On Egregious Stupidity And Willful Ignorance

I readily admit to being intolerant of people at times. Not for me are the excuses that others may make for their shortcomings, such as the limitations of their upbringing, their education, or their natural abilities.

At the top of my list are those who either embrace or promote egregious stupidity and willful ignorance. And while no part of the political spectrum is exempt from such offenders, they do seem to be disproportionately represented by the right. Anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, and ardent supporters of the Harper regime readily come to mind.

Lazy thinking is no substitute for critical thinking, and while the latter, I am convinced, cannot happen without a a good education, whether formal or acquired through wide reading, there is no assurance that those who call themselves educated are in fact able to think critically. Bias, tunnel vision, and a myriad of other factors can militate against that capacity.

Given how much the Harper regime has invested in promoting and exploiting ignorance and stupidity (a look at some of its convoluted rhetoric around Bill C-51 offers ample illustration), now seems to be a propitious time to examine a few basic guidelines that can help promote better thinking.

My first source is an article from The Hamilton Spectator whose purpose was to help people think more rigorously about the science around vaccinations, but most are readily transferable to other topics as well:

Here are 10 questions to ask yourself when you read a piece about science and medicine:

1. Who's saying it and what's their reputation?

2. Where and how are the results being presented?

3. Who paid for the work and who pays the researcher?

4. Are you reading anecdotes or evidence?

5. Are there comments from an arm's length unbiased expert? How does that fit in to the picture?

6. What do the numbers really tell me?

7. How large was the study? (Generally, the bigger, the better.)

8. How was the study carried out? A test tube? Mouse? Dying patient? Healthy patient? (The closer the results are to the general population, the more important they are.)

9. How substantial are the benefits and how big are the risks?

10. Are opposing viewpoints included? If so, what's their reputation?

An even better and more comprehensive set of guidelines is taken from a university website:

1. Ask questions; be willing to wonder. (Re. research problems)

To think critically you must be willing to think creatively - to be
curious about the puzzles of human behavior, to wonder why
people act the way they do, and to question received wisdom and
examine new explanations of why things are as they are.

2. Define your terms. (Re. operational definitions)

Identify the problem in clear and concrete terms, rather than vague ones like "happiness," "potential," or "self-esteem."

3. Examine the evidence. (Re. data: empiricism, reliability, and
validity)

Consider the nature of the evidence supporting various
approaches to the problems under examination. Is there good
evidence one way or another? Is it reliable? Valid? Is the
"evidence" merely someone's personal assertion or speculation,
or is it based on replicated empirical data?

4. Analyze assumptions and biases - your own and those of others. (Re. empirical/objective observations: biases and
assumptions)

What prejudices, deeply held values, and other
biases do you bring to your evaluation of a problem? Are you
willing to consider evidence that contradicts your beliefs? Can
you identify the assumptions and biases that others bring to their
arguments?

5. Avoid emotional reasoning. (Re. empirical observations)

The fact that you feel strongly about something doesn’t make you
right! Remember that everyone holds convictions about how the
world operates (or how it should operate), and your opponents
are probably as serious about their convictions as you are about
yours. Feelings are important, but they should not be substitutes
for careful appraisal of arguments and evidence.

6. Don't oversimplify. (Re. Generalizations)

Look beyond the obvious; reject simplistic thinking ("All the evil in the world is due to that group of loathsome people") and either-or thinking ("Either genes determine everything about personality and behavior or they count for virtually nothing"). Be wary of "argument by anecdote," taking a single case as evidence of a larger
phenomenon. For example, reading about one chilling case of a man who murders while on parole should not be the basis on
which you assess parole programs in general.

7. Consider other interpretations. (Re. alternative explanations,or hypotheses; mutual exclusiveness and exhaustiveness)

Before you draw a conclusion from the evidence, think creatively
about other possible explanations. When you learn that two
events are statistically correlated, for example, be sure to think
carefully about which one is the cause and which the result - or
whether a third factor might be causing both of them.

8. Tolerate uncertainty. (Re. Theories and data: testing and
modifying)

This is probably the hardest step in becoming a critical
thinker, for it requires that we hold our beliefs "lightly" and be
willing to give them up when better evidence comes along. It
requires us to live with the realization that we may not have the
perfect answer to a problem at the moment, and may never have
it. Many people want "the" answers, and thy want science to
provide them: "Just tell me what to do!" they demand.
Pseudoscience promises answers, which is why it is so popular;
science gives us probabilities that suggest one answer is better
than another - for now - and warns us that one day we may have
to change our minds.

What's Stopping Them?

Compelling reasons exist for putting a price on carbon. Three Star readers offer theirs:

Re: Ontario carbon price policy in the works, Feb. 13

I was struck by the total disconnect between two of your news articles on Friday.

One was on the Wynne government’s decision to put a price on carbon, which is clearly essential given the urgent need to reduce our emission of greenhouse gases. In this article, the Conservative leader, Jim Wilson, is quoted as saying that a price on carbon will “hurt the economy and kill jobs” even though both claims have been disproven by the B.C. carbon tax.

The second article reported the scientific study that shows that climate change will bring decades-long droughts to the American Midwest that will devastate its agricultural economy by mid-century. We can expect similar disruptions in Canada.

How can the Conservatives, both provincial and federal, continue to claim fiscal responsibility and yet totally ignore the future costs of climate change by opposing action to reduce greenhouse gases?

Alan Slavin, Peterborough

Environment Minister Glen Murray notes in a strategy paper that, “Climate change is already costing Ontarians by threatening our communities, businesses and way of life. While Ontario is showing leadership in fighting climate change, we know we need to do more and we need to act fast.”

We agree. The time to place a fee on carbon is now. A fully refunded greenhouse gas pollution fee can be used to fund tax reductions on jobs and income, and levels the playing field, encouraging all players to reduce their pollution.

We win by reducing pollution at least cost, by having more money in our pockets and by encouraging clean technology business with price signals, not subsidies.
As citizens of Ontario we should advocate growing the economy by implementing a greenhouse pollution fee that is: fully refunded, simple, competitive, transparent, predictable and priced right. It’s a win, win, win.

Andreas Kyprianou, Canadians for Clean Prosperity, Toronto

What if world governments put a rising fee on carbon, and gave the revenue to their people? The rising fee would improve industrial productivity and drive innovation in clean technologies. It would produce quality jobs and help clean the air and water, improving people’s health.

The money returned to citizens would help take the edge off the rising cost of living and stimulate spending. It will also help reduce carbon pollution that is disrupting the global climate.

The World Bank and IMF are calling for a fee on carbon. It’s time the G20 do the same.

Cheryl McNamara, Toronto

Go Ahead, Say It: "Climate Change"

Bill Nye, an eloquent advocate of critical thinking and rational discussion, urges newscasters to use the words 'climate change' now and again. There is nothing at stake except the reduction of ignorance.

