Another Clear And Cogent Explanation Of The Polar Vortex

This explanation is offered by President Barack Obama’s science advisor, Dr. John Holdren. Even if Stephen Harper hadn't abolished the position of National Science Advisor in 2008, it is hard to imagine anyone in his employ speaking so frankly.

He Speaks For The Majority, I Suspect

That would be The Star's Patrick Corrigan:


Meanwhile The Star's editorial board offers some insights into why Canada has fared so, so much better in dealing with Covid-19 than the United States:

It’s a terrible thing for an old, dear friend to watch America — as a result of its wilful blindness, contempt for science and gross mishandling of the pandemic — descend to the status of a pariah state.

The Atlantic’s George Packer described in one searing paragraph recently just how pitiful the former promised land of the planet had become.

“When the virus came here, it found a country with serious underlying conditions, and it exploited them ruthlessly. Chronic ills — a corrupt political class, a sclerotic bureaucracy, a heartless economy, a divided and distracted public — had gone untreated for years.”

The crisis demanded a response that was swift, rational and collective, Packer said.

Instead, it got Donald Trump’s singular ignorance, delusion and pathological instinct to see everything, even matters of life and death, in political terms.

Canada is an entirely different story for a number of reasons:

Part values, part experience, part humility of people and their leadership, part consistency of government messaging.

At core, our national DNA favours the collective during a crisis that has demanded collective action, mutual sacrifice, looking out for the other rather than insistence on personal liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Many of the characteristics frequently cited as negatives in comparing Canada to the U.S. — our smaller size, our humility, our greater trust in government, our commitment to community and social services, no sense of our own mythic exceptionalism — have become assets in this crisis.

We have also shown ourselves capable of learning some hard lessons:

After SARS, Canada redesigned the federal-provincial relationship on public health and infectious diseases. Our public systems are more amenable to coherent reaction to widespread crisis than the private institutions in the U.S.

As well, not having the same level of poisonous political partisanship as does the U.S. also helped:

In Canada, unlike the United States, the partisan cudgels were put aside — mercifully avoiding the vexation of states forced to deal with what Washington wouldn’t, and governors putting political affiliation and loyalty to the president ahead of science and medical expertise.

As recent events have demonstrated, our leadership is far from perfect. But compared to the Americans, we do have things to be proud of as this first wave of Covid-19 wanes.

And, of course, we must keep that border closed for the foreseeable future.

Why Has Accepting Scientific Fact Become A Matter Of Choice?

Science takes things apart to see how they work. Religion puts things together to see what they mean. They speak different languages and use different powers of the brain.

-Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, The Great Partnership

As the quotation above suggests, the schism between scientific fact and religious belief is, in fact, one that shouldn't exist. Yet, given the kinds of absolutist thinking that permeate the world today, demagogues and zealots suggest the two are mutually exclusive, an invalid proposition if one's belief in transcendent truth manages to rise above seeing the narratives of the world's religions as literal truths.

It is always unseemly when people parade and exult in their intellectual limitations, often presenting them as virtues. For example, in Ontario, people like Progressive Conservative MPP Rick Nicholls has suggested that evolution should not be taught in schools, as he doesn't believe in it.

Sadly, such benighted positions, masquerading as informed opinion, do a disservice both to science and religion, not to mention public discourse in general. And it seems to be spreading, despite the fact that we live in an age unprecedented in its access to knowledge. Consider the almost religious fervour with which people disavow climate change, despite these facts:

The debate over climate change is over. The U.N.‘s Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report, written by 800 scientists from 80 countries, that summarized the findings of more than 30,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers and concluded: “Human influence on the climate system is clear; the more we disrupt our climate, the more we risk severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts; and we have the means to limit climate change and build a more prosperous, sustainable future.”

Like the facts that make evolution irrefutable, the facts of climate change are treated by some as optional, a matter of belief, based on all kinds of specious reasoning, including religious ones such as asserting that God is in control of the planet. Perhaps people take living in a supposedly democratic age as license to suggest that any view is valid. Perhaps the right wing, emboldened by their ability to stir up emotion and hysteria, and enjoying so much influence in North America, feel that they have the politicians cowed. Perhaps the truly rational see little profit in getting down to their level to dispute with them. Perhaps it is because the uninformed and unsophisticated comprise such a large part of our population and show no interest in learning how to think critically, dismissing those who do as elitist leftists and alarmists.

