdue message to any cop who may wish to play fast and loose with civilian lives. Now consequences attached.

This is the first time in Ontario history a out of line cop actually has been convicted. Now the question is, will his legal weasels continue to attempt to subvert justice by their gyrations allowing this soon to be ex-thug in blue to escape?

Paul Coulter, Kincardine

Forcillo’s lawyer spoke of “trial by YouTube.” How about “trial by seeing is believing” or “trial by a picture is worth a thousand words.”‎

Let’s be clear here; no video, no conviction. All on-site police testifying in court would have backed and supported their brother’s need to use the excessive force repeatedly delivered on a dead or dying individual.

Tim Strevett, Hamilton

As in countless other trials, no one has emerged a winner here. Both Forcillo and Yatim’s family have lost.

I have to wonder, however, at the defence decrying the video shot that night, and suggesting it precluded a fair trial. When the police install cameras in the city and seek greater powers to snoop, we are told, if you are not doing anything wrong, you should not fear this surveillance. It seems, in this unhappy case, the police have learned they, too, are being watched and recorded.

Video evidence is virtually unrefutable; that’s why law enforcement wants it. Now, however, it seems the shoe is on the other foot.

G.P. Wowchuk, Toronto

...what should be most disturbing to the public is Mike McCormack’s reaction that the verdict is sending a “chilling message” to the police. The police still don’t get it. This reaction is itself sending a cold blooded warning to the public.

Torontonians have reason to beware the police when their spokesperson insists on their right to remain above the law.

Tony D’Andrea, Toronto

"It Was Very Malicious Of Them To Leave This Town In The Shape It's In" - A Tale Of Walmart's Depredations

The above observation is voiced by a former grocery store owner whose business closed shortly after Walmart moved into her town. But this is not just another story about how the retail behemoth drives out competition through its predatory pricing practices; it is a tale of what happens after it has wrung out all the profits it can and then vamooses from town for the sake of its 'corporate health,' leaving its former patrons with nowhere to shop.

This sad scenario, being played out in 150 small U.S. towns, is a sobering reminder that all too often the term 'corporate responsibility' is but a cruel oxymoron:

More On James Forcillo

H/t Toronto Star

In response to yesterday's post, both the Salamander and the Mound of Sound offered some interesting commentary. The Salamander has experience in dealing with troubled and armed youth, as you will see, and The Mound has had careers both in journalism and the law. I am therefore reproducing their respective observations below:

.. the slow motion process of the Forcillo trial re the killing of Sammy Yatim has come to a temporary junction point. the toronto newstalk jocks can't get enough of expert opinion, so called public sentiment & various views from officialdom. In the past I described my own experiences, to the estimable Mound.. wherein I was called upon to deal with emotionally disturbed teens, drug addicted teens and triple maximum security juveniles.. I was never armed by the way.

Sammy Yatim was troubled, delusional & psychotic.. 1/2 of a collision looking for the other 1/2 .. that's very clear via video evidence, medical history & post mortem toxicology. He was 'out there' .. 'crispy' & as likely to try and swim to Rochester as he was to confront a dozen armed police.

But the killing is really about fearful Forcillo, a known hothead cop who'd pulled his gun a dozen times in 3 years. So lets keep the event very very concise, shall we? Most anyone has seen the various videos of Sammy Yatim's last moments & is aware of Forcillo's 'defense'.

Of course I'll paint it in a slightly different light.. as I've been there, done it, got the t-shirt.. dealing with delusional drug addled teens.. with a weapon.. and nobody died!

Forcillo and his female partner arrived on scene as a seemingly damn cool TTC driver gave up and left his streetcar. 'Taking charge' .. so to speak, Forcillo confronted the teen from a close but safe distance, shouting profanity laden 'orders' as his memory challenged partner holstered her weapon.

In the midst of numerous armed cops beside and around him, Forcillo feared for his life, such was the threat of knife wielding Sammy Yatim, up there inside a streetcar. Really now? Armed cops standing on either side of him, behind him, at the rear doors etc.. and Forcillo thought the teen could fly like a witch and get to him from the streetcar, without descending the steps & covering the 10 foot gap to that crowd of armed cops?

Forcillo exemplifies 'failure' .. the 'fearful' defense is so limp that its to laugh at.. but the Force must close ranks. In reality I suspect other cops curse Forcillo on a daily basis. The idea that his 'training' was to do what he did in approx 50 seconds of disastrous failure is to laugh at. Somewhere right near the bottom of the Toronto Police hires in the last 5 years is Forcillo.. a weak link deserving to drive a desk.. maybe in data entry or vehicle maintenance.. To let him deal with the public, much less ever own a gun again would be a travesty.. Amen, end of story.

I'm not satisfied the judge handled the case correctly either, Lorne. The judge issued revised instructions to the jury after they had deliberated that, to me, sounded bizarre.

The whole theory of whether this was one or two shooting events was confusing. The coroner testified about the nature of the wounds inflicted at the outset, when Yatim had been standing, contrasted with the subsequent wounds from bullets that struck a prone victim. Wound paths are readily traceable.