And For Those Who Think Bill C-51 Is A Good Thing

Think again.

The RCMP has labelled the “anti-petroleum” movement as a growing and violent threat to Canada’s security, raising fears among environmentalists that they face increased surveillance, and possibly worse, under the Harper government’s new terrorism legislation.

In highly charged language that reflects the government’s hostility toward environmental activists, an RCMP intelligence assessment warns that foreign-funded groups are bent on blocking oil sands expansion and pipeline construction, and that the extremists in the movement are willing to resort to violence.

The report, dated January 24, 2014, was obtained by Greenpeace and uses the kind of language one would expect from a police force that has become deeply politicized.

[M]ilitants and violent extremists who are opposed to society’s reliance on fossil fuels, and violent environmental extremists are but two of the phrases that should give all of us pause.

The RCMP issued their usual disclaimers, averring that they do not surveil peaceful groups. Said RCMP spokesman Sergeant Greg Cox:

“There is no focus on environmental groups, but rather on the broader criminal threats to Canada’s critical infrastructure. The RCMP does not monitor any environmental protest group. Its mandate is to investigate individuals involved in criminality.”

Yet, perhaps tellingly,

... Sgt. Cox would not comment on the tone of the January, 2014, assessment that suggests opposition to resource development runs counter to Canada’s national interest and links groups such as Greenpeace, Tides Canada and the Sierra Club to growing militancy in the “anti-petroleum movement.”

For a force whose mandate is public safety, the report veers into areas that can only be described as economic and political:

The report extolls the value of the oil and gas sector to the Canadian economy, and adds that many environmentalists “claim” that climate change is the most serious global environmental threat, and “claim” it is a direct consequence of human activity and is “reportedly” linked to the use of fossil fuels. It echoes concerns first raised by Finance Minister Joe Oliver that environmental groups are foreign-funded and are working against the interests of Canada by opposing development.

Just coincidence that the language echos that of Joe Oliver?

“This document identifies anyone who is concerned about climate change as a potential, if not actual – the lines are very blurry – ‘anti-petroleum extremist’ looking to advance their ‘anti-petroleum ideology,’” said Keith Stewart, a climate campaigner for Greenpeace.

Greenpeace, and the rest of us, should be very, very concerned.


Are these the faces of the new terrorists?

Don't Canadians Deserve Better Than This?

Dear Demagogue (a.k.a. Stephen Harper) is out and about sowing his usual hateful divisiveness:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says "a lot" of Radio-Canada employees "hate" conservative values.

Harper says those values that are loathed by many employees of CBC's French-language network are the same ones that he says are supported by a large number of Quebecers.

Harper made the comments during a French-language interview with Quebec City radio station FM93, conducted last Friday and aired today.

His remarks were described as "petty" by an NDP MP.

Pay no attention to this little man. He does not speak for the majority of Canadians.

The Harper Attack On The Environment - Part Three

H/t Michael Nabert

Never should one industry get to write Canada's environmental law. Never should one industry get to rewrite Canada's treaties. Never should one industry be listened to over the voice of tens of thousands of protesting citizens.

Yet that is exactly what has happened, according to Yan Roberts and others who have studied the systematic dismantling of tough environmental regulations under the Harper regime.

In this third part of a series exploring the devastation that the Harper regime has wrought on the environment, I am departing from Elizabeth May's book to examine the consequences of Bill C-45, one of the regime's infamous omnibus 'budget' bills that carried within its bulk all kinds of non-budgetary items.

One of the biggest of those non-budgetary targets was the Navigable Waters Protection Act, since changed to the Navigation Protection Act. The omission of waters in the act is a clue as to what happened as a result of lobbying by the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association which, some claim, in fact dictated the terms of the changes.

Two years ago The Toronto Star reported the following:

The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association met with senior government officials in the fall of 2011, urging them not just to streamline environmental assessments, but also to bring in “new regulations under (the) Navigable Waters Protection Act,” a CEPA slide presentation shows.

A copy of the Oct. 27 presentation made to then-deputy minister of trade Louis Levesque was obtained by Greenpeace Canada and shared with The Canadian Press.

These were their demands:

•Regulatory reform so that each project goes through just one environmental review;

•Bolster the Major Projects Management Office (tasked with steering resource projects efficiently through the bureaucracy);

•Speed up permitting for small projects;

•Make government expectations known early in the permitting process;

•Support an “8-1-1” phone line to encourage construction companies to “call before you dig”;

•Modify the National Energy Board Act so it can impose administrative penalties, in order to prevent pipeline damage;

•New regulations under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

It seems the Harper enablers responded quickly to most of these 'troublesome' regulations:

The first budget omnibus bill [C-38] in June contained a replacement for the Environmental Assessment Act and also a provision to remove pipelines and power lines from provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. [Emphasis mine.] Predictably, reaction from environmentalists was negative, while business and the natural resource sector reacted positively to the changes.

But the Harper wrecking crew was not yet finished:

...the government surprised many close observers by going even further in a second omnibus bill, C-45. The Navigable Waters Protection Act was changed to the Navigation Protection Act, significantly reducing its scope over Canada’s waters.

As Yan Roberts points out,

This new acts leaves 99.9 per cent of our rivers and 99.7 per cent of our lakes without basic protection.

And, as Fasken Marleau made clear in an environmental bulletin,

...the government will limit the application of the new law to the three oceans flanking the Canadian borders as well as 97 lakes and 62 rivers that have been qualified as important commercial and recreational water courses. The building of works on any body of water not mentioned in Schedule 2 of the new legislation will no longer be governed by federal law.

Perhaps the clearest sense of the potential consequences of this legislation is imparted by Vancouver - West Coast Environmental Law Executive Director and Senior Counsel Jessica Clogg:

Bill C-45 transforms the Navigable Waters Protection Act into the Navigation Protection Act. Historically, the Navigable Waters Protection Act protected the right to navigate without interference from logging operations, bridges, pipelines, dams, and other forms of industrial development. In this manner it provided an indirect tool to protect water and the environment.

Now only water bodies specifically listed in a schedule to the act are protected. The Navigation Protection Act excludes 99.7% of Canada’s lakes and over 99.9% of Canada’s rivers from federal oversight. Pipelines are also specifically exempted...

How did we come to this terrible state of affairs, where the gutting of environmental regulation is directed by oil lobbyists whose activities are largely hidden from public view? It would certainly be easy to blame it solely on the Harper regime's unethical use of omnibus bills. It would be easy to blame a regime that is so ideologically driven that it recognizes value not in our natural capital, but only the capital that accrues from destroying that heritage.

But that would be only part of the truth. The other part resides with all of us, too busy 'getting and spending' to take note of or care that the ephemeral is no replacement for the deep natural riches our country has been bestowed with, riches that are being systematically destroyed by the philistines among us.

