The Virtue Of Rebellion

"Perhaps in our lifetime we will not succeed. Perhaps things will only get worse. But this does not invalidate our efforts. Rebellion - which is different from revolution because it is perpetual alienation from power rather than the replacement of one power system with another - should be our natural state."

-Chris Hedges

There is something brave, honest and bracing about those words, and although I cannot call myself a rebel in any meaningful way, I envy and am attracted to the kind of intractable commitment that Chris Hedges has to fighting the shackles of corrupt economic, social and political systems that hold us all captive in one form or another. As the next part of this century unfolds, there will likely need to be much more of such spirit.

Although it may not exactly constitute rebellion, the students and faculty of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York seem prepared for the worst from the incoming Trump administration and are making a commitment that may have no legal force, but whose moral dimensions are clear:

At Cornell University, in Ithaca, N.Y., more than 2,000 students and professors signed a petition asking the university to join other institutions and declare itself a sanctuary, or safe haven, for undocumented students.

“I am frightened,” said one literature student, who asked not to be identified for fear she could be deported. “But I am also encouraged to see people mobilizing and organizing and preparing for Trump to carry out his threat to deport millions of illegals.”

Four years ago, Obama signed the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which provided temporary amnesty for over three-quarters of a million children and teenagers whose parents had entered the U.S. illegally.

Now these “DREAMers” — named after an earlier version of the act which was not passed — fear they, or their parents, will be targeted if they come out of the shadows.

“My parents brought me from Mexico to Los Angeles when I was 8. They worked hard and paid taxes and put me and my two siblings through college,” said the Cornell student, who attended a recent campus rally. “I registered in DACA, and gave authorities my fingerprints. The threat is serious now that I could be deported. It is stressful not knowing when this could happen.”

Their fears would seem justified:

Trump, who takes office Jan. 20, has said that during his first 100 days he plans to “cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama.” The president-elect has not listed the specific actions he plans to cancel to back up his hyperbole, but his campaign website singled out the amnesty law, which was passed by executive action in 2012.

So is Cornell's moral and ethical choice an isolated phenomenon, or is it a signal that none of us should yet abandon all hope?

UPDATED: Fearless Journalism, Or Presidential Appeasement?

Happy New Year, everyone.

And now, a return to regular programming.

As 2017 dawns and the Trump presidency draws near, I have been wondering if the MSM will show any real backbone and fulfill the role traditionally ascribed to them as bulwarks of democracy. Or will they simply continue to be the abject failures that journalist and social prophet Chris Hedges calls them, sell-outs as part of the liberal class he takes to task in his book Death of the Liberal Class?

One of the prizes that journalists, on behalf of their corporate employers, hold most sacred is access. Given the unbridled contempt Trump has shown toward criticism, will there now be an effort at appeasement of the temperamental one? Indeed, Will both external and internal factors influence the media's approach to political coverage?

Early signs offer cause for concern. Take, for example, this report from The Guardian:

A journalist was temporarily banned from Facebook after a post in which he called Trump supporters “a nasty fascistic lot”, in the latest example of the social media platform’s censorship of journalists.

The social media giant later reversed its decision and apologized, but the trouble began when writer Kevin Sessums shared a post by

ABC political analyst Matthew Dowd that read: “In the last few hours I have been called by lovely ‘christian’ Trump fans: a jew, faggot, retard. To set record straight: divorced Catholic.”

Sessums added his own commentary, writing:

But as those who do hold Trump to the standards of any other person have found out on Twitter and other social media outlets these Trump followers are a nasty fascistic lot. Dowd is lucky he didn’t get death threats like Kurt Eichenwald. Or maybe he did and refuses to acknowledge them. If you voted for Trump and continue to support him and you think you are better than these bigoted virulent trolls, you’re not. Your silence enables them just as it did in the racist campaign that Trump and Bannon ran. In fact, hiding behind a civilized veneer in your support of fascism I consider more dangerous. We’re past describing you as collaborators at this point. That lets you off the hook. You’re Russo-American oligarchical theocratic fascists.

Seesums was initially informed that his post violated FB's community standards, a curious justification given much of what it deems to be consistent with those standards.

The writer's reaction was swift and excoriating:

It’s chilling. It’s arbitrary censorship ... Do I have to be careful about what I say about Trump now?

That does become the central question, doesn't it? And that leads to this concern: will mainstream journalists now practice a kind of prophylactic self-censorship? They might be wise to heed the advice of Newsweek reporter Kurt Eichenwald, who said on Saturday that

journalists needed to “grow a backbone” to deal with President-elect Donald Trump.

