On Harper's Unhealthy Interest in Us

Even though we are away, I arose early enough to peruse The Toronto Star, and offer the following as additional evidence of its readers' perspicacity:

Re: Harper nominates next privacy watchdog, May 29

Keep an eye on our spies, Editorial June 1

I applaud the Star for taking a robust stand against the systematic corrosion of Canadians’ privacy rights under the proposed Tory legislation, as well as standing against revelations of already widespread snooping into our private data without proper oversight. This activity is the definition of governmental abuse, and reeks of opportunism of the vilest sort in a democracy.

That this very nightmarish matter is being confronted and denounced robustly by the opposition parties, with their call for an official, mandated panel of oversight that reports to parliament, is reassuring. As is Hugh Segal’s Bill S-220, which seeks to legislate this very type of panel.

I can’t help but see an analogy in the 2000 movie The Perfect Storm, the story of an ill-fated voyage where an unusually intense storm pattern catches some commercial fishermen unaware and puts them in mortal danger.

In a key scene, the crew has battled the first phase of the storm all night, but are buoyed when they see a break in the dark skies and a ray of sun penetrating. Unfortunately, there is worse to come.

Senator Segal’s Bill S-220, and the loud denunciations of opposition members, privacy commissioners, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and ordinary Canadians alike from coast to coast are analogous to that ray of light and hope amid the intensifying storm of surveillance mania unfolding today.
Will we consolidate this opportunity to save freedom, or will our tired, demoralized and broken ship of state sail to its doom in the face of madness and the ascendancy of Big Brother?

Ted Nasmith, Bradford

Harper nominates next privacy watchdog, May 29

It’s now official. “Following a rigorous process,” the fox has been nominated to guard the henhouse.
Why is it that I am losing investor confidence in my poultry and egg futures?

David Klarer, Oakville


And on another aspect of Dear Leader's psyche:



Temper? PM's isolation is the bigger issue, May 30

Bruce Carson, who served as a senior aide to Stephen Harper from 2004 to 2009, is only the latest ex-insider to write an unflattering book about Canada’s current prime minister. Apparently Mister “My-Way-or-the-Highway” Harper has an insatiable appetite for gnawing off the hands of those he once employed to help him scale the ladder to the pinnacle of political power in this country.

Megalomaniacs are known to demand unquestioning loyalty without giving any in return. Inevitably megalomaniacs surround themselves with deferential toadies. Obviously that kind of environment would not be an agreeable workplace for any intelligent well-seasoned advisor who sincerely believes in discussion and debate as well as competency and ethics.

No wonder Stephen Harper’s present team of unseasoned advisors is dismissively referred to as the “boys in short pants.”

Lloyd Atkins, Vernon, B.C.

Sporadic Blogging Ahead

We are heading out West for a week to visit our kids, both of whom are economic refugees from Ontario. Blogging will likely be sporadic for the next seven days, but I will check regularly for comments.

On The Madness of 'King' Stephen

Whenever I need evidence that politically aware and engaged citizens are not an endangered species, I turn to the letters section of The Toronto Star. Here are two from yesterday and one from today that amply demonstrate resistance to the kind of group-think so much beloved of the extreme right:

Method in Tories’ madness hard to fathom, May 31

I don’t think Stephen Harper’s methods over his time in the PMO are really so hard to fathom. When he was in opposition there was talk of Harper’s “secret agenda.” What has happened is that he has pulled his secret agenda out of the closet. He is systematically altering the political and social structure of the country to suit his own ideological, neo-conservative views of the world.

He has tried to eliminate all liberal and centrist politics. He is not interested in facts or data that contradict these views, hence his dismemberment of Statistics Canada and Canadian scientific research. He is actively seeking to replace all opposition to his reign, hence his fight with the Supreme Court.
His slow murder of the CBC, what Chantal Hebert called a “death of a thousand cuts,” is a way to limit Canadians’ access to open dialogue of policy.

There are any number of other examples of Harper’s destruction of the traditional Canadian values in his march to reconstruct this country along his personal values system. The damage inflicted by his policies will take a generation to overcome, if it is at all possible, but that is exactly what Harper has set out to do.