For Further Reading:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/yan-roberts/omnibus-harper-oil_b_2474752.html

http://davidsuzuki.org/media/news/2012/11/how-bill-c-45-weakens-our-environmental-laws-and-democracy/

http://www.macleans.ca/tag/c-45/

http://www.fasken.com/en/omnibus-bill-c-45-amendments-to-the-navigable-waters-protection-act/

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/02/20/pipeline_industry_drove_changes_to_navigable_waters_protection_act_documents_show.html

The Wheels On The Bus....

have been very busy of late:

More On The Dangers of Bill C-51

Well, leave it to The Star's redoubtable readers to remind us of the peril implicit in Bill C-51, Stephen Harper's anti-terrorist bill designed to make us all 'safer' and in a constant state of paranoia. Here is but a small sampling of their sentiments:

I called the Prime Minister’s office to ask why Stephen Harper is so intent on stripping away Canadians’ civil liberties, our rights to privacy, our right not to be arbitrarily detained without charge or trial, and so on, and on, and on. I got a recording. It said:

“Thank you for calling the Prime Minister of Canada. Freedom, the rule of law, and your civil liberties are important to us. Please stay on the line, in your home under house arrest, and your call will be answered by the first available CSIS agent, who will remain anonymous and will not tell you why you are under house arrest. Your estimated wait time is five years. Thank you for calling the Prime Minister of Canada. Freedom, the rule of law, and your civil liberties are important to us.”

Stuart Rogers, Toronto

Harper’s new powers to CSIS, CRA are the start of police state powers. The new powers allow CSIS to examine any group called “terrorist” – terrorist defined broadly as any criminal act that is ideology, or religious based.

CRA also is allowed to pass on information to law enforcement and CSIS without warrant if it is suspected terrorist activity. Harper has called environmental and social justice groups economic terrorists.

CRA is investigating unions, social justice and environmental groups for possible tax violations, which could be considered criminal; given their “ideological” stance in this possible criminal activity it defines them as terrorist. This allows free range to CSIS spy to their heart’s content, which is sadly lacking in oversight.

How long before it becomes used to suppress political enemies, and when you choose to exercise your rights to speak out, will you be the next terrorist?

Joe Healy, Toronto

....With the complete lack of oversight, the almost total abandonment of our Charter Rights and Freedoms and the further erosion of our civil liberties with C-51, I’m led to wonder whose influence the Canadian government is under? The bill itself is classic Harper but what other influences are at work here?

With past U.S. influence on Canadian national policies, examples include the case of Steven de Jaray by the Canadian Border Security Agency, the Maher Arar case and many others, I’m left to wonder when this bill passes, and it will with Harper’s majority and Trudeau’s Liberals in tow, will the oversight of our new “Patriot Act” really be coming from the American State department or the U.S. Homeland Security department?

Janice Meighan, Toronto

Bill C-51, brought to you by Stephen Harper, libertarian, who believes that the long-form census was too invasive. Hmm?

William Thachuk, Toronto

How Much Do I Not Love Thee? Let Me Count The Ways

These pictures are courtesy of Press Progress:







One hopes that the entire crew will find their hearts broken come October.

A Definitive Rejection Of Bill C-51

It is only human nature, I suppose, that when crisis strikes, our immediate reaction is that we would do almost anything to protect ourselves and our loved ones. When Pierre Trudeau invoked the War Measure Act in 1970 as a response to the FLQ crisis, the vast majority went along with the measure, I suspect, for that reason.

The world we live in today is vastly different. Thanks to grisly images on the Internet and crass manipulation by 'democratic' governments, many perceive us as being in a perpetual war that threatens all of us. A war without end. A war in which many consider the surrender of certain rights and freedoms as the cost of confronting an 'enemy' that "hates us because of our freedoms." Such jingoistic crap can be pretty compelling when the coin of the realm is fear.

Those able to achieve perspective and resist the demagoguery of their political overlords recognize that these are indeed dangerous times, the greatest peril coming not from external threats, but from those posed within in the guise of protective and proactive measures. Hence Bill C-51.

Two individuals able to see through the fog of hysteria perpetrated by the ruling class are Ed Boadbent, the former leader of the federal NDP, and Roy Romanow, the former premier of Saskatchewan who also served as a member of the Security and Intelligence Review Committee.

A joint essay in The Globe and Mail makes clear their adamant opposition to Stephen Harper's latest legislative initiative to promote conformist thinking and quell dissent within our country. They call for its immediate withdrawal:

Terrorism is designed to provoke governments into making damaging mistakes. It is conducted through brutality and rooted in the belief that killing ordinary citizens will cause nations to abandon their most basic commitments.

Terrorism demands a sustained and effective response. Resources must be allocated to enable police and intelligence agencies to find its perpetrators and to discover potential terrorists. Those who are guilty of offences must then be brought to justice.

Canada already has mechanisms, practices and laws necessary for dealing with terrorism. These include surveillance, immigration controls, preventative detention and incarceration for criminal activity.

The authors cite a lack of resources and funding for our police and security forces as the real problem, but that, of course, is not something that galvanizes people or gives Mr. Harper the political wedge he is always seeking.

The bill attacks the civil rights of all Canadians, and places the protections guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms under the shadow of wider powers to interfere with lawful and legitimate conduct.

The general tenor of the bill is to expand the definition of threats to national security and add to the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Any interference with financial or economic stability could now be considered to violate national security. Such activities are a daily occurrence and in truth could include just about anything.

Who potentially, could now be considered fair targets under this legislation?

Any interference with financial or economic stability could now be considered to violate national security. Such activities are a daily occurrence and in truth could include just about anything.

Other new national security offences include influencing any government in Canada by unlawful means or “interfering with infrastructure.” Neither of these is a rare practice. Neither is necessarily connected to terrorism.

And now persons can be held in custody as a preventative matter if officers believe that a terrorist activity “may” occur. This makes detention a matter for the purely subjective views of security officials.

One cannot help but remember Joe Oliver's chilling references to "environmentalists and other radical groups".

Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that there really is no informed debate being conducted on this bill. One hopes that the efforts of people like Broadbent and Romanow will change that.

Maybe There Is Some Reason To Hope

H/t Gus Andrikopoulos

The Harper Strategy

H/t Marry Ellen Davis

The Harper Attack On The Environment - Part Two

Continuing the series I started the other day, here is another excerpt from Science Under Attack, a chapter in Elizabeth May's memoir Who We Are.

Much of that chapter is devoted to the science of climate change, a science that, although constantly under attack by the ignorant and the well-funded climate-change denial industry, is essentially irrefutable. The foundation of its credibility, of course, is research. It is that research that the Harper regime has been systematically hobbling since it came to office:

March 2012 marked the end of all funding for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (now the Canadian Climate Forum). The funds put in place in 2000, $110 million over ten years for autonomous research funding in Canada's major universities, had been spend expanding our understanding of the climate crisis in its multi-faceted disciplines of inquiry.

