The Face of Integrity

With a transcript of the extended interview.

H/t Alex Himelfarb

The War Crimes of Our Political Leaders

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parsing The Rhetoric

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

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

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

Egomania, Not Trudeaumania: Updated

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

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

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

Ditto for the NDP:

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

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

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

H/t #canpoli

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

Patterns

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

More On Harper's Censorship of Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What People Want From Leaders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We love the streetcar.

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

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

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

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