As I understand it the forensics suggested the initial three wounds were mortal. Yatim would have died without more. How then to treat the next five wounds? The Crown chose to treat that as attempted murder.

In firing squad executions is the coup de grace administered after the initial volley a separate event? I don't see it that way. It's collateral to the first shots.

I think an appellate court might order a retrial. I suspect that better Crown counsel might rethink the prosecution theory and look beyond the 5-second pause.

If, as the video suggests, Yatim collapsed with the first shot, were the second and third really justified? Was the first shot warranted unless Yatim made some clear move to exit the streetcar such as stepping into the stairwell? That, to me, was the obvious threshold to the "self defence" business.

I think the Crown may have muddied the waters and left the judge to deliver an incoherent, confusing charge to the jury. Were I sitting on the appeal I think I would set aside both verdicts and direct a new trial.

Clarity On Rona Ambrose

Ed Tanas helps shed some light on the temporary Tory leader and chief resident hypocrite (competing with Tony Clement for that title, of course).

Not A Moment Of Humility Or Uncertainty

I have avoided writing about the semi-acquital of Sammy Yatim's killer, Officer James Forcillo, partly because it sickens me when miscarriages of justice occur. Adding insult to injury is his lawyer's attempt to get his conviction for attempted murder stayed

...because Forcillo “substantially followed his training,” which was provided by the state.

“The state,” he said, “should be disentitled to a conviction because they . . . provided the training to him.”

Even more upsetting is the reaction of the police union, which you will see in a moment. But first, I'd like you to take a look at a clip about an execution perpetrated by the Cleveland police three years ago; especially offensive is the reaction of their union which, as you will see in the second clip, has some eerie echoes of Toronto police union head Mike McCormack's comments on Forcillo's conviction.





MsCormick laments that it sends a chilling message to front-line officers, as well it should. Unfortunately, the real message they will refuse to process is that when they violate their oath to serve and protect, they will be held accountable by the state, however imperfectly.

Humility, not police outrage, would be the proper reaction in both the Cleveland and Toronto cases.

"The Ocean, If It Wants Us, It'll Come And Take Us"

So says a bemused victim of climate change in California. Jaw-dropping and chilling is how I would describe this, yet another reminder of our powerlessness in the face of nature:

A Good Question

There are days when it is difficult to see any long-term future for the human race. Stories abound of both our collective and individual acts of brutality that attest to the fact that purely animal urges prevail within us far too frequently. The scintilla of hope that something better is possible is offered, paradoxically, by collective and individual acts of kindness and compassion that also occur on a regular basis.

The problem, it seems to me, resides in our refusal to tame and regulate the bestial side of our nature, its most frequent expression being found in the behaviour of those who claim to represent us, our governments. Too many of us are content to simply throw up our hands and say these things are out of our control, and then go on to divert ourselves with the latest technological toy. Neil Postman wrote about such in Amusing Ourselves to Death.

I am, however, frequently buoyed by letters to the editor that amply demonstrate that there are those among us with insight, clarity and the capacity for analysis and are willing to challenge the insensate among us. Two such letters I reproduce below:

Husband of terror victim cut PM's call short, Jan. 22

I sympathize with the families of people killed in the Burkina Faso terror attack but I can’t help wondering about suggestions that Canada should step up bombing in Syria in retaliation. The Canadians were killed in Burkina Faso. Would it not be more satisfying retribution to send our planes to bomb Burkina Faso?

But who do we blame for the attacks? If the killing of a few Canadians in Burkina Faso justifies bombing attacks in Syria, then surely the killing of Canadians in Burkina Faso was justified by the killing of Afghans in Afghanistan, Iraqis in Iraq and Syrians in Syria. Turnabout is fair play, they say, and at this stage we of the Western world are ahead by several hundred thousand killings. Let’s hope ISIS and other “terror” groups don’t try to even the score.

We could also note that bombing has never yet won a war. Hitler’s blitz did not knock England out of World War II and when economist J.K. Galbraith studied the effect of allied bombing on Germany, he found that German arms production had peaked in late 1944.

We had air superiority, but the Korean war was a draw. The Americans dropped more bombs in Vietnam than they had in World War II, but they lost the war. The bombing of Cambodia helped Pol Pot to take power there.

It’s lots of fun to bomb an “enemy” and it’s very profitable for the corporations that make the planes and the bombs, but the evidence suggests that bombing builds, rather than breaks, resistance.
Western governments have spent billions of dollars on the series of wars that George Bush Sr. began and Jr. continued, but we’re a long way from peace. Does anyone else notice that the flood of refugees coming to Europe from Libya, Iran, Afghanistan and Syria are coming from three countries that the U.S. “liberated” from governments that people did not see the need to flee, and one that was for years a client state that, in one case at least, tortured a Canadian on the orders of American “security” forces.

Maybe the best way to end terrorism would be to stop provoking it.