As reported in The Star at the time of its closure,

the Harper government promised a new program to replace the foundation. It committed itself to delivering $35 million to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada over five years...

But, for reasons that were never explained, that funding never materialized. The result?

The ensuing funding gap has caused many university-based climate and atmospheric science activities to collapse. With scientists already reeling from draconian cuts to Environment Canada, widespread layoff notices have resulted in a brain drain the like of which has not been seen for a generation. Rather than “attracting world-leading talent,” Canada is quickly divesting itself of its best and brightest.

Stay tuned for the next installment on the Harper wrecking crew.

On The Prospects Of Political Probity

Anyone who follows politics on a regular basis cannot help but be cynical. Cynical about politicians' motives. Cynical about political rhetoric. Cynical about, well, just about anything that comes out of our overlords' mouths. Despite that, many voters soldier on in the hope that maybe something they say they will actually mean.

Well, a new website offers something other than blind faith to sustain us. Called FactsCan, this nascent site, which is just completing a crowdfunding campaign, describes itself as a nonpartisan fact-checking site on Canadian politics that will be fact-checking the 2015 federal election.

The CBC reports the following:

According to co-founder Dana Wagner, who also works as a researcher at Ryerson University in Toronto, the team behind the site wants to help voters "separate out the truth from spin, distortion, omission, error and lies."

"Our goal is to enable Canadians to critically engage in political-speak, and to encourage politicians to be honest and accurate with their words".

A quick check of their website confirms that FactsCan is indeed non-partisan. Already caught in false statements are Stephen Harper (no surprise there), Thomas Mulcair, Elizabeth May, and yes, Stephen Harper yet again.

Nothing yet on Justin Trudeau, but that is likely because he tends to deals in platitudes more than policies in his pronouncements.

For those interested in a closer involvement with the organization, there are opportunities for volunteering and donations. You can also 'like' its Facebook page.

One hopes that news of this site will be distributed broadly. Anything that offers the hope of injecting even a modicum of probity into the behaviour of current and future office-holders deserves our full support.

This Is Terrible

Disgraceful. Absolutely disgraceful. (Heh, heh heh)



H/t Murray S. Grant

Are Americans Ever Embarrassed?

I know I would be if this kind of regular and much-watched commentary portrayed my nation as so egregiously stupid:

The Harper Attack On The Environment - Part One

I am currently reading Elizabeth May's Who We Are: Reflection On My Life And Canada, a political memoir in which her love for her adopted country, Canada, is apparent on each page.

Since we are now in an election year, I believe it incumbent upon all of us to remind as many as possible of the terrible record of the Harper rule these past nine years, a record that should alarm everyone for so many, many reasons. To this end I plan to regularly post small excerpts from May's chapter entitled Science Under Attack. Although most of what I will use is likely well-known to progressives, the abuses of the regime are so numerous that it is sometimes hard to recall all of them. Hence, this ready reference. As well, each post will include some relevant links.

The Attack Begins In Earnest

The position of science advisor to the prime minister was eliminated in 2008. By 2012, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE) was also eliminated...it was the last governmental advisory body on science, nature, or sustainable economics. Ironically, after Brian Mulroney established the NRTEE, its existence was used as an excuse to eliminate the Science Council, the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council, and the Economic Council. When Harper killed the NRTEE, his environment minister, Peter Kent, said it had been rendered unnecessary by the advent of the internet.

There is, of course, much, much more to come.

Well-Said!

H/t OpenMedia.ca

Dr. 'Chaps' Strikes Again

Needing a break from discussing the sleazy world of politics, now seems an opportune time to turn to the sleazy world of Satan.

Always on the lookout for the ploys of the wily one seeking souls for his sulfurous kingdom, Dr. Chaps (a.k.a. Gordon Klingenschmitt) warns us about one of his diabolical stratagems:

When The Flames Are At Your Door...

... it is pretty hard to deny reality.



Australia’s scorching heat wave of 2013, which triggered fierce bushfires and broke more than 100 temperature-related records, including one for the country’s hottest day ever recorded, would have been virtually impossible without climate change, a new report says.

“The evidence on the link between climate change and extreme heat is stronger than ever and, in fact, is overwhelming,” said the report, adding “there is a ‘calculable’ human influence on the record hot summer of 2012-2013.”

It also pointed out that the number of record hot days in Australia has increased strongly since 1950 and particularly sharply in the last two decades.

The heat wave of 2013 — which later came to be known as the “angry summer” — would not have happened if it hadn’t been for climate change, Will Steffen, a climate expert and author of the report, told The Australian Associated Press.

Expect the denialist industry to confront these statistics:

- In Sydney, Australia’s most populated city, heat waves now start 19 days earlier.

- In Canberra, the number of heat-wave days has more than doubled.

- In Hobart, heat-wave days start 12 days earlier.

- In Melbourne, the hottest heat-wave day is 2C hotter and the heat wave now starts about 17 days earlier.

- In Adelaide, the hottest heat-wave day is 4.3C hotter and the number of heat-wave days has almost doubled.

And about that picture at the top:

Tim and Tammy Holmes were babysitting their five grandchildren in the small Tasmanian fishing town of Dunally when a wildfire engulfed the town. According to multiple reports, there was no escape for the family, so they ran for the water.

Tim took a photograph of the family cowering in the water, with a wall of flames behind them.

Photoshopped, no doubt, would be the claim of the professional naysayers.

Perhaps They Were There For Crowd Control?

Given their losing ways, on one level it is not surprising that the Toronto Maple Leafs brought in the military the other night. But on another level, it is a disgrace that they have allowed themselves to become mere cogs in the Harper propaganda machine.

Special thanks to The Salamander for bringing this to my attention:

Past Hits Of A New Cabinet Minister

Lest we forget some of the past gems from newly appointed Minister for Employment and Social Development, Pierre Polievre:

Health Canada Mandate: Protect Pharmaceuticals' Profits Instead Of Canadians' Health

Health Canada continues to extend a metaphorical middle finger to average Canadians. As has been clearly established by an ongoing Toronto Star investigation, the protectorate persists in placing the fiscal health of the pharmaceutical industry above that of Canadians.

Today's Star reports:

Canada’s biggest pharmacies are selling allergy pills made with ingredients from a drug facility in India that hid unfavourable test results showing excessive levels of impurities in their products, a Star investigation has found.

Recently, the Star purchased packs of over-the-counter desloratadine tablets from Toronto-based Shoppers Drug Mart, Rexall, Walmart and Costco stores.

One month before, on Dec. 23, Health Canada had announced these antihistamines — made by Pharmascience — were under quarantine after serious problems were unearthed during an inspection of the company’s drug facility in India. Inspectors found unsanitary conditions at the facility, including high growth of bacteria and mould.

Despite the fact that these data were uncovered by inspectors in 2012, the quarantine only applies to products made in the last month and a half.