I really have no answers here, but to countenance ignorance in any form, in my view, is to abdicate our responsibilities as both human beings and as citizens, and these are obligations we cannot afford to shirk.

Setting the Record Straight

While the Globe and Mail continues on its blind path of extolling the fallen (a.k.a. the Harper regime), its readers seem adamant about setting the record straight. These two letters should give the powers that be some pause:

Brand: Conservative

Re Ambrose Buys Time Tories Must Use Wisely (Nov. 6): When most consumer-focused organizations lose a huge chunk of their market overnight, they research, retool, then redefine or reinvigorate their product to try to re-engage their customers and thus regain that lost market share.

Not so the Conservatives.

In her first (as usual, very short) press conference, interim leader Rona Ambrose offered not one “to do” that included any reflection – only that they would work hard to regain power. Most Conservatives who have been interviewed seem to think there is nothing wrong with the product itself – only the way they sold it.

Preserve us from those who seek power only for its own sake, not for the ability to help build a Canada that Canadians actually want.

Gavin Pitchford, Toronto

.........

Muzzled, unmuzzled

Konrad Yakabuski says the suggestion that government scientists “were muzzled or their science suppressed is an exaggeration” (The Grits Are Back In Charge, All’s Right In Ottawa – Nov. 5). He argues that scientists were allowed to keep publishing research in scientific journals.

Yes, but they were unable to issue press releases about those publications or to discuss them with the media, meaning the vast majority of Canadians were unaware of this research – and would have been unable to fully understand the heavily technical articles even if they had been aware of them.

If research results are at odds with what the government is doing, doesn’t the public have a right to know that?

It’s true that there were incidents of conflict between government policy and government scientists’ evidence before the Conservative government.

Perhaps the best strategy to avoid conflict would be for government policy-makers to listen to the evidence gathered by their own scientists.

Carolyn Brown, science writer/editor, Ottawa

Apocalypse Explained

American news likes to focus only on the human drama that ensues when disaster strikes. In contrast, Global National, clearly less fettered by corporate fiat, takes the time to analyse the reasons behind the disaster. The following report by Eric Sorenson explains the science behind the apocalypse engulfing California, and yes, that science includes the use of a term one almost never hears in mainstream media south of the border, climate change.

Harper's Fingerprints Are All Over This One

It is surely a mark of the times in which we live that a climate of fear, suspicion and mistrust permeates the ranks of those who work for the federal government. Stories abound of the muzzling of scientists, the termination of employees, the closing of research facilities. Having just completed Mark Bourrie's Kill The Messenger, an excoriating analysis of the Harper regime's vindictive and paranoid nature, there is no doubt in my mind that those stories are true, leading to the inevitable conclusion that freedom of expression is one of far too many democratic rights that have suffered tremendously under this government.

The recent termination of a Parks Canada employee, a smoking gun if there ever was one, offers ample illustration. Dr. John Wilmshurst, the science and resource conservation manager for Jasper National Park, was fired on June 11.

Mystery surrounds his termination, as no one will speak out, but the likely answer is found in something that happened last year.

In a 2014 story produced by the Canadian Press and picked up by the CBC, Huffington Post, McLean’s, and other major news outlets, Wilmshurst described research he and his colleagues were doing on the melting Athabasca Glacier. He predicted that the ice could be gone in his children’s lifetime, a statement supported by recently-published research out of the University of British Columbia.

“The information that we’re getting is pretty clear that climate is warming,” he told the camera. “[Climate change] is definitely something that’s happening and it’s happening because of our activities.”

You can see the 'error' Wilmshurst made here. He drew the clear and irrefutable connection between climate change and human activity, something that is anathema in Harperland, something that is deemed seditious in our imperiled democracy. Had he followed the expected protocol of applying for permission to speak to the media, a laboursome process that more often than not results in refusal, Wilmshurst pointed observations would not have seen the light of day. Here are a few cases that illustrate the roadblocks government scientists face:

In 2010, Natural Resources Canada scientist Scott Dallimore was not allowed to talk about research into a flood in northern Canada 13,000 years ago without getting pre-approval from political staff in the office of then-Natural Resources minister Christian Paradis. Postmedia News said requests were only approved after reporters' deadlines had already passed.

In 2011, Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientist Kristina Miller was blocked from speaking to the media about her research suggesting viral infections may be linked to higher salmon mortality.

Environment Canada's media office granted no interviews after a team published a paper in 2011 concluding that a 2 degree C increase in global temperatures may be unavoidable by 2100.