Andy Turnbull, Toronto

Respectfully, Westerners have no business in countries such as Burkina Faso, a state that is frequently rated among the worst countries in the world. Suggesting Prime Minister Trudeau is wrong to pull fighter jets in the fight against terrorism is unfair and just plain folly as incidents such as the recent deaths of six Quebec residents in the terrorist attack in Burkina Faso are literally a daily occurrence across the width and breadth of the African continent as well as many other territories in the world.

People who visit such countries in the name of faith-based altruism do so at their peril, and should not expect the governments of their home states to be held accountable for their misfortune. Tough, unsympathetic words? Perhaps, but that is the reality of the world we live in.

States such as Burkina Faso must forge their own destiny. Westerners who wish to help others in the name of faith would be better served if they looked in their own backyard first before disseminating their brand of religious altruism abroad.

Louis MacPherson, Bowmanville

Both letters will, no doubt, provoke a flurry of outrage. The truth often hurts.

Canada To Sign TPP

The federal government has confirmed that it intends to sign the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal at a meeting next week in New Zealand.

But that doesn't mean the Liberal government will ultimately ratify the 12-country treaty, International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland said Monday.

"Just as it is too soon to endorse the TPP, it is also too soon to close the door," Freeland wrote in an open letter posted on her department's website.

"Signing does not equal ratifying.... Signing is simply a technical step in the process, allowing the TPP text to be tabled in Parliament for consideration and debate before any final decision is made."

'We're very much not there yet' on TPP, says trade minister

Only a majority vote in the House of Commons would ensure Canada's ratification of the deal, she added.

Methinks that with a Liberal majority, that ratification is a foregone conclusion.

Forget What Your Grandparents Told You

.... about going through five-foot drifts of snow as they walked ten miles to school. They never had to deal with conditions like this:

The Only Way To Treat Sarah Palin

...is with the ridicule she and her word salad constructions so richly deserves:

Sarah Palin isn’t one of those people who needs help making a fool of herself. It seems as though every time she opens her mouth something incredibly stupid comes out.

Whether it be a re-written history of the American Revolution, a drunken rant guaranteed to earn her the disrespect she deserves or an incredibly ludicrous shaming of the president for raising her son wrong, Sarah Palin may just go down in history as the dumbest person ever to be given a voice in Republican politics.

In this short clip from Comedy Central’s @Midnight with Chris Hardwick, Palin’s latest Yukon Jack influenced rant at a Donald Trump rally is turned into something even more ridiculous than it already was. In just under two minutes, Hardwick pulls a lampoon comparing Palin to Yosemite Sam that will have you rolling on the floor laughing your @$$ off for sure.

A Graphic Illustration Of Humanity's Hubris

People of a certain age will remember the commercial with the tagline, "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature." Heedless of that warning, that's exactly what we continue to think we can do, despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

Some will take false comfort in blaming this year's weather disasters on a strengthened El Nino, ignoring why it is so strong; others will insist that climate change mitigation will destroy the economy. Still others will wait for a technological deus ex machina to save us all.

Perhaps they all should look at the latest evidence that nature always has the final say, and that our piddling opinions, rationalizations and magical thinking account for absolutely nothing in the larger scheme of things:

A Progressive Vision

Although I rarely attend a church service, this is the kind of vision I heartily approve of.

Some Things Just Can't Be Fixed

And that would appear to include the political career of Republican Michigan Governor Rick Synder. In an effort to staunch the political bleeding over the fact that the state did nothing while Flint residents were drinking toxic water, Snyder has released a flurry of emails, some heavily redacted, that show the contempt and disdain with which complaints about the water were being met.

Depraved indifference does not seem to be too strong a phrase to use in describing officials' reactions to the problem.

A top aide to Michigan’s governor referred to people raising questions about the quality of Flint’s water as an “anti-everything group.” Other critics were accused of turning complaints about water into a “political football.” And worrisome findings about lead by a concerned pediatrician were dismissed as “data,” in quotes.

It was not until late in 2015, after months of complaints, that state officials finally conceded what critics had been contending: that Flint was in the midst of a major public health emergency, as tap water pouring into families’ homes contained enough lead to show up in the blood of dozens of people in the city. Even small amounts of lead could cause lasting health and developmental problems in children.

Though Mr. Snyder issued the emails as part of an effort to reveal the administration’s transparency on the matter, the documents provide a glimpse of state leaders who were at times dismissive of the concerns of residents, seemed eager to place responsibility with local government and, even as the scientific testing was hinting at a larger problem, were reluctant to acknowledge it.

Perhaps the final words on this disaster should be left with Flint's mayor:

In Washington on Wednesday, Flint’s mayor, Karen Weaver, who was attending the Conference of Mayors, said such lead contamination would never have been permitted had Flint been a rich suburb.

Thus have been laid bare Republican sensibilities and values.

Tag Team Politics

"An absolute ass(et)" is how Donald Trump supporter Jeffrey Lord describes Sarah Palin contribution to Trump's campaign. Not everyone agrees:

UPDATED: She's Back

And it sounds like Stephen Colbert has missed her. I haven't.