The complete overhaul of the Canadian landscape into an extreme right-wing image is precisely what Harper has had in mind all along. He has been far more successful than the American Tea Party although those seem to be the precise views of our prime minister.

Stephen L. Bloom, Toronto

The Tory madness is due to a toxic mix: decisions based on intuitive, “common sense” gut feeling instead of reason; ideological economics of a free market without government regulation or union protection; and protection of the Alberta base, because of its economic reliance on the tar sands and its evangelical supporters; plus a leader with a mindset that brooks no criticism.

Bill Unitt, Brampton

Privacy suffers from poor political will, May 31

I found Michael Geist’s column very interesting. I would, however, hazard a guess that the real reason the current regime has, apparently, stopped caring about privacy is really very simple.

Most dictatorships resort to surveillance, secret police, the suppression of truth and oppression to sustain their hold on power. It seems to me that we have seen all of these from the Harper regime since 2006.

The linchpin of dictatorship is surveillance so it should be no wonder that not only have they ceased to care about the privacy of Canadian citizens, they are actively increasing surveillance while weakening oversight.

I don’t think I am reacting too strongly nor do think I see conspiracy at every turn. It just seems to me that Stephen Harper is doing everything he can to maintain his party’s hold on power at the expense of the guarantees in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Poor Canada.

Bob MacMorran, Little Britain

UPDATED: Parsing Justin Trudeau's Words

Like many, I have real reservations about Justin Trudeau's capacity for the kind of leadership that reflects a mature and nuanced mind. While many praise him for his spontaneity and unorthodox pronouncements, I look for substance and an indication of policies that suggest a significant departure from the mindset of the Harper Conservatives. Thus far I have found little to encourage me.

All three of our major federal parties are largely silent on the issues that should be preoccupying us, one of the most pressing, of course, being climate change. Because of the amount of carbon being emitted by fossil fuels in general, and by the extractions taking place in Alberta's tarsands in particular, anyone looking to young Mr. Trudeau for a new direction would be well-advised to pay close attention to his public musings on the subject.

Here is what he said back in February about the proposed Kinder Morgan oil pipeline to Vancouver:

Pipeline policy in general is one of the most important responsibilities of a Canadian prime minister and of a Canadian government – to make sure we can get our resources to market. We are a natural resource economy and we need to be able to do that. However, we need to do that in the right way. A right way that is sustainable, that has community support and buy-in, and that fits into a long-term strategy of not just a sustainable environment but a sustainable economy.

Because of that I have been a strong promoter of the Keystone XL pipeline and also a harsh critic on the way the prime minister has approached pushing the Keystone XL pipeline. To my mind, the only thing that has prevented Keystone XL from getting approved already in the United States – and what has allowed it become such a polarizing issue, with celebrities weighing in and all sorts of people having very strong opinions even though there is not necessarily all that many facts going around in many of the conversations – is that the prime minister hasn’t done a good enough job of demonstrating a level of commitment to doing it right and upholding environmental protections and regulations.

If you think that sounds rather suspiciously like a version of what politicians say when they meet opposition ("We need to communicate our message more effectively"), I think you are correct.

The Toronto Star has been running a series called Energy Wars. In yesterday's segment, entitled Pipelines define environmental struggle, here is what Mr. Trudeau had to say about the ever-growing opposition to pipeline expansion:

“The fact is that the oilsands have somehow become a poster child for climate change” ... “That is a failing of both government and industry for allowing that to happen because they weren’t doing enough to reassure people that the environment is a priority.”

Am I being overly cynical here? In my attempt to parse the Liberal leader's words, the discouraging interpretation of his statement I draw is that the tarsands suffer because both the Harper regime and the oil industry have not sufficiently 'massaged' the message. In other words, they haven't done a good enough job of faking sincerity about environmental concerns.

As things stand now, I will not be supporting young Justin in the next federal election unless substance takes precedence over style in his public pronouncements and policies.

UPDATE: Just so I don't leave you with the impression that Trudeau is our only opposition climatic coward, check out Thomas Mulcair's thoughts here.