Postmedia science reporter Margaret Munro requested data from radiation monitors run by Health Canada following the earthquake and nuclear plant problems in Japan. Munro said Health Canada would not approve an interview with one of its experts responsible for the detectors.

Unquestioning 'loyalty' to the regime is the only thing that matters, no matter how competent and respected individuals may be. The messages taped on Wilmshurst's former office door convey the sense of a man deeply respected and sorely missed:

“Best manager I’ve had in 33 years,” one note read.

“A source of inspiration,” said another. “Still our Chief.”

“Forever our leader.”

Such sentiments account for nothing in Harper's poisoned kingdom, and for that reason, Canada needs a powerful purgative; if we don't administer the necessary tough medicine in October, I fear all will be lost for the country that I have known and loved my entire life.

UPDATED: A Special Day

Today is one of those days where all things seem possible, a day suffused with an optimism that many likely haven't felt for a long time, given the dark times endured under the previous regime. I spent the morning watching the swearing-in of the Trudeau government, and from start to finish the entire ceremony, which I doubt that I have ever watched before, was a reminder of all the things that are good and possible about Canada.

First came, not the usual surfeit of black limos, but rather the entire team walking the grounds of Rideau Hall upon their arrival:




Most striking about the above was the leisurely pace with which the Trudeau entourage walked, waving and greeting well-wishers, many of whom, to my delight, were young. Could this be the start of a youth engagement? The symbolism of the stroll can hardly be lost: an accessible government of and for the people, something that stands in sharp contrast to the aloof isolation of the Harper regime.

The other thing that struck me was the amazing depth and range of talent to be found within the new cabinet; clearly, as he has stated, Trudeau expects much from the people that he has said will be decision-makers. You can see the full list here.

In its diversity. the cabinet is a real representation of Canada today, with immigrants, aboriginals and the physically challenged all being given important portfolios.

At the moment, a real feeling of pride is being experienced across Canada, as evidenced by social media:

Charlotte Engerer and Jason Waterman were among the hundreds of “proud” Canadians pleased that the country elected Trudeau.

“Congratulations to our new Prime Minister @JustinTrudeau – so proud of my fellow Canadians to have made decisive choice for positive change,” Engerer said.

“Proud day to be a #canadian - best wishes today to our 23rd Prime Minister, @JustinTrudeau and our new cabinet & MPs! #cdnpoli #RealChange,” said Waterman, CTO of Chrome extension Momentum Dash.

Charlotte Engerer and Jason Waterman were among the hundreds of “proud” Canadians pleased that the country elected Trudeau.

“Congratulations to our new Prime Minister @JustinTrudeau – so proud of my fellow Canadians to have made decisive choice for positive change,” Engerer said.

“Proud day to be a #canadian - best wishes today to our 23rd Prime Minister, @JustinTrudeau and our new cabinet & MPs! #cdnpoli #RealChange,” said Waterman, CTO of Chrome extension Momentum Dash.

While such positive feelings will be of uncertain duration, I, for one, intend to enjoy them while they last.

UPDATE: Mark, in his comments below, offers some very interesting observations about today's cabinet choices:

Something else that struck me about these cabinet choices: it's like Trudeau wanted to send a signal; that this government will do things differently.

First off, with this much talent in his cabinet, it would be awful hard to run the government as a one-man show; they way Harper did.

Secondly, a number of the picks were interesting in their own right.

As much as I am glad that after a decade of a government that made yes-mean as Cabinet Minsters, we now have a Minister of Science that actually has a degree in science, and a Minister of Health that actually is a former doctor; these are things that we should have been able to expect all along, from any decent government.

Far more interesting is a few other picks I that caught my attention.

After a government that shamelessly used the military for photo-ops, yet treated the veterans, particularly disabled veterans, like crap, we now have a Minister of Veteran's Affairs that is himself a disabled person.

Then there is the pick of Minister of Defence. After a government that stirred up racism to justify foreign military adventurism, we now have a Minister of Defence who is a person of colour. Admittedly, the Conservatives never directed racism towards Sikhs the way the did towards Muslims, but many Conservative supporters have shown that they don't make that distinction.

Minister of Status of Women - a Cabinet role Harper filled only because he had to, in order to maintain that "moderate" image. We now have a veteran social activist.

Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Notice the change of the title for this role? Anyone? Anyone? Beuller?

While I would have liked to have someone with more direct experience with environmental issues, (e.g. Joyce Murray,) - and apologies to Mz. McKenna if I am insufficiently familiar with her curriculum vitae - I love the fact that Trudeau's pick for this role is a former human rights and social justice lawyer. Hopefully a sign of how Mr. Trudeau truly sees this issue.