UPDATE: If the above does not sate your appetite for all things Palin, take a look at Vienay Menon"s Sarah Palin’s 8 rules of parentin’.

Only A Start

A bane of the neoliberal agenda but salvation to countless Canadians, the vision of a national pharmacare program has made a baby step toward realization.

The federal government has joined Canadian provinces and territories in a bulk-buying drug program that aims to lower the cost of prescription medications.

Health Minister Jane Philpott says drug plans administered by the federal government will unite with the provincial and territorial pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance, which negotiates to lower prices on brand name and generic drugs.

Philpott says in a statement that combining the negotiating power of federal, provincial and territorial governments achieves greater savings for all publicly funded drug programs, increases access to drug-treatment options and improves consistency of pricing across Canada.

While this development is most welcome news, (after all, the Alliance did save buyers $490 million last year) it can only be viewed as an interim measure on the seemingly endless journey toward a national drug plan that would save countless lives and billions of dollars currently being spent inefficiently by both government and private citizens; indeed, many of the latter can ill afford the costly prescriptions that could keep them out of hospital or worse.

A recent column by The Star's Martin Regg Cohn casts the problem into sharp relief:

[I]f we had grappled with prescription drugs the way advanced West European countries have, we would be saving billions of dollars a year by now. Canada is second only to the U.S. in per capita spending on prescription drugs, well ahead of European countries.

In fact, Canada keeps paying the price for a wasteful, inefficient, inequitable, fragmented system that leaves every patient to fend for himself or herself — unless he or she has a company drug benefit plan, gets welfare, or qualifies for seniors’ subsidies. If you’re working poor, or merely working precariously (as many young people are today, jumping from job to job or flitting from contract to contract, never qualifying for benefits coverage) ... tough luck.

While we are rightfully proud of our healthcare system, one that stands in sharp contrast to that of the United States, we have tended to ignore the fact that ours is the only Western publicly-funded system that doesn't have a pharmacare component. This grave deficiency has even been acknowledged and deplored by the right-leaning C.D Howe Institute which, in a recent study, drew the following conclusion:

It is clearly time to rethink pharmacare in Canada. Though the immediate effect of expanding public drug coverage would be an increase in government expenditures, this would likely be more than offset by savings to patients, employers, unions, and individuals who purchase stand-alone private drug coverage, producing a net cost reduction for Canada as a whole.

As pointed out in a Star editorial, the burden of paying for prescription medicines can be very heavy for some individuals:

It’s estimated that one household in five spends $500 or more on prescription drugs each year, and 7 per cent pay more than $1,000 annually. Those unable to pay often go without medicine. And even people covered by workplace drug insurance plans are typically stuck with costly deductibles and co-payments.

It is to be hoped that with the termination of the Harper regime, Canada has left behind its official contempt for evidence-based decision-making. Compelling research clearly tells us that the time is right for finally initiating pharmacare for all of us.

A Return To Sanity

I am currently reading a book by Tim Weiner entitled, One Man Against The World: The Tragedy Of Richard Nixon, and although I lived through that time, I am rediscovering what a nasty and paranoid piece of work the disgraced former President of the United States was. But what struck me most relevantly was the fact that he and Stephen Harper had a lot in common, most notably a disdain, suspicion and contempt for those who questioned their agenda. It is enough to make me wonder whether Harper was a student of Nixon's dark stratagems.

Nixon, for example, was merciless in his many abuses of power while in office; one of the more egregious instances saw him directing Internal Revenue audits against what he termed leftists and liberals. A take-no-prisoners attitude toward his own citizens betrayed the animus and paranoia of his tortured psyche. And while I have no insight into Harper's mind, his own abuse of power through Canada Revenue Agency witch hunts/audits against charitable groups voicing even a scintilla of opposition to his disdain for the environment and his extolment of the tarsands is well-known.

Today, however, brings news that the Trudeau government is winding down these politically-motivated audits.

As recently as November, when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau delivered public mandate letters to his new cabinet, [Federal Revenue Minister Diane] Lebouthillier was asked to ensure that Canada’s registered charities are “free from political harassment, and modernize the rules governing the charitable and not-for-profit sectors.”

“The results of the political activities audit program have shown that the charities audited have been substantially compliant with the rules regarding their involvement in political activities,” Lebouthillier said in the release.

“In light of these outcomes, the program will be concluded.”

Despite all the previous disclaimers that the CRA was taking no direction from government on the audits, the fact that the Federal Revenue Minister has made this announcement of termination belies that claim, of course.

Let us hope against hope that the era of dirty tricks in Canada is over.

How Online Censorship Works: A Guest Post By Cassie Phillips

The internet is pervasive in our daily lives, but equally pervasive is online censorship and surveillance. You've likely come head to head with this in the past. For example, have you ever tried to access a site and received an error message that had nothing to do with your internet connection? Or have you ever seen ads targeted toward you based on something you wrote to a friend in an email message? There's a lot of information about web surveillance and censorship laws and scandals in the news these days. Here are ten things you should know:

1. The government censors a lot of content.

From political messages to pornography, there's a lot of information that the government doesn't want you to have access too. There are different stages of censorship. Some content is taken down before it can spread; other content is hidden from view. Actually, you may not even realize everything that's being censored. Of course, we all know the big sites that are blocked; often sites that offer illegal downloads, mature content, social networking, etc. But there's a lot more to it than that.

