Tragedy In The Commons

I know that I am hardly alone in sometimes thinking that the insights and observations of progressives have a Cassandra-like quality to them; we think we can see patterns auguring ill for our country and our democracy, but warnings are largely ignored by a quiescent or alienated proportion of the population, the latter so turned off by the cupidity and corruption that seems to abound in the political world that they have just disengaged and decided to pursue other aspects of life that seem more worthwhile.

One can argue that it has always been thus; others can, quite cogently, argue that the process of alienation has vastly accelerated under the Harper regime, the result of a cabal that has made an art out of vilification, dirty tricks and divisiveness as it relentlessly pursues its raison d'être, the retention of power for its own sake.

I have just started reading Tragedy in the Commons, written by Alison Loat and Michael MacMillan, who founded Samara, a non-profit devoted to strengthening democracy in Canada by improving political participation.

Here is a brief excerpt from it about the role of the MP as offered by a former Liberal:

The truth is: you're there to develop policy that is self-serving and beneficial to your party in order to keep you in power and get you re-elected...

That bald statement epitomizes the monumental task before those who seek a renewed democracy, one that offers both hope and the opportunity to feel a part of something larger than themselves, something truly worthwhile.

While I was intending this post as a lead-in to more commentary on how the Conservatives have so abjectly failed in the above regard, other duties summon me, so for now I will leave you with this brief video:

That Crazy Old Evangelical Strikes Again

You're never too old, counsels Pastor Pat:

A Voice From The Past

The always mellifluous Brian Mulroney offers some less than sweet-sounding words for the Harper government. As reported in The Globe and Mail, in an interview with Don Martin on CTV's Power Play, the former prime minister is quite critical of aspects of of the current, and warns that the electoral appetite for change is real and needs to be respected.

About Harper's very public and disgraceful dispute with Canada's Chief Justice, he says:

“You don’t get into a slagging contest with the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, even if you thought that he or she was wrong ... You don’t do that.”

On Canada's current relationship with the United Natons:

“When Canada, for the first time in our history, loses a vote at the United Nations to become a member of the Security Council . . . to Portugal, which was on the verge of bankruptcy at the time, you should look in the mirror and say: ‘Houston, I think we have a problem.’”

Without explicitly criticizing the Harper record on the environment, Mulroney says that

a “pristine environment” is important to Canada’s middle class.

“There are very few things that the middle class value more than the environment . . . and that’s one thing we can deliver on,” he said.

“The prime minister alone has to make it a very strong priority of the government, has to make sure it has the funds and the clout.”

About Justin Trudeau:

“His program is that he’s not Stephen Harper ... When I ran in ‘84... I won because I wasn’t Pierre Trudeau and then Jean Chrétien 10 years later won because he wasn’t Brian Mulroney. So it’s part of a desire for change, which is normal, and so I think it’s going to make for a great election [in 2015].”

Like a priest inspecting the entrails of a sacrificed animal, Mulroney's words suggest impending darkness for the Harper crew. And like many imperial presences of the past, Emperor Harper is likely to ignore these auguries at his peril and our gain.

Joan Rivers

I was never a fan of Joan Rivers, though I take no pleasure in the fact that she has died. However, you can call me churlish and insensitve, but I doubt that the celebrity hagiography likely to ensue will include this outburst from last month:

A Union Victory

About a year ago I wrote two posts on Richtree Market, the union-busting Toronto eatery that got the clever idea of terminating all of its unionized employees, shutting down its restaurant, located in the Eaton Centre, only to reopen later a few doors down (about 50 metres) from its original spot, much larger and still within the Eaton Centre. It rehired none of the former staff but instead offered lower-paying jobs to non-union members.

Happily, this story of corporate craftiness has a happy ending and once more reminds us of the importance and relevance of unions in fighting for and defending workers' rights.

Brought before the Ontario Labour Relations Board by the union representing the workers, the

dispute between Richtree Markets and Unite Here Local 75 hinged on the exact street address of the Eaton Centre, with the restaurant arguing the union’s collective bargaining rights didn’t apply to the new site.

Thinking they were clever, Richtree argued

that the street address on the union’s collective agreement, 220 Yonge St., did not apply to the new location, given the address of 14 Queen St. W. — which was not a physical entrance to the mall.

The restaurant's sophistry was readily apparent to the Board:

In January, labour board chair Bernard Fishbein ruled the union’s bargaining rights “should not be extinguished by a move of some 50 metres across the corridor of the mall,” especially to an address “that presently has no real existence other than on a piece of paper.”

“There is no doubt that the official municipal address of the Eaton Centre has not changed (and obviously not moved),” Fishbein wrote in the board’s decision.

Subsequently, about 140 non-unionized workers at Richtree’s Eaton Centre location ratified a new collective agreement last week.

Under the new collective agreement, the 50 employees of the old location will have the opportunity to resume working at the restaurant with their seniority intact.