A couple of other observations about this cabinet:

It's becoming clear that those looking to smear Trudeau with the "Harper-lite" label are going to have a tougher time getting that label to stick.

Among the long-time Liberal MPs, we have a few from the left-leaning wing of the party, most notably Bennett and Dion, and one former NDP Cabinet Minister.

Among the newcomers, at least a few sound like they could just as easily have run for the NDP; including a few experienced social justice warriors.

Lastly, when Trudeau announced that he was aiming for gender parity and ethnic diversity, there were predictable complaints from certain elements in the MSM, that appointments were not being made on the basis of merit. Yet, when I look at the experience these appointees have, I would challenge any of the complainers to name names, as to who the "Affirmative Action" cases were.

I do still have some reservations, regarding where Trudeau wants to lead the country. But looking at this cabinet, it does fill me with hope that we have done more than merely replace one monster with another. A couple of the big issues that this new government will have do deal with soon, (the TPP and climate change,) may once again fill me with cynicism; but for now, I'm starting to feel more hope than I've dared to feel in a long, long time.

"I'm Done"

                                          

Like many of us, Peter McMartin has had enough. He's had enough with the anti-vaxxers, the anti-maskers, those who place their faith in what they read on the internet rather than science, those who, ultimately, don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. 

If you will indulge me, I shall reproduce much of his denunciation below:

I’m done with those whose fear of vaccinations arises from studies that were long ago peer-disproved and retracted.

I’m done with those whose ignorance of science is so profound and intractable that, rather than heeding the advice of scientists, doctors and virologists, they put their trust in celebrities, politicians and quacks …

I’m done with those who are so mentally lazy that they refuse to trust in anything beyond hearsay, urban legend, apocrypha, conservative wing-nut provocateurs and the whole digital witch-doctor network of chat rooms, Facebook forums and the first hit that pops up on their Google searches that are designed to reaffirm their ignorance rather than challenge it.

I’m done with those who believe we all have our version of reality, because no, we don’t all have our own version of reality. Singular undeniable realities exist. The earth is round. COVID-19 has killed millions. There are no microchips in vaccines. Vaccines are not designed by governments, Bill Gates or the Illuminati …

I’m done with those whose fear of vaccinations is so rigid and unthinking that, as an unintended consequence of their ignorance, they would drag us back into the Third World by helping to resuscitate polio and whooping cough and mumps and measles …

I’m done with any person, government or business that would coddle anti-vaxxers, or who, like desperate parents trying to entice a spoiled child to eat his vegetables, would offer them tax breaks, lottery tickets or beer as rewards for getting vaccinated.

I’m done with anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers who, while literally weaponizing themselves by refusing to get vaccinated and putting other lives in danger as surely as if they were carrying a loaded gun, see themselves as brave freedom fighters protecting their constitutional freedoms, not because they believe in equality, but because they believe exactly the opposite, that their rights are preeminent over all others.

I’m done with those who complain about wearing masks, as if having to wear a piece of fabric designed to stop the inhalation of a deadly virus was akin to torture. 

I’m done with those who, after a visit to the intensive care unit and death’s door, experience their moment of revelation that, yes, they are so sorry that they didn’t get vaccinated because — with the usual egocentricity and selfishness that characterizes anti-vaxxer sentiment — they could have died rather than, you know, the untold number of people their stupidity put at risk.

Other than those with legitimate health concerns or compromised immune systems, I’m done with trying to understand, accommodate or politely tolerate anti-vaxxers, or those who are just too stupid, tuned out or unconcerned with the health and safety of others to get vaccinated.

My late father-in-law had a succinct way of dismissing things that to him were patently absurd. I leave you with his words:

"I don't have time for such foolishness." 

In that, he is far from alone.

Stephen Harper - He's Not Here For You

But of course I state the obvious here, don't I? Nonetheless, for those who like regular and ongoing illustrations of the fact that the Prime Minister and his acolytes are in the thrall of 'special interests,' one need look no further than a report in today's Toronto Star.

Currently, non-financial businesses are sitting on over $600 billion in cash reserves, thanks to a very favourable tax regime from the Harperites and similarly obeisant and compliant provincial governments. At the same time, however, these 'masters of the universe,' reluctant to spend their largess on research and development, new equipment purchases, or just about anything else, have gotten new incentive to hoard and count their cash:

The Conservative government says the National Research Council is now “open for business” and will refocus on large-scale projects “directed by and for” Canadian industry — a change some scientists call a mistake.