2. They do this in a variety of ways.

In the past, you may have encountered a message saying that a specific site is being censored. But what you may not realize is that governments can also act in stealthier ways, asking search engines to remove sites from their search results or quietly taking down sites altogether so that you might not even realize those sites exist. During times of protest, governments might even black out the whole internet by disconnecting services.

3. This happens all over the world.

While we all like to think that our governments are wonderful and would never do anything like this to us, the truth is that web censorship happens all over the world. The US has been in the news frequently due to its heavy-handed internet monitoring, but other countries have also passed and implemented legislation that limits what you can do online. Australia, for example, has recently introduced laws to limit access to sites where copyright infringement is a known issue, which means most torrenting sites are blocked, even if you're looking to share or download legal content.

4. There's no set expiration date on the data collected about you.

Part of the problem with internet surveillance is that a lot of it is being done without warrants and without anyone really knowing just what is happening. The newness of this whole situation means that there are very few laws governing what the government can and can't do with your information, and that there's often no timeline for when they decide your browsing history is no longer important enough to hang on to.

5. It's meant to protect you…-ish.

A lot of government censorship is well-intentioned—things such as keeping kids from viewing inappropriate content or tracking suspected criminals. That said, there are a lot of nuances to what's done on the internet, and sweeping gestures such as the Australian government's desire to cut out all sites with any link to copyright infringement often do more to penalize the innocent than deter the guilty.

6. Not all censorship is done by the government.

If you've ever tried to access Netflix or Hulu from abroad or encountered a YouTube video that wasn't available in your region, you've seen the effect of geo-restricted sites, which check out your IP address and determine if content is allowed in your region—again, often because of potential copyright infringement. Targeted advertising is also often targeted because email companies survey your emails and look for keywords in your correspondence. And your internet service provider sees plenty of information about you too. Even if you trust the government to perform surveillance, the fact that a company is watching you as well can be a little unnerving.

7. The internet was intended to be free.

Of course, the government is there to protect people; that's a good thing. But why should a government in another country be able to tell you that you can't read a specific blogger's site? Or why should your own country be able to tell you that you can't access material that is freely available in another country? Doesn't that seem just a tad unfair?

8. Feeling uncomfortable about censorship does not make you the enemy.

There are lots of people who feel as if they're doing something unpatriotic if they feel uncomfortable about having the government snooping through their browser history. After all, if you're not up to anything illegal, you've got nothing to hide, right? But if you're doing not doing something illegal, why should you be under surveillance at all? Your government shouldn't automatically treat you as though you were guilty!

9. There are ways to bypass restrictions.

Fortunately, if you're trying to access blocked content, there is one tool you can use—a VPN. VPNs will hide your IP address, getting you around those pesky geo-restrictions, and limit what information is available to the government, your internet service provider, and the sites that you visit, meaning that overall you'll have a more secure browsing experience. They'll also help protect you against potential hackers.

10. Circumventing censorship measures is (not always) illegal.

Best of all, the use of a VPN is, in most cases, not illegal. You'll want to read up on local laws before installing one because there are some places (e.g. the UAE) where even the use of a VPN is illegal, but in Australia, the US, and many other places, there's nothing criminal about using a VPN.

There's plenty of more information about web censorship available, but that's most of the important information. If you're aware of the fact that surveillance and censorship goes on, you can take steps to make sure you can access the content that you need as well as start to minimize the risk that you might do something that leads to unpleasant consequences.

Send In The Clowns

No! Wait! Cancel that order!

Blowhard Blah Blah Blah

Please pardon the rather inarticulate nature of this post's title, but it seemed appropriate in dealing with this subject:



And it would appear that Toronto Star readers have taken the full measure of Kevin O'Leary:

O'Leary mulls Tory leadership bid, Jan. 15

Our Donald Trump of the North. A hard-nosed, right-wing Conservative who loves his own voice and thoughts over everything else. Honestly, I don’t understand all the media coverage.

Kevin O’Leary is a mean-spirited, every man for himself, sell the farm to the highest bidder type of guy. Didn’t we just vote out the same type of guy?
Does Canada have to be subjected to the same buffoonery as the U.S.?

D’Arcy Rattray, Mill Bay, B.C.

It is sad to see Kevin O’Leary taking to Donald Trump trash talking for self-aggrandizement. Ridiculing Alberta Premier Rachel Notley who inherited a huge provincial debt and a tough Canadian economy is easy to do for anyone rude enough to do it.

O’Leary has adopted the Trump persona to show that arrogant people with big money feel it entitles them to also have a big mouth. I’m not a supporter of the NDP but I do dislike “bullies,” especially adult bullies who think money makes it all right to act that way. Shame on him.

