A Response To Russell Brand

Yesterday, I posted a video of Russell Brand excoriating the absence of any real choice when it comes to the vision offered by various political parties. His argument is that they are all essentially cut from the same cloth.

A theme close to The Mound of Sound's heart, he offered the following comments:

Thanks for posting that, Lorne. I watched it three times and was struck by why so many of us fail to see these views as obvious. Why are we not turning on this system that has so ruthlessly turned on us? Here's something to try. Russell Brand's delivery can come across as inflammatory or brash but, reduced to writing, it's actually a lot more sedate.

We have to come to grips with the fundamental truth that government that suppresses the public interest in favour of private interests is a form of government that is, at best, a degraded illiberal democracy or, at worst, fascist.

Young people especially need to discover that they're coming up in an era of neoliberalism in which free market capitalism is too often permitted to flout public interest. It's both a chronic and progressive disease that will become increasingly problematic for them in the decades to come.

When the free trade era was ushered in, I fretted over the surrender of national sovereignty to free markets. I hoped I was wrong. I wasn't. Naomi Klein illustrates this in her new book citing examples where trade regimes have been used to crush attempts to deal with climate change.

I got into a brief but nasty pissing contest with Montreal Simon a couple of years back when I criticized him for constantly, obsessively attacking Harper when we also need to focus on something within our power to achieve, the reformation of our own political movements. I'm convinced the Liberals are truly in the bag and, despite his latter-day pretensions toward progressivism, I suspect Mulcair isn't that far off either.

The thing is, we cannot hope to recover our sovereignty that has been yielded for the benefit of so few and the expense of so many without standing our political parties back on their feet. I haven't a clue how that would ever happen.

I replied:

As soon as I saw the video, Mound, I thought of you, as Brand addresses a theme that I know concerns you greatly. I find myself thinking about it more especially of late, with the reflexive (Pavlovian?) response of nation-wide patriotism on display after the gunning down of Nathan Cirillo. As I have said on this blog before, it is surely tragic when a young person loses his or her life, but I worry a great deal about all of the trappings of state that have ensued from his demise. The attendance at his funeral of Harper, for example, to me doesn't so much indicate respect as it does a willingness to manipulate the population through the construction of a narrative about a soldier who fell protecting our freedoms. This does not augur well for the future of our civil liberties, and I have little faith that either Mulcair or Trudeau will get in the way of the juggernaut.

A Word to The Wise

Given our current sensitivity to alleged domestic terrorism, it might be wise to avoid this kind of freedom of expression on your next flight:

Russell Brand's Latest

This one is for my friend The Mound of Sound who, I think, would agree with the sentiments expressed. One thing you can say about Russell Brand - whether or not you agree with everything he says, he always gives us something to think about.

Post by Educateinspirechange.org.

As Canadians, We Should All Be Deeply Ashamed Of Our government

This report, which places Canada dead last among industrialized nations in a new climate change performance index, should make us all deeply ashamed.

"Canada still shows no intention on moving forward with climate policy and therefore remains the worst performer of all industrialized countries," says the report released by Germanwatch, a sustainable development advocacy group.

Another Reason Not To Subscribe To The Globe and Mail

As I noted recently, we are currently receiving a free three-month subscription to the Globe, one that we will not be renewing. My last post on the subject dealt with one of the reasons. Here is another.

In its 'wisdom,' and despite widespread evidence to the contrary, Canada's self-proclaimed 'newspaper of record' insists, in its Monday editorial, that the Harper regime is not muzzling scientists.

As with so many other efforts by The Globe to extol Dear Leader, the piece starts off deceptively, seeming to suggest there is a basis for concern:

The Conservative government only undermines itself by restricting the ability of federally employed scientists to communicate freely with the public and the media. It feeds suspicion, suggesting that Canada has something to hide, for example, on such controversial matters as the oil sands – wrongly or rightly.

So far, so good. Then:

Last week, the Union of Concerned Scientists, an American organization, and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada sent Prime Minister Stephen Harper an open letter strongly recommending that Canada no longer insist that government scientists get the permission of a media relations officer before they speak to journalists. Fifteen thousand or so researchers are said to be affected by such rules. There were 800 signatories – Canadian government researchers themselves did not sign it.

Hmmm. Even better. Has the self-titled 'newspaper of record' finally seen the light?

The PIPSC rhetorically exaggerates when it repeatedly says that government scientists are “muzzled.” But in November, 2007, the Conservatives did lay down a rule that any media interview with Environment Canada scientists would be “co-ordinated” by communications staff.

And then we get to the 'exculpatory' heart of the matter, at least what passes as exculpatory in Globeworld:

David Tarasick of Environment Canada and others wrote a paper in 2011, which appeared in one of the world’s most respected scientific journals, Nature, saying there had been an extraordinary loss in the ozone layer over the Arctic. Nobody in government got in the way of its publication, so it cannot be said that Dr. Tarasick was silenced. This was not a case of Galileo, the motion of the heavenly bodies and the Inquisition.

The paper then reveals what the 'real' problem is.

Nonetheless, “media relations” did get in the way of direct, effective engagement with reporters who might have been able to translate scientific language into news stories adapted for the general public.

So you see, it is just a bureaucratic problem that has created a 'bottleneck.'

It is one thing for cabinet ministers and MPs to work with communication staffs in order to keep the government’s messages consistent and coherent, in accordance with cabinet solidarity. It is quite another to insist that thousands of researchers communicate through legions of flacks. That inevitably creates bottlenecks.

So, the message from the Globe, obviously labouring under the delusion that it still has real influence on public thinking, is simple: Nothing to see here. Move along. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Telescope vision is one thing. Patent dishonesty is quite another.

The paper is right about something, however. When it comes to The Globe and Mail, there really is nothing to see there.

In Which Pastor Pat Discusses 'Safe' Investments

God love Pastor Pat Robertson. Few others can:

Too Good To Resist

H/t Don Gravelle