Threatening to withhold strike pay, The United Steelworkers International is forcing the members at Nanticoke to vote on a contract demanding concessions to U.S. Steel. Surely this is an illustration of what Chis hedges has to say in his book, Death of the Liberal Class.
- it will severely circumscribe our ability to regulate our environment, since any such measures that lead to loss of corporate profit would result in compensation demands from the aggrieved businesses;
- lawsuits will take place in secret tribunals outside of Canada;
- the negotiations have been conducted in secret, completely devoid of transparency;
- as opposed to NAFTA, which can be cancelled with six months' notice, FIPA will have a lifespan of 31 years
- China will be able to circumscribe local preferences on suppliers and employment.
To be fair to Trudeau, the Liberals are on record as saying they oppose some of the provisions of the deal, but were not prepared to side with the NDP motion to definitively declare the deal dead, banking instead on the possibility of changing some of the treaty's terms.
Nonetheless, the reaction of disappointment toward Trudeau's vote got me thinking about his dearth of policy pronouncements and the fact that in the run-up to the leadership convention, so many were projecting their own hopes and interpretation onto the blank canvas that he touts as a strength, since he claims to want to talk to Canadians about their concerns and priorities. Indeed, all we know about where he stands comes from his announcements about concerns for the middle class, youth unemployment, and similar platitudes.
Which got me thinking about a book I read several years ago, later made into an outstanding film featuring the peerless Peter Sellers in his last performance. Entitled Being There, it told the tale of a simple man, Chauncey Gardener, a gardener who is forced out into the world upon the death of his employer. In some ways a savant, he knows nothing except the world of gardening, but is mistaken for a well-educated, affluent upper class man, and ultimately his 'counsel' is sought by the high and mighty of society, who infer deep meaning, never intended by the speaker, from his literal and simplistic observations.
Clearly, Justin Trudeau is no savant. But then, the movie was not so much about Chauncey than it was a sendup of the credulity and shallowness of the people around him, searching for meaning and wisdom where there was none.
Perhaps these two clips best demonstrate my point:
I reminded her of the literature we had studied that attests to those qualities. John Steinbeck, in his best-known novel, The Grapes of Wrath, explored the concept of Manself, his term for the human spirit, a spirit that may certainly suffer setbacks, whether through violence in its many forms, beaten strikes or economic injustice, but remains alive, even in defeat, as long as people continue taking the steps necessary to oppose oppression in its many forms:
... Fear the time when the bombs stop falling while the bombers live- for every bomb is proof that the spirit has not died. And fear the time when the strikes stop while the great owners live – for every little beaten strike is proof that the step is being taken.
And this you can know- fear the time when Manself will not suffer and die for a concept, for this one quality is the foundation of Manself, and this one quality is man, distinctive in the universe.
During the recent bombings in Boston, that spirit was very much in evidence. People, despite not knowing where or when the next bomb might go off, instead of fleeing to the safety of shelter, tended to those who had sustained such grievous injuries. Whether doctors, passersby or marathon watchers, they thought of others before themselves:
This is why, whether we are talking about evil on a large or small scale, whether we are talking about suffering that seems to arbitrarily visit us either collectively or individually, hope remains alive, reminding all of us that every one of these moments of grace point the way to something greater, something that some would call transcendent, or to paraphrase Steinbeck, distinctive in the animal kingdom.
It is from this perspective that I look skeptically at all of the parties, not the least of which is the NDP, which I shall likely vote for in the next federal election, despite grave misgivings over its drift toward the centre (perhaps even the centre-right?)
This morning's Star editorial cartoon is worth pondering:
Also worth consideration is this letter from Michael Dale, of Stratford Ontario:
NDP removes socialist language in its constitution, April 15
The recent choice by the NDP to discard the word socialism from its constitution comes as no surprise to those of us who genuinely strive for a better, more equitable system.
The NDP was born an opportunistic party and now it has openly shed any pretense of principle. I applaud this move. Now perhaps socialists within the party who have long made excuses for its behaviour will come to their senses and leave.
Some issue was made of the appearance of U.S. Democratic party functionaries at the recent NDP convention. This should not have been a surprise. The NDP derived its very name from that American institution as it opportunistically attempted to catch the wake of another flashy young U.S. president who lacked substance. History does repeat itself.
I ask only one thing of the NDP. Please stop claiming a lineage from the CCF. That historic party was a socialist party. The NDP in no way shares its goals or ideals.
It shows a lack of respect for the women and men who risked all to stand up against the established political and financial power of Canada. Let the CCF remain a noble historic symbol of working class determination. And may its torch someday be raised again by socialists across the country.
It may be that I am overly sensitive to the reactionary agenda that seems to dominate society today. It may be that I am misinterpreting a public statement made by a Canadian professor who teaches at both the Royal Military College of Canada and Queen’s University. It may mean nothing at all. Or it could have very dangerous implications.
Ever since the terrorist attacks in New York in 2001, there has been a steady erosion of civil liberties in the United States. Illegal renditions by that country, aided and abetted by many other jurisdictions, targetting American citizens for assassination, and denying suspects their Miranda rights are but three examples.
Lest we think we are beyond such practices in Canada, we need only think of the infamous case of Maher Arar, whose rendition to Syria for torture and imprisonment was aided and abetted by our government.
So it was with real interest that I read in this morning's Star the fact that two years ago, Russia warned the FBI that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the 26-year-old bombing suspect killed earlier Friday after a firefight with police, was a follower of radical Islam” and that “he had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the United States for travel to the country’s region to join unspecified underground groups.”
The question naturally arises, of course, as to why, with that warning, nothing was done to prevent the deaths and grievous injuries that occurred last week at The Boston Marathon.
Canadian professor Christian Leuprecht addresses that question in the following way:
“Is there anything in the way that the law is written that prevented intelligence agencies from doing the job they need to do?”
“It points to the difficulty we’ve put intelligence services in,” he said. “On the one hand we expect them to pick out all the radicals and rein them in and make sure they don’t do anything crazy. On the other, we live in a society where we agree that just having marginal ideas is not illegal.”
Again, I am perfectly willing to admit the possibility that I am misinterpreting Professor Leuprecht's comments, which may simply be observational in nature. However, if they are, instead, prescriptive, he and everyone else who may see our rights and freedoms as inconvenient or unnecessary fetters to law enforcement need to be reminded of one inconvenient truth: those rights and freedoms exist to protect citizens against abuses from the state; they are not there to make anyone's job easier, even for those charged with the responsibility of rooting out terrorism that may reside in our midst.
Coupled with the fact that two grad students detected a fundamental error in the spreadsheet calculations of the two Harvard professors upon whose shoddy work the justification for austerity largely rests, perhaps it is time for a larger consideration of its wisdom?
UPDATE: Here is solid evidence to support Mark Blyh's warning about the circular effect of widespread austerity efforts.