“How can a medicine be too dangerous to import but safe enough to consume? This makes no sense,” said Amir Attaran, a law professor and health policy expert at the University of Ottawa.

By not ordering a recall, Attaran said, “Health Canada is knowingly leaving adulterated medicines on the pharmacy shelves.”

For their part, the pharmacies are hiding behind the fact that Health Canada has not ordered a recall of the products currently on the shelves, the same subterfuge that Pharmascience, the manufacturer of the drugs, is using.

This should be cold comfort indeed (no pun intended), given what FDA inspectors uncovered in the Indian plant where the ingredients come from. In addition to finding problematic test data being deleted from hard drives, they

also raised concerns about the water used to manufacture the drug ingredients. A probe of the microbiology lab found “significant growth of both bacteria and mold, and appeared to be TNTC (too numerous to count).” The company’s data used for detecting worrisome trends did not mention the problem, inspectors found.

Equally chilling,

the facility failed “to have adequate toilet and clean washing facilities supplied with hot water, soap or detergent,” inspectors found.

Asks the University of Ottawa’s Attaran,

“The cheapest greasy spoon in Toronto would be shut down if it had these conditions, but the pharmaceutical company sending stuff to Canada is allowed?” he said.

He questions why the government is allowing products originating from the facility to remain on pharmacy shelves, considering Canada’s Food and Drugs Act prohibits the sale of any drug manufactured under unsanitary conditions.

“The law is very clear on this,” he said. “We have evidence here that the product was manufactured under unsanitary conditions, and they’re selling it.

“What more does Health Canada want?”

These are questions all concerned Canadians should be demanding answers to. Given that an election is pending, perhaps our government will stop treating us, even temporarily, in such a contemptuous and cavalier manner?

Friend Or Foe?

You decide.

A message from Anonymous to ISIS:

We will hunt you, take down your sites, accounts, emails, and expose you…
From now on, no safe place for you online…
You will be treated like a virus, and we are the cure…
We own the internet…
We are Anonymous; we are Legion; we do not forgive, we do not forget, Expect us.

What, Me Worry?

H/t The Toronto Star

According to Star readers, there is plenty that could go wrong. Here is but a sampling of their concerns:

In his anti-terrorism speech, Stephen Harper said: “Over the last few years a great evil has been descending upon our world ... Canadians are targeted by these terrorists for no other reason than that we are Canadians. They want to harm us because they hate our society and the values it represents because they hate pluralism, they hate tolerance, and they hate freedom....the freedom we enjoy.”

Might I offer an interpretation of his remarks quoted above:

“Over the last few years a great evil has been descending upon Canada. So while purporting to protect Canadians, my government is targeting them simply because most of my fellow citizens are sheeple. More to the point, we can do what we like. We seek to strike fear into hearts in the hopes of winning the coming election. We hate opinions that stand in opposition to our own, we hate having to tolerate any opposition at all, and we are committed to diminishing further the remaining personal freedoms Canadians enjoy.”

Unfair? Too harsh? I invite anyone who believes so to examine the documented undermining of our democracy and its institutions wrought by Mr Harper over the past decade.

“The people can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders. All you have to do is tell them that they are in danger of being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.” (Hermann Goering)

Jan Michael Sherman, Halfmoon Bay, B.C.

Once the state usurps the authority to punish citizens prospectively for crimes that they allegedly “may” commit in future but have never actually committed or conspired to commit, this without due legal process: without formal charges being laid, without a hearing or a trial, much less before obtaining a conviction from a presumably still independent judiciary, we abandon all pretense of living as free citizens under a democratic system of government. It is the hallmark of every authoritarian regime at either end of the political spectrum to want to persecute, punish or “disappear” its political opponents extrajudicially: alleged “terrorists” today, “Banditen” as the Nazis called all those who opposed them or “Enemies of the State” under Stalin. Even a child knows how ridiculous and recklessly dangerous Harper’s proposed new powers, worthy of a Vladimir Putin, really are:

“Sentence first - verdict afterwards”, said the Queen to Alice. “Stuff and nonsense!” said Alice loudly. “The idea of having the sentence first!” “Hold your tongue!” said the Queen. “I won’t!” said Alice. “Off with her head!” the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved. “Who cares for you?’ said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) “You’re nothing but a pack of cards!”

If only. It seems that no one in Ottawa has learned anything from the Maher Arar debacle and is hell-bent on creating the perfect political climate for such travesties of natural justice to be repeated. Bill C-51 may protect the state from its citizenry (which our current government apparently lives in fear of) but fails to protect the presumptively innocent from malicious and unaccountable persecution by the state. It is a law antithetical to democracy and a betrayal of our most cherished human values.

Edward Ozog, Brantford

All of this puts me in mind of a 2002 movie called Minority Report. Anyone seen it?

David Bellamy Being Humiliated By George Monbiot Over Climate Change

The willfully ignorant will be offended, the critical thinker gratified, by this video:

This Is Great!

It is a strange online world we have created for ourselves, as this video amply demonstrates. Enjoy!

Canadaland Does It Again

Jesse Brown' Canadaland, the investigative website whose work allowed The Toronto Star to develop its series uncovering the Jian Ghomeshi scandal, is once again proving its worth in a landscape littered with corporate news media. This time it has discovered, thanks to a tip from a reader, the mysterious removal by Global News of an investigative report into that right-wing cabal known as the Koch brothers and their connections to Canada.

Last Thursday at 11:06am, an article titled "The Koch Stake in Canada" ran on GlobalNews.ca. The piece, by veteran investigative reporter Bruce Livesey summarized an upcoming investigative report titled "The Koch Connection," which, the article promised, was set to air two days later, on Saturday January 31 at 7pm. Global News promoted the item with a post on 16x9's Facebook page and a tweet from an official account, which was retweeted by Global's Washington correspondent Jackson Proskow.

By Thursday night, the article had disappeared from GlobalNews.ca, the Facebook post and official tweet were deleted, as was Proskow's retweet.

Fortunately, the original article, but not the promotion video, can be found on Google Cache, and it certainly makes for some interesting reading.

It explains how the Koch brothers have a vested interest in seeing the Keystone XL pipeline become a reality, given their extensive holdings in the Canada's tarsands. It also discusses well-known facts about the brothers, including the vast sums of money they direct to conservative politicians and climate-change denial groups.

As well, and this is perhaps where the investigation might have earned unwanted attention, they

fund the climate-change denying Fraser Institute think tank here in Canada.

The cached document also observes the following:

Multiple generations of Fraser Institute staffers and donors and board members have had links to the federal Conservative Party,” says Rick Smith, executive director of the Broadbent Institute, a liberal think tank. “And you know there’s no doubt that the Fraser Institute’saggressive denial of climate change, the Fraser Institute’s views on tax policy and on immigration – you can see resonating in Harper government policy.”

