Would I Lie To You?

Faith can be a marvelous thing, one that people take strength from as they go about their daily lives. One meaning of faith, as offered by Oxford Dictionaries online, encapsulates this idea:

strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

However, there is another definition of faith that is not necessarily so benign:

complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

It is this second definition of faith that many would have us place in the integrity and purpose of unfettered capitalism, usually accompanied by the mantra that private enterprise is always more efficient and productive than public ownership/direction/influence. I suppose for some, that faith does take on religious dimensions and fervour if we listen to some well-known right-wing ranters. (I'll let you fill in the blanks here.)

My theological reflections were prompted by a couple of stories I read in the morning newspapers, one in The Toronto Star and the other in The Hamilton Spectator.

The first story, Watchdog orders Brampton to reveal details of huge contract, revolves around a massive downtown redevelopment project, the financial details of which both the citizens and the councillors have been denied access to up to now.

Councillors and residents have tried unsuccessfully for more than a year to learn more about the pricing of the winning bid by Dominus Construction, which could cost taxpayers more than half a billion dollars for all three phases. Only the first phase was approved by council last August, at a construction cost of $94 million for a nine-storey building, parking and a two-storey expansion of city hall.

Brampton resident Chris Bejnar was one of many who tried to get details about the Dominus bid, one of only two considered by the city for the project. He asked city staff for the exact square footage of each part of the project and the cost per square foot, but was denied. He then filed a freedom of information request, but it was also denied.

Finally, he appealed to the Ontario Information and Privacy Commission. In her decision, dated July 31, adjudicator Cathy Hamilton writes: “In my view, the city has provided speculative, unsupported assertions of economic and financial harms in the event the information in the record is disclosed. The suggestion that disclosure will place a chill over (bidders) when they consider participating in future (bids) and that future bids will be higher as a result of disclosure is self-serving” and unsubstantiated, she concludes.

Similarly, the rights of taxpayers and councillors to know the costs of public projects is being scrutinized in Hamilton regarding the rebuilding of Ivor Wynne Stadium for the Pan Am Games:

Councillors frustrated by stadium secrecy - Infrastructure Ontario keeping details under wraps

City staff were asking for council's approval to enter into discussions with Infrastructure Ontario to determine the “roles, relationships, joint and separate responsibilities, authorizations and obligations” for the Pam Am stadium.

According to the report, the capital cost for the stadium is $145.6 million. The operating costs for 2012 are $340,300. However, the staff report offered few details about how the costs and operating responsibilities of the stadium will be shared.

The story goes on to reveal that if councillors want that information from Infrastructure Ontario, they must sign confidentiality agreements. The 'explanation' for this secrecy?

Infrastructure Ontario has said that keeping details of the stadium proposals under wraps protects taxpayers by making sure developers are not unduly influenced by public scrutiny.

Secrecy about how taxpayers' dollars are being used, in order to protect developers?

For one of little faith in right-wing ideology, all I can say is thanks for the peak behind the curtain.

Because ....

.....some animals are more equal than others, I guess. At least that seems to be the message in McGuinty's Ontario.*

*Doctors, teachers, and most other public servants need not apply.

From A Star Reader

My sentiments exactly, Steve:

Re: A G20 cop’s close call, Aug. 10

I am a 59-year-old middle-class law-abiding person. That said, I cannot help but remark on the juxtaposition of the description of George Horton's “crimes” with the picture of police activity during the G20.

Horton is accused of wearing a disguise and mischief. The police officer in the picture accompanying the article has deliberately removed his name tag and any other identifying badges, is wearing a mask and is kicking the body of a protester. The police officer in question is clearly attempting to disguise himself in order to engage in mischief/misconduct. Until the police at both the individual and very senior level face discipline (beyond losing pay), I think it would be a gross miscarriage of justice for Horton to face jail time.

I have great sympathy for Staff Sgt. Graham Queen. He was, however, able to take refuge in a locked cruiser and was armed and able to defend himself. The same cannot be said for the people on the receiving end of a police boot.

Steve Morse, Cookstown

What Purpose Do We Serve?

Although I have written on this topic before, I think it merits a return visit, given the environmental disasters currently engulfing the world.

Were it within my power, I would legislate that all people in both elementary and high school, and in the world's corporate boardrooms, be required to watch nature documentaries on a regular basis. That way, they would quickly become disabused of the notion that we are somehow outside of or above nature, rather than simply a part of it.

Last night I watched one entitled, Big Sur: Wild California, featuring stunning images of the flora and fauna that area of the West Coast is famous for. And I was once more reminded, as I always am when watching such documentaries, of the interconnectedness of nature, and the delicate balance that exists when left unmolested.

For example, sharks are vital to our survival because of the role they play in protecting the oxygen-producing capacities of the oceans, and while last night's film did not deal with such dramatic realities, there was a very vivid if implicit reminder of how dangerous human activity can be to the earth's ecosystems. The sea otter, once almost wiped out thanks to trade in their furs, are quite fond of sea urchins. Sea urchins have a rather voracious capacity for kelp, underwater forests of which grow in the Pacific off of Big Sur. Were it not for the otters' presence, the urchins would have full reign, and the kelp would be no more. Just one small example of a truth that permeates the natural world.