Part of the mandate of the NRC is to work with and help support industry, but what is new here is the fact that it appears this will now essentially be its exclusive mandate, dictated by the 'needs' of industry.

While one understands that it is difficult for the current government regime, looking as it does with grave suspicion upon critical and nuanced thinking, to comprehend, the words of Nobel laureate John Polanyi, who says that steering the NRC away from basic research is misguided, need to be heard:

“One should structure things so (scientists) have the freedom and responsibility to provide ideas to industry, not just receive commands,” ...

Queen’s University professor and Canada Research Chair in Environmental Change, John Smol, explains it this way:

“I look at science as a pyramid. At the bottom you have all this basic fundamental research and at the top you have the applied. But you can’t have the applied without the basic,” he said.

Smol goes so far as to see something quite sinister in the Harper decision to make the NRC the handmaiden of the corporate agenda:

Smol, a lakes ecosystem expert, believes the decision to recast the NRC is part of a Conservative pattern of cutting funding for basic science in favour of applied research that will generate a profit.

“What you find in environmental research are things that will cost industry money,” he says. In a recent study, Smol showed that lakes near Alberta’s oil sands are filled with contaminants.

One assumes that with its new orders, the National Research Council will not anytime soon be conducting such embarrassing studies that could hamper the ever-stronger march of corporate dominance.

Another victory for the Harperites. Another loss for the non-corporate citizens of Canada.

Has Harper Betrayed The West? A Mound Of Sound Guest Post

Recent summer flooding across southern Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba seems to be bringing the reality of climate change home to the people of the prairies and it’s drawing some unwelcome attention to prime minister Harper.

Look, it was bound to happen. You can’t have once-a-century weather disasters arriving every two or three years for very long before even the doubters stop listening to climate change deniers. That, from a glance at some prairie newspapers, seems to be happening at the moment. Postmedia science scribe, Margaret Munro, writes that these summer floods are the new reality for much of western Canada. Reginal Leader-Post columnist, Murray Mandryk, writes that Saskatchewan has to catch up to the fact of climate change.

“But don’t take my word for it. Ask someone like hydrologist John Pomeroy – Canadian Research Chair for Water Resources and Climate Change at the University of Saskatchewan – who has studied the issue for years, including intensive study of the drainage of Smith Creek, which flows near Langenburg along the Manitoba-Saskatchewan border.

“’We have to stop doing what we are doing,’ Pomeroy said in an interview from Alberta, where he is currently studying the impact of mountain run-off into the South Saskatchewan River.

“’Things are happening and they are happening much faster than anyone imagined.’”

Munro highlighted Dr. Pomeroy’s remarks about how the pro-oil/anti-science Harper government has gutted federal hydrology, climate and flood management programmes, leaving the provinces to fend for themselves.

“By July, Smith Creek is usually ‘bone dry.’ Last week it hit a new high as 24.5 cubic metres of water a second roared down the stream.

“[Pomeroy] says heavy winter snow had saturated the soil, which was made even wetter by unusually heavy spring rains. Then the frontal system came up from the US, stalled over southeast Saskatchewan in late June, ‘and pushed it over the top.’ The system dropped more than 150 millimetres of rain in a few days – almost as much rain as normally falls in southeast Saskatchewan all year.

“He says the change in the past decade has been remarkable.

“’Everything we know about hydrology of the prairie appears to be different,’ he says. ‘We never have saturated spongy soils with flow running off farmers’ fields in the midsummer. Never.’

“The situation calls out for a national Canadian strategy and program to improve flood prediction and water management, Pomeroy says, pointing to the US which has more comprehensive systems.

“He says recent cutbacks and, in some cases, the ‘gutting’ of federal hydrology, climate and flood management programs have left the country ill-prepared.

“When it comes to the flood forecasting problem, he says, ‘every province is left on its own, with some doing better than others.’”

Coastal British Columbians know how Harper has betrayed us and left our environment defenceless. Harper has moved the west coast oil spill emergency centre to Montreal. He has shut down many of our Coast Guard stations. He has axed entire departments of Fisheries and Oceans once responsible for monitoring our coastal waters and the health of our marine species. He has stripped navigation regulations and done everything asked of him to facilitate hazardous oil tanker traffic. To us, the fact that Harper has gutted federal hydrology and flood management programmes, leaving the prairie provinces defenceless. is old hat. This is simply another illustration of Harper’s rank ideology at work in betraying the West for the sake of Big Oil only this time it’s Harper’s natural constituents caught in the crosshairs.