Yet the Kochs don’t seem to need to spend much money in Canada: after all, the policies of the Harper government on energy, pipelines, climate change and the oil sands dovetailwith their own. In fact, the Harper government has taken measures against the environmental movement that benefit the Kochs directly or indirectly.

So what is the official reason for pulling the exposé?

Canadaland conducted a telephone interview with Ron Waksman, Global News' Senior Director of Online News, Current Affairs, Editorial Standards & Practices, to try to get some answers. According to Waksman, it "was not up to scratch" and "had some holes in it."

Perhaps his most definitive reason was,

Look, when we have an editorial hypothesis, we need facts to back it up, we didn't have the facts to back it up. In my opinion it didn't meet our standards of fairness and balance. It just wasn't up to scratch.

Maddeningly short on specifics, Waksman's 'answers' invite the critical thinker to entertain darker possibilities.

With Canadaland at the helm on this story, I'm sure this isn't the last we will hear about it.

Oh, and one more ort to chew upon: Global News is owned by Calagry-based Shaw Communications, who advertise their services to the oil & gas industries here.

More On Our Opposition Leaders

Two posts I recently wrote were highly critical of both Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair for their apparent embrace, for political purposes, of Bill C-51, the bill that will serve only to further erode our civil liberties in the chimerical hope of containing terrorists threats to Canada. I expressed my disgust over the fact that both leaders seem ready to abandon the broader interests of Canada for the sake of their own quest for power, fearful of being labelled by the Harper machine as 'soft on terrorism.'

I may have been too quick to judge Mr. Mulcair.

According to Tim Harper in today's Star, Mulcair is preparing to diverge from Trudeau's acquiescence:

Voters will decide whether Opposition leader Tom Mulcair is brave or foolhardy, but the official Opposition is preparing a case to oppose the bill — not simply by working around the fringe on oversight or sunset clauses, but by questioning the guts of a bill that gives the country’s spy agency radical new powers, allows longer and easier preventive detention and would criminalize the “promotion” of terror from a naif in a basement.

The oppositions leaders' non-performance on this issue thus far has bothered me for a number of reason, their refusal to safeguard our liberties being only one of them.

Their timidity also bespeaks a jaundiced view of Canadian voters, one that says we are easily fooled and manipulated, a contemptuous philosophy found at the core of Harper strategies these past nine years. And while I have frequently expressed genuine concern on this blog about the general level of political engagement of my fellow citizens, political leaders who capitulate to the lowest common denominator essentially preclude the possibility of establishing vision and real leadership.

It would seem that Mulcair is mindful of this to some degree:

Mulcair will likely announce his opposition when the House returns later this month.

Is he filling an opening left by the Liberals? Yes. Is he ensuring he responds to his base? Surely.

There may be cold feet in the caucus, but opposition MPs must raise the questions, provide the skepticism and, ultimately, oppose a law if that is their view. They’re not supposed to flee from a wedge issue.

Mulcair will have to stand and explain that keeping Canadians safe does not mean sacrificing civil liberties. He will have to fend off the inevitable attacks that he is a weak-kneed terrorist-hugger.

But he will stand and oppose a bill he believes is flawed, meaning we will have one opposition leader doing his job.

To me, an opposition leader doing his job, despite the inherent political risks, commands respect; playing it safe, as is Justin Trudeau, does not.

Note To Peter Mansbridge

H/t Occupy Canada

Hammering Harper's Hypocrisy - Rick Mercer Does It Again

Should you ask Rick Mercer if he thinks the Harper regime is treating our vets fairly, he will give you this earful:

On Profound Timidity

H/t The Toronto Star

Yesterday's post dealt with the profound reluctance of Messieurs Trudeau and Mulcair to oppose Harper's latest incursion into our civil rights, Bill C-51, lest they be accused of being 'soft on terrorism' ("Oh, the horror!"). Better, in their minds, to betray the interests of Canadians than to be stuck with that taint, I guess.

Today's Star reports Justin Trudeau speaking with some enthusiasm about the bill, again carping around the edges about the need for more parliamentary oversight:

This bill can be improved but on the whole it does include measures that will help keep Canadians safe,” Trudeau told reporters.

But he conceded that his party will back the new law even if their suggestions are ignored by the Conservatives, adding that a Liberal government would bring in “robust” oversight and review if elected in the October election.

This seems hardly an adequate response to such an onerous bill, given that

it would give agents working for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service a broad new mandate to directly intervene in and “disrupt” emerging terror threats at home and abroad, even if it meant breaking the law.

In the same paper, Thomas Walkom writes about how even the parliamentary oversight called for by both Trudeau and Mulcair would not prevent or address the intrusions the bill makes possible:

In fact, most legislative oversight committees have limited authority. Those with greater powers, such as the U.S. Senate and House intelligence committees have, in many cases, given their imprimatur to dubious security practices. Walkom cites the use of torture by the C.I.A. While the Senate produced a report about it, it was years after the event, demonstrating the failure of oversight.

Or how about this?

In 2005, the New York Times broke the story that, in apparent violation of American law, the country’s National Security Agency was engaging in warrantless wiretaps of U.S. citizens. In this case, the chairs of both legislative oversight committees had known of the program since its inception in 2002. But they had done nothing.

Similar failures abound in other countries with supposed legislative safeguards:

Australia’s parliamentary oversight committee is barred from examining either operational methods or specific operations. It is not permitted to make public any information that the intelligence agencies want kept secret.

New Zealand’s oversight committee is subject to similar constraints. It is also specifically barred from inquiring into whether the country’s intelligence services are breaking the law (an appointed inspector-general does that).

In Britain, that country’s parliamentary oversight committee can look at past operational matters (if the prime minister agrees) as well as other matters that the prime minister wants it to examine. The government can deny the committee any information it deems sensitive. The committee’s annual reports to Parliament are subject to censorship by the prime minister.

What does all of this demonstrate? In my mind it is a piercing indictment of both Trudeau and Mulcair, who, in hiding behind the accountability mask, are revealing themselves for what they really are: political opportunists whose only real passion is for power, not public service.

The Illusion Of Choice

I know that I am but one of millions who long for the day the Harper regime is electorally deposed. That day cannot come soon enough. Yet, along with countless others, I am also aware that merely electing a Liberal or NDP government may only mean a change in style, not substance, given the many positions they hold in common with Dear Leader.

The anti-terror measures of Bill C-51 is one very worrisome case in point.

In today's Star, Thomas Walkom makes the following observations:

Both New Democratic Party Leader Tom Mulcair and Liberal chieftain Justin Trudeau danced warily around the substance of Bill C-51.

They had nothing to say about measures that would criminalize speech the government deemed pro-terrorist.

They had no views on proposals that would give 17 security agencies access to any information in any government department on any Canadian.

They said nothing about a section of the bill that would permit the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to engage in illegal and unconstitutional dirty tricks.

