Canada's Carnival Sideshow

While people with normal cognitive abilities likely see the farce in Kevin O'Leary's effort to become the next leader of the Conservative Party, it would be unwise to underestimate the power of less able and less stable people to influence the course of events. If nothing else, the Trump spectacle attests to the importance of such a caution. It is therefore incumbent upon those who want the best for the country to warn about the worst, as these letter-writers do today:

Blustering of days past: O'Leary's views, unadorned, Jan. 21

In the last week the Star has detailed two opposite Kevin O’Learys. One would like to bust unions (Jennifer Wells); the other says he would like to make unions more “efficient.”

Can we really believe O’Leary suddenly wants unions to better represent workers (i.e. more gains) while saving money through efficiency? Both would make his nemesis more powerful.

He has started off following his idol’s path: he and Trump believe in lying big to fool ordinary workers. Let’s take a lesson from Trump and put the label “lying Kevin” on this impostor.

Will Presley, North Bay

It is wonderful to learn that Mr. O’Leary’s primary goal is to “go to bed richer than when he woke up in the morning.” The question now is: how many Canadians will be going to bed poorer because of Mr. O’Leary’s obsession with putting more money into his own already bulging pocket?

Herb Alexander, Thornhill

O’Leary espouses on corporate social responsibility, “Social consciousness, that’s ridiculous. Businesses do not have a social conscience” (like most people do).

It explains Citizens United (corporations with equal rights as citizens), and why the leaders of many of these corporations have no social conscience, to be polite.

So, as Mr. O-so-Leary clearly states, Citizens United is just a con, and why under their newly crowned “Orange Hitler” the U.S. should repeal Citizens United immediately.

He’s an astute U.S. businessman. The U.S. business elites should listen to him.

Richard Kadziewicz, Scarborough

I read with concern Kevin O’Leary’s decision to run. My fervent hope is that the media does not treat his campaign as a joke and give him excess coverage that he so craves. We see how that worked out in the U.S where Trump used that free publicity to prey on the fears and prejudices of people who bought into his fake message of doom and gloom and false promises.

Canadians should never allow opportunistic politicians whose messages of divide and conquer and racial overtures to gain a foot hold in our political system. The media has a responsible role to play and should not promote sensationalism and lies at the expense of truth.

Mort Achaia, Brampton

Clarity From Robert Reich

Robert Reich simply and brilliantly deconstructs Trump's construction plans. Lest Canadians feel tempted toward complacency, check out Trudeau's infrastructure bank plans, which will likely have the same effect of enriching corporate investors at our collective expense.

And So It Begins

For those millions of Canadians who chafed under the information embargo by Stephen Trump, this will be all too familiar:

Donald Trump wants to be known as the president who tweets, but his administration is prohibiting government researchers from sharing their findings with the Americans who pay for their work.

The president signed executive orders Tuesday that cut off all new contracts and grants for the Environmental Protection Agency — and he also banned the agency’s employees from providing updates on social media or to journalists, the Associated Press reported.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture sent an email Monday morning, which was obtained by BuzzFeed News, prohibiting its employees from communicating with the public about their taxpayer-funded work.

Those “public-facing documents” include news releases, photos, fact sheets, news feeds and social media content, said Sharon Drumm, chief of staff of the Agricultural Research Service.

The U.S. Department of the Interior reportedly ordered employees to stop posting messages on government Twitter accounts after the National Park Service a post comparing the size of Trump’s inauguration with President Barack Obama’s in 2009.

Dark, dark days ahead, my friends. Very dark days.

Eerily Prescient

This is what former Supreme Court Justice David Souter said four years ago. I think you will quickly see the reason for the post's title:

A Hoax With Impact

Even though global temperature records are being set, it must be reassuring to many in Trumpland that climate change is but a Chinese hoax. Now, if only Mother Nature would read the memo:





And now, scenes from the apocalypse in California:

Facts Are Clearly Overrated

Thanks to my friend Jonathan for sending this along:

The Haves Certainly Have It

This from today's Letters To The Editor, to which I have nothing to add:

Re: Two richest men as wealthy as poorest 30 per cent, Jan. 16

It is telling that this news report was not a front-page headline in the Star.

As if the world needed any more data on the abject failure of capitalism and the neoliberal free market experiment, Oxfam has released yet another report once again documenting the egregious and unconscionable wealth of a minuscule number of individuals in Canada and around the world.

Report after report has documented the skyrocketing expansion of inequality around the globe and the inexorable march of wealth to the top of the social ladder. If capitalism were a new drug being developed to cure cancer and it failed in all but a few cases out of billions it would be abandoned immediately but we continue to prescribe the economic thalidomide of capitalism to the world’s population without remorse.

However, despite this overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence, the world media, economists and politicians seem blasé regarding its dismal and destabilizing failures and the deep and comprehensive reforms that are needed to ensure that global wealth is shared equitably. There are no front-page hue-and-cry headlines calling this an economic crisis or extended coverage of this issue on the news channels. This gross status quo inequality seems to be accepted and normalized as an inherent part of capitalism that cannot be changed.

In fact, with the election of Donald Trump in the United States, the American public has decided to firmly put on its rose-coloured glasses and double-down on the neoliberal nightmare of “cancer capitalism.”

Despite this political St. Vitas Dance, there is a desperate need for a government regulated, moderated and managed economic system that is actively structured to serve the needs of all in society as the historian and economist Karl Polanyi asserted. Such a system places clear limits on wealth accumulation and claws back excess wealth and profits through progressive taxation.

If we were smart enough to invent capitalism, we are smart enough to invent its replacement.

It is time to radically change our global economic system to serve the needs of humanity, not a few humans.

Robert Bahlieda, Newmarket

Do you find it amusing that we the public anxiously follow the media to be aware of the daily interaction between nations, cultures, religions, terrorists, politics and, oh yes, economies? Such a multitude of players in mankind’s unfolding history and future.

But perhaps there’s really only 16 – based upon the knowledge (and fact) that eight men own half the world’s wealth. Perhaps there are 16 players served by millions who accommodate them for reward while billions of others live in war and death and poverty and the rest of us are relegated to being blocks of pieces on an endless series of game boards that lead to millions of winners and billions of losers — just sayin’, perhaps.

But history says nations fade as empires rise. And our supposed representatives in governments are silenced by their parties who serve the players and their accommodators. Global democracy with globalization is sadly our “paradise lost” because globalization without global democracy is the globalization of poverty.

Ask yourself this. When it comes to big banks, big business, big oil, big money (non-pursuit of offshore accounts) and big talk, is Justin Trudeau really that much different than Stephen Harper?

Randy Gostlin, Oshawa