Reality is catching up with Harper and even the usually reliable, centre-right media are beginning to speak out. Doubters and deniers are beginning to sound utterly unconvincing, shrill, desperate. Pomeroy might have coined a suitable epitaph for Harper’s conservatism when he said, “Things are happening and they are happening much faster than anyone imagined.”

A Look In The Mirror

 

There is a scene in the 1960 movie, Inherit the Wind, (about the Scopes Monkey Trial) where Spencer Tracey and Frederic March, courtroom adversaries, discuss faith. March insists it is necessary for the masses to believe in something beautiful; it makes their lives more palatable. Tracy counters with a story about his childhood yearning for Golden Dancer, a rocking horse he had long coveted in a store window. With much scrimping and saving by his parents, he awoke one morning to find it at the base of his bed.

But the story does not have a happy ending. The first time he rode it, it fell apart, so poorly constructed was it, "put together with spit and sealing wax. All shine and no substance."  This story relates to the ignorance and bigotry that hides behind great displays of religiosity, as evident in a previous scene, and is a major subtext of the entire film as science, in the form of evolution, confronts biblical literalism.

That got me thinking about the power of myth, both for good and ill, which brought me around to the often destructive influence of national myths, ones that are foundational to how people see their countries and themselves. Some are obviously destructive, such as American exceptionalism and the belief in the United States as a land of unparalleled opportunity, where anyone can become anything.

Then there are those that suggest something good, like Canada being an accepting, tolerant land that welcomes all and treats everyone well. As recent events have shown, we can no longer accept such anodyne myths as approximations of truth. They conceal too much ugly reality.

Consider, for example, this:

Before the remains of 215 Indigenous children were found in British Columbia last month, two-thirds of Canadians say, they knew a little or nothing about the history of this country’s residential school system.

It’s one of the findings in a survey commissioned by the Canadian Race Relation Foundation and the Assembly of First Nations.

They polled Canadians the week after the discovery at the site of a former residential school in Kamloops, B.C., was announced.

For many Canadians, it seems to have been a moment of shattered ignorance.

As Tom Parkin reports, ignoring reality was at the forefront of Jagmeet Singh's recent angry speech in the House of Commons, prompted both by the unmarked Indigenous graves and the horror that took place in London, Ontario.

“Some people have said, ‘This is not our Canada,’ ” Singh told MPs.

“But the reality is, this is our Canada. We can’t deny it. We can’t reject that, because it does no one any help. The reality is: Our Canada is a place of racism, of violence, of genocide of Indigenous people.”

Singh may be sensing a widespread mood. In an opinion poll Leger released last week, 57 per cent of Canadians said the Kamloops graves made them “question the whole moral foundation that Canada has been based on.”

Parkin says this is not a message that Canada's political and business leaders will take kindly to or promote.

The deaths and burials at residential schools were known by Indigenous families, but news media didn’t tell those stories. Nor is the frustration with ongoing racism, and fear of violent racists, new in Canada. Many Canadians live with both every day.

These are the experiences of what political science calls the “subaltern” classes of society — groups who have no say and no command in politics or business. And they certainly don’t decide the meaning of their country. Not usually, anyway.

Subaltern society is divided into identities, each pushed to the margins of political discourse, isolated from each other, and without the common networks, culture, or political language to tell a common and unifying story. That now seems to be changing.

“This is our Canada” isn’t just a demand to look objectively at Canada’s past; it’s a call to disparate people to find a new moral basis for their country. 

And it is also a call for all of us to take a good, long look in the mirror.

More Evidence Of The American Right's Intellectual 'Limitations'

I have phrased this post's title as tactfully as I can, but I think if you watch the following video, you will be tempted to use other, more obvious ways to describe right-wing American cognitive abilities. You will notice that as soon as the Fox host asks scientist Bill Nye about climate change, Nye realizes he must talk in a much slower manner than he ever did when he hosted the children's science program, Bill Nye The Science Guy.

Thanks to my son Matthew for providing this link:

The Truth Is Not Out There - It's Right Here

Fox Mulder of the X-Files got it wrong. He believed that the truth was 'out there;' in fact, it is right here, but as the Mound of Sound said in a recent post, we live in "a world full of fact-resistant humans."