Indeed, the only criticism of Bill C-51 levelled by the Liberals and New Democrats to date is that it doesn’t provide parliamentary oversight of security agencies that have been given these new powers.

Which is another way of saying to Harper: We don’t mind if you erode civil liberties, as long as you let a few of us in on what you’re up to.

Wary of being labelled 'soft on terrorism,' the leaders of the two parties vying to replace Harper are revealing once more that the quest for power takes primacy over what is best for Canadians. No questions about why such measure are needed. No queries about what the inadequacy of existing laws might be. Only silent consent with a soupçon of carping at the periphery.

Contrast that cowardice with the brave and consistent integrity of Green Party leader Elizabeth May:

She said Monday in the Commons that it would turn CSIS into a “secret police force.”

She also asked if the bill’s remarkably broad definition of crimes against the security of Canada included anti-pipeline protests (and got no answer).

And so the charade goes on.

But where are the rest of us on this issue? Despite a very compelling warning by Edward Snowden as well as objections by The Canadian Civil Liberties Union and others, far too many of us seem content to shrug our shoulders and dismiss concerns with a simple, "I'm not a terrorist, so why should I worry?" an attitude fraught with pitfalls.

But I guess there is at least one undeniable inference to be drawn from all of this: Human beings are remarkably consistent in their ability to ignore the lessons of history.

A Timely Warning From Edward Snowden

But will anyone listen?

Edward Snowden, the man wanted for leaking U.S. security documents in 2013 says Canadians should be “extraordinarily cautious” in reference to an anti-terror bill proposed by the Harper government. Snowden and journalist Glenn Greenwald spoke to a group of Toronto students Monday evening.

An Explanation For Baird's Departure?

Ed Tanas has perhaps hit upon the reason for the pitbull's pending egress from federal politics:

John Baird resigning due to PTED (Post Traumatic Egging Disorder)?



Or could it be this, which Ed also sent along? (Satire alert!)



And the National Post's John Ivison speculates that it may be that he is being pushed.

John Baird to Resign?

If true, this is quite unexpected.

Herr Harper, His Propaganda Machine, Your Tax Dollars

Hmmm.... it seems that the CBC has not yet quite capitulated to the Harper regime, at least when chief appeaser Peter Mansbridge isn't hosting The National:

Have Your Say

I see that the Globe and Mail is conducting an online poll, the full results of which will be published February 7, as we approach the ninth anniversary of Harperland. While it asks several questions, its theme is this: How do you feel about the Canada Stephen Harper has shaped?

Those wishing to express their views can do so by clicking here.

And On A Personal Note...

I thought long and hard before making the decision to post the following, for two reasons: one, in the broader scheme of things it is a quite negligible plaint, and two, it perhaps exposes me as the petty and vindictive person that I on occasion can be. On the other hand, since it deals with what I consider to be exploitative and disdainful corporate practices, it may be of interest to some readers.

I will let this letter that I sent off to Air Transat speak for itself:

To Whom it May Concern:

Recently, my wife and I flew Air Transat to Cuba, departing from Toronto early morning January 23 and arriving back in Toronto January 30 at about 5:00 pm. While our one-week sojourn on the Caribbean island was a delight, our experiences with your airline were not. As a consequence, we will no longer be patronizing Air Transat unless there is absolutely no alternative.

On our previous trip to Cuba, we had a good experience with Sunwing, where a 'snack' is the choice of a substantial sandwich or pizza. A large cookie constituted dessert. Additionally, a glass of champagne and wine with the snack were provided at no charge, as were the headphones. Ensuring that the passengers feel respected appears to be part of Sunwing's business philosophy.

Clearly, Air Transat embraces an entirely different view of the customer, first evidenced by the fact that your airline's 'snack' consisted of a Krispy Kernnels 14 gram (.50 oz.) bag of bbq toasted corn, the quantity about the size of the ones found in bulk Halloween bags. Any sustenance that might have been considered appropriate for a journey of three and one-half hours cost at least $7. To compound the insult, headphones were offered at $8 each.

It is clear from the above that you view your passengers, not as paying guests but rather as cash cows. Since I am not given to the kind of bovine passivity that afflicts so many others, I find such a corporate attitude quite objectionable and unacceptable.

The return trip had even more unpleasantness in store. My sister-in-law, who accompanied us on our trip, paid for preferred seating because she is tall. She was supposed to have been guaranteed the same aisle seat both going and returning. However, she was assigned a different seat on our return, and when she pointed out to the head attendant she needed an aisle seat, she was rather imperiously told, 'That's not going to happen.' When I pointed out to the attendant that she had paid for her seat choice, she said, “Everyone just calm down.” Frankly, I have not been spoken to in such a condescending manner since childhood. I then pointed out to her that it was disgraceful that she didn't get the seat she paid for.

My sister-in-law, when we deplaned, told me that the offending attendant was later conciliatory and told her she would be able to get her seating surcharge reimbursed, so I speak only for myself and my wife here when I say that the attendant's initial disdainful response was disrespectful but hardly surprising, given the attitude your company seems to have toward its customers.

In a few days I shall be posting my comments on some travel forums. I strongly suggest that you rethink your arrogant and exploitative attitudes before you find more and more travellers choosing alternative carriers.

Remembering The Harper Record

If the progressive community is to have any hope of ridding the country of the Harper scourge next election, it must be relentless in reminding as many people as possible of his sorry record.

While Harper is now desperately rebranding himself from the now-failed Oil Czar to Strong Leader Standing Against ISIS (even if he has to command from the closet) remembrances of things past are crucial, as in the following Rick Mercer rant on the master economist's ineptitude:

Herr Harper Is At It Again, But The Media Revolt

H/t Kat McNamara

The Harper-led assault on our rights as Canadians continues, this time under the guise of Bill C-51, the new Anti-Terrorism Act. And finally, the media showed some resistance.

Reporters in Ottawa became surly quickly Friday when it was discovered the government lock-up they attended for a briefing on proposed anti-terror legislation was light on information and heavy on restrictions.

The federal government was tabling Bill C-51, Canada's new ''Anti-Terrorism Act'' meant to bolster authorities' powers to prevent and dismantle terrorist activity.

Forced to agree to an embargo on information until a set time, the reporters were dismayed to find that they were not given the actual bill to peruse.

President of the Parliamentary Press Gallery Laura Payton took up the cause and at the back of the room argued with government staffers, questioning the point of having reporters sign an undertaking when they weren't even being given sensitive information, just backgrounders. The backgrounders detailed little information the reporters didn't already suspect would be in the new legislation.

As discontent grew, an Orwellian intimidation tactic was launched:

Public Safety Canada and Department of Justice employees around the room began nervous attempts to calm reporters.

''Are you filming us?'' a CBC reporter asked in disbelief to a staffer who appeared to be using a phone to record the discontent. The undertaking signed by media specifically said there was to be no filming in the room.