With a Republican-controlled House and Senate, expect the usual checks and balances of the American political system to completely fail. Let us all hope that mainstream journalism doesn't have to be consigned to the same category as well.

UPDATE: This Washington Post piece, replete with links, gets to the journalistic heart of the matter.

2016: In Memoriam

2016 was a terrible year on many, many fronts. Compounding those tragedies in which human beings played major contributing roles was the one over which we have no influence: death. It may be my imagination, but it seems to me that this was a year in which we said goodbye to an unusual number of giants who walked among us in fields as disparate as politics, sports and entertainment.

If I had to pick two that saddened me the most it would probably be the departure of Mohammad Ali and David Bowie. If you know anything about him beyond his public persona, you will know that Ali was a man of deep conviction, principle and integrity, qualities for which he paid a very heavy price. Bowie, of course, was a remarkably versatile artist whose career spanned several decades, and who seemed to have been taken from us far too soon, with work still undone.

As you will see in the following tributes, each of the many who died in 2016 lived fully during their time, exploiting their talents to the maximum, using their gifts to uplift all of us. Not a bad legacy, and one we would all do well to emulate in the time remaining to each of us.

The Shape Of Ideological Purges To Come?

History teaches us that when political ideologies mutate into forms of state religion, those who stand in opposition or refuse to 'get with the program' are targeted. Nazism, with its elevation of the Aryan race at the expense of all others, is one prime example. Those who didn't conform were swept away. Another, more recent manifestation, is China. Even while expressing a willingness to have a constructive dialogue with the Vatican, it insists that Chinese Catholics “hold up high the flag of patriotism” and adapt Catholicism to Chinese society.

Ideology must have its way.

And now it would seem that, with a president-elect endorsed by white supremacists and a myriad of other misfits, that much beset-upon minority, white people, will have the opportunity to stamp out wrong-thinking when they are under critical scrutiny. That is, if events unfolding in Wisconsin are any indication of things to come.

Damon Sajnani, a professor in the African Cultural Studies Department at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, is offering a course in the new semester entitled “The Problem of Whiteness.”

“Have you ever wondered what it really means to be white? If you’re like most people, the answer is probably ‘no.’ But here is your chance!” the description reads.

“Critical Whiteness Studies aims to understand how whiteness is socially constructed and experienced in order to help dismantle white supremacy.”

The course explores “how race is experienced by white people.” But it also looks at how white people “consciously and unconsciously perpetuate institutional racism.”

A criticism of the white race? That has proven too much for David Murphy, a Wisconsin state assemblyman,

who expressed outrage last week that taxpayers “are expected to pay for this garbage.”

Using the time-honoured cudgel of funding, the assemblyman is expressing his aversion to what used to be one of the main missions of universities, the exploration, discussion and exchange of ideas:

“UW-Madison must discontinue this class. If UW-Madison stands with this professor, I don’t know how the University can expect the taxpayers to stand with UW-Madison.”

Within his fiscal gun sights is not just the 'offending' professor, but also the university's administration for allowing this 'outrage' to occur:

In a statement emailed to The Washington Post, Murphy (R) said the decision to approve the class makes him question the judgment of university leaders.

“I support academic freedom and free speech,” he said. “Free speech also means the public has the right to be critical of their public university. The university’s handling of controversies like this appears to the public as a lack of balance in intellectual openness and diversity of political thought on campus.”

All of the above, by the way, was delivered without a hint of irony, suggesting that the good assemblyman's own intellectual reach is lamentably limited.

For the time being, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has not expressed interest in tying funding to ideological purity, but does offer the following as a possible basis for backtracking, should Murphy's call for academic jihad find favour with the public:

“I could certainly as a citizen or as a father who pays part of my kids’ tuition roll my eyes and raise concerns about some of the classes,” Walker told the newspaper. “But our focus in the budget should be on overall performance and not individual classes.”

No one can heave a sigh of relief at this anemic response, especially given the governor's own rather sordid record.

One of those noteworthy aspects of the rabid right is that, even when they achieve victory, as they have in electing an egregiously unqualified and unfit president, happiness and satisfaction elude them. I suspect it always will until they have wiped out the last dissenting thought, the last contrary opinion, the last remnant of resistance which, of course, is impossible.

Yet I have no doubt that they will do their damnedest to try.