Our capacity for denial seems almost limitless, perhaps most tragically attested to by our ongoing nonchalance about climate change. Despite increasingly severe weather events, melting arctic ice and rising sea levels, we insist on whistling past the graveyard. The time is growing very late.

Consider what Gwynne Dyer had to say recently:

We cannot count on the average global temperature rising steadily but slowly as we pump more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It may do that -- but there may also be a sudden jump in the average global temperature that lands you in a world of hurt. That may be happening now.

"We are moving into uncharted territory with frightening speed," said Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization, last November. He was referring to the fact that the warming is accelerating in an unprecedented way.

2014 was the hottest year ever, until 2015 beat it by a wide margin. 2016 may beat that record by an even wider margin. It was the hottest January ever and the average global temperature in February was a full fifth of a Celcius degree higher than January.

To take solace by blaming recent event on El Niño is folly:

As for the frightening acceleration in the warming in the past three months, that has no precedent in any El Niño year, or indeed in any previous year. It could be some random short-term fluctuation in average global temperature, but coming on top of the record warming of 2014 and 2015 it feels a lot more like part of a trend.

Could this be non-linear change, an abrupt and irreversible change in the climate? Yes. And if it is, how far will it go before it stabilizes again at some higher average global temperature? Nobody knows.

What was once thought to be many decades, if not centuries off, is now starting to materialize. Watch the following two videos to consider what may very well be in store for us, perhaps in the lifetime of some alive today, but almost certainly in that of our children and grandchildren:





Such scenarios are no longer in the realm of science fiction, but we continue to treat them as such, and it doesn't appear that anything will shake us and our 'leaders' from this state of denial. It therefore seems appropriate to end this post with Jimi Hendrix's version of Bob Dylan's All Along The Watchtower, a song that I have always interpreted as depicting impending doom:

Time For A Massive Reorientation

It is perhaps to state the obvious that a crisis of the scale the world is currently experiencing is also an opportunity to reorient our perspective and our society. As many of us are now acutely aware, and despite the 'social distancing' we are observing, none of us live in isolation. Let us take this new understanding to heart.

Two letters in today's Star, I believe, effectively convey this.

For years, we have been encouraged to be isolated, as in caring only about ourselves, focusing only on our own well-being, which we are told is solely in our own hands.

We have been encouraged to think of ourselves as islands, our health, happiness and prosperity are independent of the larger community, society or country, never mind the world.

This way of thinking has naturally led to constant arguments against having efficient and caring governments, paying taxes, and public funding even for health and scientific research.

It is unfortunate that it takes something like COVID-19 to convince us, hopefully once and for all, that as human beings, we can never be independent of each other, and our health, well-being and prosperity is very much in each other’s hands.

COVID-19 once again shows the importance of our collective thinking and acting, of the importance of paying taxes and a fair tax system, of good governments, of public funding and of science and research.

It is not the corporations and the myth of trickle-down economics that can save us from common threats, but good governments, public health systems and collective support.

With individual and collective responsible spirit and actions, we can prevent the spread of the coronavirus and eventually defeat this pandemic.

Maria Sabaye Moghaddam, Ottawa

Twenty years from now, we will look back and say, “Thank goodness for this coronavirus!”

What we are witnessing is the beginning of a complete and far-reaching restructuring of life, business and communication.

COVID-19 has removed 80 per cent of the vehicles from the streets in a manner that no environmental activist could. It has removed 90 per cent of the people from buses, trains and subways.

What caught on as a convenience has now become the only way business can be conducted during this period of social distancing.

We are talking about working from home. It is safe to estimate that half the labour force can and is now working from home at some level and to some extent.

The big question is how entrenched will this practice become post-coronavirus.

This is as good at time as any to think carefully about what our priorities should be in the future.

COVID-19 gives us an opportunity to break away from business as usual. It gives us the ability to embrace of new paths; more sensible paths. A possible path that could see us reducing vehicular emissions so much that Greta Thunberg would be proud of us!

The curse of this coronavirus becomes a blessing for those who would use this opportunity to be courageous.

Greg McKnight, Brampton

A Shameful Legacy

Yesterday I attended a funeral service for the father of my good friend and former colleague, John. Although I never met John's father, a retired Presbyterian minister, his son's stirring eulogy was such that I left the service feeling that I somehow knew him in some way, such was his legacy.

Like his father, John is a man of great integrity, passion and commitment to his family and his country. Hearing him speak, of course, initially got me thinking about what others might say about me when my time comes; although I have not led a particularly accomplished life, I hope the one thing that will be remembered, if modesty permits, is that I tried to live my life with both personal and professional integrity.