Patrick Reid, Edmonton

O’Leary would pay $1M to get Notley out, Jan. 14

Kevin O’Leary makes a telling contribution to the issue of electoral reform: His vote plus $1 million trumps the votes of the 603,457 Albertans who cast ballots for the NDP in 2015.

Ab Dukacz, Mississauga

Kevin O’Leary, of CBC’s O’Leary Exchange infamy, is now offering a one million dollar donation to the oil industry if Rachel Notley resigns.

I have a better idea, I think we could convince one million Canadians to each donate $1, if only Mr. O’Leary will keep his mouth shut in public.

Kim Levis, Toronto

Democracy In Crisis

This is a clearer and more succinct explication of the rise of dangerous right-wing politics than I think I have ever heard.

It might be tempting to view the political success of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump as something uniquely American. But, argues Gary Younge, rightwing populism and scapegoating of society’s vulnerable is cropping up all across the west. This is what happens when big business has more power than governments

The Wrong Friends In High Places

This is a selfie that neither Lloyd Axworthy nor The Mound of Sound would want to be included in, I suspect.

Those At The Top Just Aren't Doing Their Jobs - Part 2

Continuing with the theme of my previous post, another institution whose leadership frequently fails the public that it is sworn to protect and serve is that of law enforcement. Stories abound of police abuse of their authority, and yet it seems increasingly rare to see a public accounting for that abuse.

While the 2010 Toronto G20 Summit is probably the worst example of unaccountability in recent memory, with the man the at the top, Bill Blair, accepting no responsibility for the terrible violations of citizen rights that took place, there is a plethora of other, less dramatic cases that seldom see the light of day. A recent Toronto Star investigation revealed some disturbing facts about widespread concealment of police misconduct:

A Durham cop was caught on video threatening to beat up a man and plant cocaine on him, behaviour that prompted a Superior Court judge to say the officer “committed several criminal offences in the course of his duties.”

A Toronto officer refused to help his partner arrest an off-duty cop for drinking and driving.

Seven Ontario Provincial Police constables made fake notebook entries claiming they were conducting a RIDE check to catch drunk drivers when they were really hanging out at Tim Hortons.

All of these officers were disciplined under a secretive informal process that is supposed to be used only for cases that are not of a serious nature, an ongoing Star investigation has found. Critics say this is serious misconduct that should have been aired in a public hearing.

This bizarre culture of concealment means that for the most part, the offenders' names and actions are kept from the public, and after two years of good behaviour, the misconduct must be scrubbed from the offending officer’s employment record, according to the Police Services Act, which governs policing in Ontario.

Like the officials profiled in Part 1, the people at the top have much influence over what is concealed and downplayed, thereby distorting the public's perception of both the force and those at the top of that force:

Under Ontario’s Police Services Act, a chief can choose to handle a discipline matter through informal resolution if she is of the opinion the misconduct “was not of a serious nature.”

Although these 'in-house' proceedings are meant to deal only with minor matters, the record reveals they are used to hide some pretty serious matters, with the Peel constabulary having a rather unenviable record:

In the last five years alone, 640 Peel officers — roughly 30 per cent of the force — have been sanctioned under the secretive system, some multiple times. The OPP, a force three times the size, informally disciplined almost the same number of officers over that time period.

While the police insist on the efficacy of these tribunals, the glaring and uncomfortable fact is that names and offences are kept secret, thereby obviating the crucial component of public accountability.

The Star investigation lists numerous examples of misconduct dealt with secretly, but this video of Constable James Egdon is perhaps emblematic of how serious transgressions can be swept under the rug:

In a 2015 decision, a Superior Court judge ripped into Const. Ebdon’s conduct, calling it “reprehensible.”

“The evidence establishes that Constable Ebdon committed several criminal offences in the course of his duties,” Justice Laura Bird said in her decision.

“Const. Ebdon showed a staggering lack of appreciation for the seriousness of his conduct. Perhaps that is not surprising in light of the fact that the only penalty that was imposed on him by the Durham Regional Police Service was the loss of 24 hours pay.”

Because he was disciplined informally, Ebdon’s misconduct wasn’t required to be disclosed in a court case where he testified as an officer — a fact the judge called “concerning.” Durham police will not publicly discuss Ebdon’s case.

The final word goes to Alok Mukherjee, former chair of Toronto Police Services Board.

During Mukherjee’s tenure on the police board, which provides civilian oversight the Toronto force, he said groups of officers were informally disciplined for removing their name tags during the G20 and turning off their in-car cameras — what he calls serious offences that undermine police accountability and integrity.

“My fear is that an impression is created that the discipline is not serious,” he said. “The next person who does that (misconduct) will act knowing that his matter is not serious.”

As I titled this post, those at the top just aren't doing their jobs.

Those At The Top Just Aren't Doing Their Jobs - Part 1

Probably everyone has encountered those who vie for the top positions in an organization; with their eyes always on the prize, they are the ones who see each job within as a stepping stone to something much greater: a management position that entails both a very high salary and a very large set of responsibilities. Unfortunately, once attained, the burden of those responsibilities lead some to dodge them, especially if there is a chance that doing their jobs with integrity and vigor will either compromise or impede their career prospects for even greater position and authority.