Almost Too Grim To Contemplate

While the Pope is imploring world leaders to act with dispatch to mitigate climate change, it is hard to remain optimistic about the prospects of American engagement under incoming president Donald Trump:

Meanwhile, As The World Fades Away

I have never seen the magnificent cheetah, and new research suggests I never will.

Read, watch, and weep at our collective folly.

A Special Understanding

Under successive neoliberal administrations in both Canada and the U.S., it has long been demonstrated that those occupying the upper echelons of our fractured societies are granted a myriad of benefits, not the least of which seems to be a virtual moratorium on prosecutions when wrongdoing is uncovered and proven. The fact that no one went to jail over the 2008 financial meltdown is but the most egregious example. Indeed, such is their power and arrogance that corporate executives were given bonuses from the very bail-out money that taxpayers funded for those institutions and enterprises deemed "too big to fail." When there is punishment of any kind for malfeasance, it is usually just fines which the errant entity can then use as tax write-offs.

Although the strongest examples of special treatment can be found stateside, Canada has its own way of dealing with financial malfeasance that should anger all of us, reflective as it is of the neoliberalism that pervades our land.

Thanks to a joint investigation by The Toronto Star and The National Obsserver {a fine online newspaper that offers subscriptions and solicits donations to support its journalism), we have yet another example in the deeply offensive special treatment by Fintrac, Canada’s money laundering and terrorist financing enforcement agency, of a major Canadian bank.

Canada’s money-laundering agency is refusing to name the bank hit with an unprecedented penalty for failing to report a suspicious transaction and committing hundreds of other violations in its dealings with a controversial client. Details of the failures — including one the agency described as “very serious”...

For nearly two years, the bank failed to report a series of unusual transactions in its client’s account, despite news reports at the time revealing he was under criminal investigation in the U.S. The transactions included dozens of large cash deposits and hundreds of international transfers worth more than $12 million, reveal the newly-released documents.

Despite the fact that the law requires reporting of transaction amounting to 10,000 or more, from

early 2012 to the end of 2013, the unnamed bank processed 1,179 international electronic transfers of $10,000 or more from the mystery client, who used a “potential shell company” and operated out of an unnamed country associated with money laundering. It also accepted 45 cash deposits of $10,000 or more, all without ever reporting the transactions to Fintrac, Canada’s money laundering and terrorist financing enforcement agency, as required by law.

With some deductive sleuthing, the newspapers were able to determine that the individual involved in these transactions was

Manitoba online pharmacy entrepreneur Andrew Strempler, 42, who pleaded guilty to mail fraud charges in the U.S. after his shipments were found to contain counterfeit medication.

While Strembler served his time and was released in October of 2015, Fintrac has treated the bank, which, under existing law, it could name, to anonymity after levying a $1.15 million fine, certainly a modest penalty given what the law allows:

Anyone who knowingly fails to report a suspicious transaction to FINTRAC can face a $2 million fine and up to five years in prison, under Canadian legislation on money laundering and terrorism financing. The maximum administrative monetary penalty for the bank's hundreds of violations would have been $1.8 million, the documents said.

The original penalty was $1.5 million, but Fintrac reduced it after 'negotiating' with the bank, which argued that the harm done was minimal.

I beg to differ with its decision to protect a major bank's reputation. Flagrantly violating the law 1,225 times in this case is damaging both to confidence in our banking system annd deeply demoralizing to the average person's sense of fair play. As Christine Duhaime, a lawyer who specializes in anti-moneylaundering law says,

“Joe Average who is fined for any administrative infraction is not afforded secrecy in this way and the rules should apply to all Canadians, legal and natural personals, equally, from banks to Joe Average.”

Yet Fintrac somehow seems to feel that they have really brought down the hammer in this case:

Fintrac said Tuesday’s announcement is meant to deter others from failing to report.

But the bank’s name was not added to a list of violators published on the agency’s website. The home page shows the name of many smaller companies, such as jewelry stores, independent securities dealers and real estate brokerages.

Quite unapologetic, Fintrac, according to The Observer report, feels it has done exemplary work in this case:

FINTRAC said it was trying to be discreet.

“The process has concluded and FINTRAC exercised its discretion not to name the entity so that we could send a timely message of deterrence to the 31,000 businesses that are subject to the Proceeds of Crime, Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing Act”.

I'm afraid that the only message Fintrac has managed to convey is confirmation that there is indeed one law for the 'giants' who walk among us, and quite another for the rest of us. It is far past time that this special understanding (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) between certain societal segments and the massive insult to the rest of us ended.