A victory that is sweet to savor, and one that once more reminds us that workers' rights need to be zealously guarded and never taken for granted.

The Murky Lessons Of History

Blindingly clear for some, obscure and ambiguous for others, the lessons of history need to be given close scrutiny these days, especially by our chickenhawk prime minister. Like so much else that his regime brays and sputters about, Stephen Harper's recent tough talk about the Ukraine and the Middle East conceals, minimizes, dismisses or entirely overlooks some very inconvenient truths.

Perhaps still smarting over having missed out on the first Iraqi war, which he supported, Harper seems to be eagerly embracing the latest opportunities fate has brought him. Fortunately, The Star's Thomas Walkom is there to remind him and us of some things best heeded.

During the last Iraq war, many nations, including Germany, France and Canada, officially chose to stay aloof.

This Iraq war is supported by a large array of Western nations including France, Britain, Italy, Australia, Germany — and Canada.

And, unfortunately, the opposition parties seem to have drunk from the same poisoned well as Harper:

In 2003, Canada’s Liberals and New Democrats vocally opposed going to war in Iraq. Eleven years later, both opposition parties seem onside.

Incited by the recent gruesome and unspeakably barbaric beheadings of two American journalists, historical perspective seems to be lost.

But Walkom points out a salient reminder that not all monsters are or can be dealt with with dispatch:

First, the world contains many monsters. The West studiously avoids direct military involvement in Congo’s brutal civil war for instance, even though the atrocities committed there are equally barbaric.

Second, Islamic State militants are deliberately trying to draw the U.S. and its allies into the quagmire of Syria and Iraq.

And this, of course, has happened before, with disastrous results that should have surprised no one:

Provoking America into overreaction was Osama Bin Laden’s aim in 2001. He succeeded masterfully, provoking not only the West’s ill-fated adventure in Afghanistan but George W. Bush’s subsequent and even more ill-fated invasion of Iraq.

In 2011, NATO’s military attacks on the forces of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi gave Islamic militants another victory.

Not only did NATO warplanes leave Libya in political chaos. They also allowed militants to seize weapons from Gadhafi’s well-stocked armories — weapons that have been used by Islamists throughout North Africa and the Middle East.

Yet a collective amnesia and hysteria seems once more to have taken hold on the world stage, an amnesia exploited by warmongers like Harper. In his Manichean world, the good wear white hats and the bad, black. Suggesting anything more subtle and nuanced would, I suspect, be entirely lost on him.

A Prime Minister Hath No Honour In His Own Country

That paraphrase of a famous line from the Bible perhaps sums up the pitiable plight of Stephen Harper, gallant man of the world and fearless foe of evil on the world stage. Despite his indefatigable efforts to denounce the Teutonic tendencies of Vladimir Putin in the Ukraine or stand unreservedly with Israel in its disproportionate responses to Gazan irritants, like the late Rodney Dangerfield, he appears to be unable to secure any respect.

There is, for example, that chronic naysayer at The Toronto Star, Tim Harper, who opines that for all of his tough talk, Mr. Harper has no defining accomplishment on his foreign policy ledger.

But is nothing sacred? Rewarding the prime minister's unyielding support of and service to Israel, B'Nai Brith CEO Frank Dimant has announced his intention to nominate Dear Leader for the Nobel Peace Prize.

He said Mr. Harper has demonstrated international leadership and a clear understanding of the differences between those who “seek to do evil” and their victims. As a professor of modern Israel studies at Canada Christian College, Dimant qualifies as a nominator under the rules.

Let's just say that the announcement was met with outrage in some Canadian quarters.

But what do the people think about this singular honour possibly being bestowed on Canada's leader? Alas, there is no comfort to be had, apparently, even from one of the perennial cheerleaders of the Harper regime, The Globe and Mail. Here is what two of its readers think:

Re B’nai Brith CEO To Nominate Harper For Nobel Peace Prize (Aug. 30):

Why stop at the Nobel? Let’s nominate Stephen Harper for a Polaris for his music covers; an Emmy for his online TV show and a Governor-General’s award for his hockey book. Make him a trophy – a silver glazed donut on a plinth. It would cost us less than $30.

Clive Robertson, associate professor, art history, Queen’s University, Kingston


I was interested to learn that the CEO is eligible to nominate the PM as a professor at Canada Christian College. As a retired professor previously unaware of this credential, I shall hasten to nominate my miniature schnauzer, Guinness.

Like our PM, Guinness “has consistently spoken out with resolve regarding the safety of people under threat.” I refer to his shrill, predictable barking to defend the Bowd family’s territory from the daily invasion of the postman.

Alan Bowd, professor emeritus of education, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay

Of course, I suppose the Harper crew could simply dismiss such carping as the ranting of 'liberal elites.' Guess they'll have to hope it doesn't spread in 2015.