When things calmed down, questions were asked based on information given on background:

The bulk of reporters' questions were on how the bill makes it an indictable offense to knowingly advocate or promote terrorism offences ''in general,'' which could mean people who post propaganda on social media are subject to arrest.

During the question-and-answer period, reporters asked how the government would decide who is supporting terrorism. Stephen Maher from Postmedia asked if someone would be breaking the law if they posted material encouraging attacks by Ukrainian militants on Russian targets in Crimea.

The row of bureaucrats at the front of the room said they wouldn't speculate on hypothetical situations. Many answers seemed scripted to the point where one reporter asked if they were just reading parts of the backgrounder as their answers. The staffer replied that they weren't.

And so the charade continued.

And will continue, of course, until the Canadian electorate grows a backbone and gets rid of the dictator and his entire apparatus.

Herr Harper, Who Is Your Goebbels?

Having returned from our Cuban sojourn last evening, I have not yet had time to get caught up on the Canadian political scene, but this item by Heather Mallick deconstructing one of Herr Harper's recent 24/Seven productions caught my eye.

Its martial music, military imagery and depiction of Dear leader's steady hand on the tiller of state, standing strong against those who "hate our freedoms," left me with only one question: Are Herr Goebbels' descendants now gainfully employed by Prop Can?



P.S. I noticed that the closed captions were turned on when playing the video. I guess that is so the true believers don't miss even one word. If you are not thus enamored of the prime minister, you might want to turn them off.

On Hiatus

Time to head back to our favourite island before it is infiltrated by the Americans.

See you in about a week.

Another Compelling Video From Operation Maple

Operation Maple (Take Canada Back) is continuing its fine job of reminding us of the terrible way we are governed, offering us frequent and compelling evidence that demonstrates how the neo-liberal agenda, pursued with such diabolical glee by the Harper regime, is continuing to undermine our country. I suspect its resources, and others (the Salamander, for example, has some interesting ideas in this regard which I shall soon write about) will become increasingly important as we move ever closer to the next federal election. Please visit their site and disseminate their material as you see fit.

The following video explores the history of the free trade agreement and its costly consequences, consequences that continue to this day and promise to grow even more grave under the Canada-China Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) and the Canada-Eu (CETA) deal.

Our sovereignty as a nation continues to erode thanks to these agreements, brokered with such secrecy, with the only true beneficiaries the corporate elites and the multinationals.

Rick's Latest

As usual, Mr. Mercer does us all proud as he yet again lambastes the obdurate, arrogant Mr. Harper, this time over the fact that he doesn't play well with others (a.k.a. the provincial premiers).

The Real Problem With Contemporary Journalism

The current scandal engulfing the CBC and Amanda Lang has made its way overseas into the cross-hairs of The Guardian's George Monbiot.

After providing a summary, with appropriate links, of the sordid Lang tale that encompasses massive conflict of interest and management collusion, Monbiot has this to say:

CBC refused to answer my questions, and I have not had a response from Lang. It amazes me that she remains employed by CBC, which has so far done nothing but bluster and berate its critics.

But the CBC's indefensible stance is not the real subject of Monbiot's essay, merely part of the context for his thesis:

[T]hose who are supposed to scrutinise the financial and political elite are embedded within it. Many belong to a service-sector aristocracy, wedded metaphorically (sometimes literally) to finance. Often unwittingly, they amplify the voices of the elite, while muffling those raised against it.

Studies and statistic prove his point:

A study by academics at the Cardiff School of Journalism examined the BBC Today programme’s reporting of the bank bailouts in 2008. It discovered that the contributors it chose were “almost completely dominated by stockbrokers, investment bankers, hedge fund managers and other City voices. Civil society voices or commentators who questioned the benefits of having such a large finance sector were almost completely absent from coverage.” The financiers who had caused the crisis were asked to interpret it.

The heavily biased reporting on that catastrophe, however, was only representative of a deeper malaise:

The same goes for discussions about the deficit and the perceived need for austerity. The debate has been dominated by political and economic elites, while alternative voices – arguing that the crisis has been exaggerated, or that instead of cuts, the government should respond with Keynesian spending programmes or taxes on financial transactions, wealth or land – have scarcely been heard. Those priorities have changed your life: the BBC helped to shape the political consensus under which so many are now suffering.

And what about fair and balanced reporting? A fiction, according to Monbiot:

The BBC’s business reporting breaks its editorial guidelines every day by failing to provide alternative viewpoints. Every weekday morning, the Today programme grovels to business leaders for 10 minutes. It might occasionally challenge them on the value or viability of their companies, but hardly ever on their ethics. Corporate critics are shut out of its business coverage – and almost all the rest.

On BBC News at Six, the Cardiff researchers found, business representatives outnumbered trade union representatives by 19 to one. “The BBC tends to reproduce a Conservative, Eurosceptic, pro-business version of the world,” the study said. This, remember, is where people turn when they don’t trust the corporate press.

He ends by listing the media's myriad failures, and the grave consequence of those failures:

...their failure to expose the claims of the haut monde, their failure to enlist a diversity of opinion, their failure to permit the audience to see that another world is possible. If even the public sector broadcasters parrot the talking points of the elite, what hope is there for informed democratic choice?

Monbiot's piece should be required reading for all concerned about the condition of that great protector of democracy, the fifth estate. As well, we would be indeed foolish if we failed to understand that the insights he offers apply, not just to Great Britain, but to Canada and much of the rest of western world, as well.

Harper Intimidation Tactic Backfires

As noted yesterday, the Harper-led CRA attacks on charities inimical to the base continues apace, the latest 'victim' being Dying With Dignity Canada, which is having its charitable status 'annulled.' However, this time it appears that the bully's strategy has backfired.

As reported in The Star, Dying With Dignity Canada is not going to appeal the decision, instead seeing it as a real opportunity:

“We won’t be opposing it, simply because it would be lengthy, time consuming, costly and a distraction from our core work,’’ Morris said in a telephone interview from Toronto.

She hinted strongly that once her group’s status is officially gone, it will use its website to begin endorsing politicians and parties who support the physician-assisted suicide position.

“We’ll be able to say here’s a candidate, come look,’’ Morris said.

“It’s unfortunate we’ll no longer be able to issue tax receipts, but it will also be a real freeing from constraints, because as a charity we’ve really had to follow careful guidelines from the (revenue agency). We’ll no longer need to do that,’’ Morris added.

A visit to their website shows a wealth of information on the topic of dying with dignity, surely fulfilling the educational component that comprises a good part of CRA-conferred charitable status, and solidly giving the lie to the Agency's alleged reason for revoking that status.

Nonetheless, as a result of Harper's sleazy intolerance of opposing views, I suspect that the profile of Dying With Dignity Canada has been considerably enhanced.

Sorry it didn't work out for you this time, Stephen.