The ruling ethos among some of the higher echelon today is that protecting one's rear flank and not rocking the boat or causing headaches for others is the mark of good leadership.

Having met enough of this ilk during my teaching career, I suppose I am rather sensitive to any action or inaction that bespeaks failures of personal integrity and courage, failures that ultimately compromise the mission of the institution or organization. No group is immune to what my friend Dom calls "the resume polishers."

That this kind of career self-preservation and advancement is alive and well is suggested, in my view, by two stories recently in the news. The first involves a fifth estate investigation into a series of sexual assaults that took place at the University of British Columbia. The identity of the perpetrator was brought to the attention of the school administration by a number of women, but absolutely nothing was done for a very long time:

It took the University of British Columbia more than a year and a half to act against a grad student, despite mounting complaints of harassment or sexual assault by at least six women on campus. The women say Dmitry Mordvinov, a 28-year old PHD student in the history department, committed a wide range of offensive acts against them from inappropriate touching to sexual assault. Mordvinov was quietly expelled and told the fifth estate he's appealing.

Should you get a chance to view the above story, you will learn that Mordvinov's expulsion came only after an unconscionably long period, since the school's administration dismissed the first complaint, telling the woman involved that since it happened off-campus, it was essentially not their concern. When the number of complainants grew to six, officials

urged mediation between the female students and their alleged attacker, which the women refused.

"I don't want to sit in a room with this student," said Cunningham [one of the victims]. "And I don't think it's appropriate for assault, especially sexual assault, that you sit in a room … and have a mediation."

It didn't end there:

But Kaitlin Russell, a former executive in the history graduate students' association, said UBC is failing to protect women on campus.

She was one of the students who led a campaign calling for the department to protect the physical and psychological safety of students and take action against harassment — only to be rebuffed by administrators who said the "unsubstantiated allegations" would "sow fear and suspicion."

And the conspiracy to suppress the truth, seemingly endemic among UBC officials, continued:

Glynnis Kirchmeier says that when she approached UBC's Equity Inclusion Office with concerns about Mordvinov, she was told in effect by conflict manager Monica Kay to keep quiet.

"We can't have you guys tell anybody or talk about this or say that there's … a problem, because that's like if people know there are snakes in the grass but they can't see the snakes, they'll get really afraid," she says Kay told her.

But the women persisted:

Then in March 2015, when history students presented a petition for action to department head Tina Loo, she told them in an email that it was "potentially problematic legally because of the allegations of harassment it contained."

Russell, the former student executive, was shocked at what she says Loo later told them in an face-to-face encounter.

"She said that she could not allow us to present the statement" at a department meeting, Russell said, because the petition "was politically inflammatory and was endangering to the department."

Russell said, "She said that she would shut us down."

In a response to the fifth estate, Loo insisted "the suggestion that I tried to keep students from speaking publicly is wrong."

But she acknowledged she told the women "unsubstantiated third-party allegations … can sow fear and suspicion among students" and that the petition "could be viewed as defamatory."

The only person who seems to have behaved with any integrity in this sordid matter is veteran history professor Paul Krause, who wrote a blistering online article about the culture of concealment at the university, a culture that almost cost him his job about 20 years previously, as you will learn if you read his piece.

About the frustrations that the six women faced in trying to have the grad student dealt with, Krause had this to say:

"The damage is that we send out a signal that we have abandoned them, that we don't care about them. And that the corporate brand of UBC and of the care that we give to it in the public arena is more important than signalling to our students, we care about you, we're going to make sure you have a safe place."

That observation, it seems to me, comes closest to getting to the heart of the matter: brand protection, and by extension, career protection. He or she who handles situations quietly, with minimal fuss and publicity, is the one whose job is safe and whose career trajectory will continue unimpeded.

In Part 2, I will discuss another organization where handling things 'in-house' offers the same benefits and rewards.

Meeting Evil

In my days as a teacher, despite the fact that most of the students I taught were good kids, almost each semester would present me with one or two who, as a former colleague of mine once said, were 'difficult to serve clients.' These were the ones who could be disruptive and confrontational. And these were the ones who invariably stuck in my craw, often dominating my thoughts and pushing their significance way out of any reasonable perspective. It's funny how human nature often fixates on the negative.

One of my favourite authors, James Lee Burke, often writes on themes of good and evil, with situations often pushing his protagonists into contemplating some kind of illegal or unethical response to the dark forces surrounding them. But, as in more than one of his novels, they are often cautioned not to give those dark forces power over them; in other words, to resist the response that evil often elicits - responses of despair, vengeance or other such behaviours. It is advice we should all take to heart.

The despicable, cowardly and evil act perpetrated the other night against Syrian refugees in Vancouver is one such event where we would all be wise to keep a balanced perspective:

Shortly after 10:30 p.m. PT Friday 100 people were gathered outside of the Muslim Association of Canada Centre, located at 2122 Kingsway Avenue, when an unknown man on a bicycle rode up and pepper sprayed a group of men, women and children, which included newly arrived refugees from Syria.