This morning at breakfast, I was telling my wife about some of the nature arcana I gleaned from the video, stressing the delicate balance I have just referred to. I said that everything has a role to play, after which she asked rhetorically, "Then what role do humans play in this scheme of things?"

Sadly, the answer is all too clear. With our 'superior intelligence,' the destruction we have wrought in nature we are being reminded of on an almost daily basis.

And, as the meteorologists are fond of saying, "There is no relief in sight."

It is Sunday, and the sermon is now ended.

UPDATED: The Vatican Needs A Good (Re)boot

Although I am a man with spiritual beliefs, I have little but contempt for religious institutions, given as they are to making rules and interpretations that serve only to inhibit inquiry and honest discussion about the true nature of reality as they desperately try to maintain their waning political power.

Particularly guilty of this is the Catholic Church, the mother church of Christianity, and the religion in which I was raised.

Even now, well into the twenty-first century, the Vatican tries to carry on as if the Middle Ages had never ended.

The latest in a myriad of insults to intelligence, progressive theology, and human equality comes in its battle with the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, the organization that represents 80 per cent of American nuns, all seeking dialogue with the intractable institution that they serve.

Last April, the group was ordered to put itself under the authority of Seattle Archbishop Peter Sartain. Their crimes?

Officially, the Vatican’s criticism focuses on accusations that the nuns are too vocal on social justice issues and too silent on backing church doctrine opposing birth control, abortion and homosexuality. They are also accused of dissenting on all-male priesthood and taking positions with “radical feminist themes.”

Just imagine the audacity of these women who willingly and radically altered the course of their lives to pursue Christ's injunctions about justice, love, and acceptance. What were they thinking, confronting an institution that, through its historical and contemporary propensity for corruption, the concealing and condoning child abuse just one example, cares nothing about those ideals?

You can read the full story of these brave women confronting the wanton abuse of authority here.

UPDATE: For more information about theses nuns and the repressive reaction they have elicited from the male hierarchy of the Church, Alternet.org has a good article.

More Ridicule for a Gun-Loving Cop

In many ways, as the cliche goes, laughter is the best medicine. I often think that within the media and the blogosphere, far too much serious attention is paid to the most outrageous people, whose utterances are so preposterous that they probably should be ignored or justifiably ridiculed. After all, where would people like Ezra Levant and Brian Lilley be without an audience (and I'm not talking here about the minuscule minority that actually subscribes to Sun TV.)

So it was with a certain delight that I read Heather Mallick's column in today's Star as she riffs on the Nose Hill event in which Officer Walt Wawra reminded us of how alien American values and sensibilities are.

Says Mallick:

I confess, I have freely chatted to people walking in Nose Hill Park in Calgary. “Nice dog,” I’ll say, even when it isn’t a nice dog at all. “Gorgeous day,” I’ll offer, even when it’s not.

It’s just my harmless Toronto-type blither. I had no idea I was risking being shot to death by an excitable visiting cop from Kalamazoo who thinks “Have you been to the Stampede yet?” is a coded invitation to join the choir invisible. I would have eaten extensive American lead.

For both a laugh and some sobering social commentary, be sure to check out Mallick's piece, a weapon of a different kind, today.

More on Drilling for Oil in the Gulf of St. Lawrence

As noted recently, the Harper regime, in its bottomless contempt and disregard for the environment, recently opened up the possibility of drilling for oil in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, another unpleasant fact hidden deep within the arcana of Omnibus Bill C-38. Happily, this fact was brought to the public's attention by the Toronto Star, whose readers invariably offer some insights worth preserving and spreading through the blogosphere.

Here are two from today's edition:

Re: Drilling for oil without a clue, Editorial Aug. 6

Thanks for drawing our attention to yet another major concern about the current federal government’s budget bill: highlighting the potential for oil exploration in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and amendments to the Coasting Trade Act that give oil companies greater access to exploration.

An oil spill in the Gulf of St. Lawrence would be disastrous as Green Party Leader Elizabeth May warns. The spill would not only affect the five eastern provinces of Canada but also the eastern U.S. states.

And it would become an additional potential threat to the Great Lakes ecosystem on which all of us on both sides of the border depend for water, for fish and for recreation. If citizens on both sides of the border were to unite around this concern, would Stephen Harper listen?

Anne Mitchell, Toronto

Once again, more surprises are oozing out of the federal omnibus bill. This time, it’s the potential for ecological and economic disasters as a result of drilling for oil in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Through amendments to the Coasting Trade Act and the removal of the requirements for environmental assessments for experimental offshore drilling, this backdoor approval of the federal budget bill has left Canadians astonished, bewildered and decidedly uneasy.

One can only imagine what other surprises are lurking down the road.

Bill Wensley, Cobourg