Note To Tim Hortons Head Office: Please Respect Your Workers

On Sunday, I wrote about The Toronto Star reporting that a Tim Hortons franchisee is eliminating paid breaks for his/her employees as retaliation against the June 1 increase of the minimum wage in Ontario to $11 per hour. Yesterday, I sent off a letter to the head office of the coffee and donut emporium. I would encourage others for whom this is an issue to do the same.

Here is that letter:

To Whom It May Concern:

It was with great dismay that I learned in Sunday's Toronto Star that some Tim Hortons' franchisees are retaliating against the new Ontario minimum wage by eliminating paid breaks for employees. An owner's memo released by an employee stated:

“Given this new increase, as well as continued economic and competitive pressures, increasing commodity costs and minimal increases in menu pricing, effective June 1, we will be shifting all hourly team members in the restaurant to unpaid breaks.”

While I imagine this news is most disheartening to the many who faithfully and cheerfully serve your products, you should be aware that it is also very distressing to consumers who care about workers' rates of remuneration and working conditions and try to make ethical decisions in their discretionary purchases. I am one such person among many.

Your corporate response cited in The Star, that these decisions are made at the franchise level by each individual Tim Hortons restaurant owner, consistent with provincial labour regulations, was unsatisfactory in the extreme for many reasons.

Tim Hortons has long marketed itself as a Canadian institution and icon that we should all revere as patriotic citizens. Who can forget the role your coffee and donut emporium has played over the years in bringing caffeine comfort to early-morning hockey dads, sending underprivileged kids to camp, and being in the most desolate of locations, including Afghanistan 'supporting our troops.'

Sad to say, all of that iconography rings hollow when head office absolves itself of any responsibility for the actions of its franchisees. To hide behind legalities, deferring to provincial regulations and decision-making protocols, conveys an air of corporate indifference and avarice, not leadership.

There is no doubt in my mind that should this controversy have a negative effect on your very profitable operations, the lamentations about price pressures cited by the above-quoted Toronto operator notwithstanding, you would use your influence to rectify this unacceptable gouging of your employees.

As one very active in social media and blogging, I intend to spread the word about this egregiously unfair situation as widely as I can. My purpose, of course, is to encourage as many as possible to boycott Tim Hortons until equity is restored.

I look forward to hearing from you on this matter.

...................................................................................
Should you feel so moved to express your views about the company's mistreatment of its employees, here is the link.

Mark Carney Speaks On The Consequences Of Unbridled Capitalism

Mark Carney said the following to a group of the world's elites last week:

"Just like any revolution eats its children," Carney told the audience of global power brokers, "unchecked market fundamentalism can devour the social capital essential for the long-term dynamism of capitalism itself."

"All ideologies are prone to extremes. Capitalism loses its sense of moderation when the belief in the power of the market enters the realm of faith."

It's rather gratifying to think of certain groups and individuals with their knickers in a twist, isn't it?

A Mound Of Sound Guest Post: The Lessons Of Afghanistan

Drawing upon his war studies course, The Mound of Sound offers the following perspective on what went wrong in Afghanistan:

Bad leadership, especially when it is political and military, costs lives. Our miserable experience in Afghanistan and its aftermath has exposed just how bad Canada’s military and political leadership has been going straight back to the Big Cod himself. I have written about this so many times over the years that I wouldn’t want to beat a dead horse but my mind was changed by a few passages out of a text from my war studies course from Kings College, London.

The book is “New and Old Wars, Organized Violence in a Global Era,” by LSE professor Mary Kaldor. She argues that, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, America and her allies sought to defeat insurgencies by employing “old war” or conventional war tactics that only achieved predictable failure.

“The conventional military tactics adopted by coalition forces were a significant contributory factor to the violence. Both during the invasions and after, the United States adopted ‘old war’ tactics in what were complex twenty-first-century ‘new war’ conditions. They were aimed at defeating the insurgencies. Both in pursuing al Qaeda and the Taliban and in responding to the growing insurgency in Iraq, American military forces largely stayed in their bases and ventured out to attack the enemy. Confronted with the brutal reality of the insurgencies, coalition troops seemed to default to military logic. Like earlier similar types of counter-insurgency in Vietnam, for example, or Algeria, the excessive use of force, widespread detention and torture and abuse as a means of extracting information, and the attempts to destroy the safe havens of the insurgents through the attacks on places such as Fallujah, Samarra, Najaf, or ...Kandahar and other Taliban strongholds in Afghanistan follow from this military logic.”