Paramedics and the Vancouver Fire and Rescue Service treated 15 people for exposure to pepper spray.

The words of both the mayor of Vancouver, Gregor Robertson, and Prime Minister Trudeau, set this terrible incident in its proper context:

Last night’s pepper spray incident was a disgusting display of hate - and Vancouver won’t stand for it. #VanWelcomesRefugees and always will.

I condemn the attack on Syrian refugees in Vancouver. This isn't who we are - and doesn't reflect the warm welcome Canadians have offered.

So the best response, in my view, to this deranged act is not to obsess about it but to see it as a crime committed by an unbalanced and evil person. Nothing more. It is an act that has no chance of defining us or diminishing our efforts to bring some relief and comfort to a group of people that has known so much misery these past several years.

Canadians Speak Out About Saudi Arabia

While our new government would, I'm sure, dearly love to change the channel on the indefensible arms deal with Saudi Arabia that I have been recently writing about, it is clear that Canadians are not about to be easily diverted. A selection of letters from today's Star attests to that fact:

Would someone please explain why we are selling armoured cars to Saudi Arabia? Would we sell armoured cars to the Islamic State? Of course not. In that case, tell me the difference between those two entities.

Both ISIS and the House of Saud, in the name of their various twisted interpretations of Islam, turn their guns on innocent civilians and demonstrate a particular interest in decapitation. At least 4 of the 47 people beheaded by Saudi Arabia on Jan. 1 were guilty, it seems, of peacefully protesting against that country’s repressive regime. That’s all.

I therefore ask again, why are we sending war material to the likes of the Saudis? Ah, why am I so naive as to believe that money shouldn’t trump morality?

Richard Griffith, Ravenna

The minute I heard of the executions in Saudi Arabia I thought that the delivery of light armored vehicles to that country would be halted. I was shocked to hear that nothing was to be done. We have a moral obligation to prevent arms going to a country that will not hesitate to use them on its own people.

Even if contracts have been signed and money transacted, it does not mean that Canada must honour this agreement. If we have to compensate the company concerned, so be it. We are aiding, abetting and condoning the atrocious acts of last Saturday if we do not cancel this sale.

Carol Duffy, Richmond Hill

In its Jan. 6 editorial, the Star says that the sale of $15 billion worth of Canadian-made arms to Saudi Arabia “bears close watching.” What we will be watching is people being run down and otherwise scared into submission by ruthless Saudi rulers using our armoured vehicles.

This deal, begun under the abolished Harper regime, should be cancelled at once. Our new government’s talk about new ways should not be undermined by the same old greedy hypocrisy.

Jean Gower, Kingston

ISIS beheads people under their control who disagree with them. So do the Saudis. ISIS invades sovereign territories and kills civilians who dwell there. The Saudis do it by air in Yemen. ISIS practices an absolute dictatorship form of goverment. So do the Saudis.

Why is it that we vilify ISIS, but provide military hardware to the Saudis? Why are the Saudis our valiant allies in the soi-disant War on Terror?

Patrick McDonald, Toronto

Government Secrecy Returns

Having lived for almost 10 years under a cone of silence and secrecy, Canadians can be forgiven for expecting more openness from the Trudeau government. That expectation appears to be a forlorn hope, at least if this is any indication:

The Liberal government is refusing to make public a recently completed assessment of the state of human rights in Saudi Arabia even as it endures criticism for proceeding with a $15-billion deal to ship weaponized armoured vehicles to the Mideast country.

Saudi Arabia, notorious for its treatment of women, dissidents and offenders, became the focus of international condemnation this month over a mass execution of 47 people, including Shia Muslim cleric Sheik Nimr al-Nimr, an exceptionally vocal critic of the ruling Al Saud family.

A country’s human rights record is an important consideration in the arms export control process that determines whether Canadian-made weapons can be exported there. The Saudi deal was brokered by Ottawa, which also serves as the prime contractor in the transaction.

As pointed out yesterday, Canadians have every right to be wary of this deal, given that the armoured vehicles are destined for Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG), charged with protecting the royal rulers against internal threats.

Hiding behind the usual bafflegab of government, Canadian officials had this to say about the how the deal meets the criterion that the vehicles not be used against the Saudi people:

“A report on Saudi Arabia has been prepared for 2015 as part of the department’s annual process of producing human rights reports on numerous countries. This document is intended for internal Government of Canada use only, and, as such, will not be made public,” said François Lasalle, a spokesman for Global Affairs Canada.

The Liberal government is also refusing to release any information on how Ottawa will justify the export of armoured vehicles under Canada’s export control regime.

“For reasons of commercial confidentiality, Global Affairs Canada does not comment on specific export permit applications,” Mr. Lasalle said.

Perhaps another reason that the government has chosen opacity over transparency in this matter is the realization that they are fooling few Canadians here, the majority realizing this deal is one of economic and political expedience over principle and law.

Not a good beginning for our 'new' government.