When our enemy, the Taliban, extended peace overtures, they were spurned.

“Instead, the remaining Taliban were harassed and intimidated both by US Special Forces and by commanders like [the murderous Gul Agha] Sherzai [governor of Kandahar] who received financial rewards for killing or capturing Taliban. Arbitrary arrests, night raids and targeted killing all contributed to a profound sense of humiliation. From 2004, the Taliban began to return to the South and the South East. Operation Medusa, undertaken by Canadian ISAF forces, was supposed to clear Kandahar of insurgents: hundreds of Taliban were killed or captured. Like Fallujah, however, the end result was new recruitment and new tactics.“

From the day we arrived in Afghanistan to the day we left we had no clue of what victory meant or the cost of victory. We swept those considerations away, ignored centuries of history including the stark lessons of the recent past, and banged away on our drums. We hunkered down in our garrisons and ventured out the gates to patrol for the bad guys. We had the tanks, the helicopters, the strike fighters and attack helicopters. We had the drones, the electronic intelligence and the artillery. We also had them severely outnumbered.

I knew we didn’t have a hope and that our soldiers were led by utter incompetents the day I read a quote of a Canadian colonel denouncing the Taliban as rank cowards for their unwillingness to stand in the open and fight like men. He might as well have ridiculed them for refusing to stand in the open, with their Korean-vintage assault rifles and light machine guns, while we leisurely rained 2,000 pound bombs on their heads with impunity. They were cowards, in this Canadian idiot’s mind, for choosing not to commit suicide. - Game Over. This colonel wasn’t remotely capable of thinking in terms of the Taliban’s war, the war that actually mattered, the new war that would decide the issue.

Professor Kaldor offers an interesting opinion on the real purpose of America’s (and her allies’) failed wars:

“...the purpose of the war was war; it was designed to keep alive an idea of old war on which American identity is based, to show that old war could be upgraded and relatively pain free in the twenty-first century. I do no want to suggest that this was cynical manipulation; on the contrary, the conservatives in the Bush administration probably believed in American power and their mission to spread the American idea. My point is rather that they were caught up in a narrative of their own making, which resonates well with the American public and is reinforced by the American media. And it can be argued that this belief is mirrored by a similar belief among some elements of the insurgency, particularly those who espouse the idea of a global jihad, or Islam against the West.”

The 3rd edition of Kaldor’s book went to press before the Afghan issue had been decided, while there was still time to pluck some measure of victory out of debacle.

“There have been moments in the aftermath of the invasions when there were genuine opportunities to establish legitimate governments. In Iraq, the problem was the reliance on expatriates, the dissolution of the army and the Ba’ath party, and the preoccupation with sectarian politics. In Afghanistan, the problem was the inclusion of commanders, who had previously been defeated by the Taliban and had been totally discredited by the Karzai government. The biggest failure in both countries has been the failure to consult civil society – not just NGOs who are often financed by outsiders, but a range of local people, women’s groups, student groups, tribal elders and others. In both countries ordinary people felt marginalized and neglected as people with guns were chosen as the main interlocutors for the outsiders.”

“Even today (i.e. 2011) some of these mistakes could be rectified. For example, in Afghanistan, a serious attempt to arrest those involved in corrupt practices, many of whom have American passports, or to condemn fraudulent election practices, would be one way to get rid of predatory commanders and could help to provide a better environment for the emergence of democracy. Moreover, in both countries ‘islands of civility’ do exist. Greater attention to those islands as opposed to the defeat of enemies could help to spread civility instead of predation.”

Our combat soldiers and junior officers can be proud of their service. Our senior military commanders should hang their heads in disgrace. Our political leaders, those who milked the last drop of political capital to be had from the dead and the mangled bodies and minds of our soldiers, should simply hang.