Which got me to thinking about our last government. As I have mused at times in this blog, I still do not understand how the men and women who were part of Stephen Harper's regime can, even for a moment, delude themselves into thinking that their public lives were even remotely honourable ones. They allowed themselves and their principles to be dictated to by a martinet, almost no one protesting or asserting any objections whatsoever (Brent Rathgeber and Michael Chong notable exceptions). Surely this should be a source of deep shame, no matter how much they try to spin their defeat as a result of tone rather than policy.

They will not be missed.

When their time comes, each of the defeated and still-standing Conservative Members of Parliament will no doubt be remembered fondly by family and friends. Yet for others in living memory, they will be recalled for their manifest failure to do anything to better their country and their fellow-citizens. Our most recent election saw them being repudiated for a host of reasons as voters fled

[f]rom a hyper-partisan Conservative party that had grown cynical, sneering and closed under Stephen Harper. From practices that showed contempt for Parliament, the Supreme Court and science itself. From ugly, divisive, Muslim-baiting electoral tactics. And from deeply misguided policies that favoured the moneyed few, and that sold out civil liberties amid hyped fears of terror.

What Canadians rejected could fill dozens of blog pages, and they have already been well-chronicled in the blogosphere this past decade. But they still don't get it, as Owen observes this morning at Northern Reflections. They still insist that theirs was a failure of tone. But Andrew Coyne points out that the problem runs much deeper:

...in the main what characterized the Tories’ 10 years in power was timidity, mixed with inconsistency. They took few risks, invested almost no political capital, articulated no broad vision. Where they did act, it was as often as not by stealth: important measures would be found buried four hundred pages deep in an omnibus bill, or parsed from some throwaway remark by the prime minister at a conference in Switzerland.

Theirs was a failure, not only of vision, but of moral fiber, and no matter what kind of 'face' they try to put on a revived Conservative party, that persona, while the usual suspects still control the levers of power, will serve only to mask the underlying rot that corrupted the party under the leadership of Stephen Harper.

Until that rot is wiped away, merely adopting a new tone in emulation of the victorious Liberals will serve only to reinforce its incapacity to truly renew itself.

UPDATED: I May Have The Answer

Strange cacophonous sounds coming from the skies may seem like the prelude to a science-fiction film, but the phenomenon is actually happening throughout the world. At times sounding like trumpet blasts, at others like construction equipment, the noises have been heard for about a decade. Have a listen:



While no one has found an explanation for this mystery, allow me to put forth one: could it be Mother Nature expressing her horror at the way we have been heedlessly neglecting, abusing and exploiting the earth for far too long?

UPDATE: Thanks to Marie for providing this link to other possible explanations.

UPDATED: Another Sad, Mad Episode

Listening to Donald Trump prattle on is like bearing witness to the stream-of-consciousness ravings of a backward, depraved child:

“And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute,” Trump said. “One minute! And is there a way we can do something, by an injection inside or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that. So, that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me.”

Dr Deborah Birx, the taskforce response coordinator, remained silent. But social media erupted in hilarity and outrage at the president, who has a record of defying science and also floated the idea of treating patients’ bodies with ultraviolet (UV) light.

I'll leave the final word to Walter Shaub, the former director of the Office of Government Ethics:

“It is incomprehensible to me that a moron like this holds the highest office in the land and that there exist people stupid enough to think this is OK. I can’t believe that in 2020 I have to caution anyone listening to the president that injecting disinfectant could kill you.”

P.S. Should you be wondering how the Twitterverse is reacting, click here.

I am particularly fond of this one:

Lysol Counters Trump Briefing: Do Not Ingest Disinfectants. Normally they only need to worry about children or suicidal people ingesting their product, not psychotic president’s trying to kill their own people #lysol #disinfectant #injectingdisinfectant https://t.co/BBi4Aj2eXP

— Duty To Warn 🔉 (@duty2warn) April 24, 2020

UPDATE:

Rejecting The Politics Of Expedience

A letter in today's print edition of The Star by Jack Gallop of Thornhill urges all of us to reject the demagogic politicians who expediently pander to our fears; instead, we need to heed the consensus position of climate-change scientists and act accordingly for the greater good:

For those of us who see the stark and convincing evidence that we are destroying our planet through human-induced climate change, the cry has gone out to governments to take strong action to reduce our carbon footprint before this planet we call home reaches the point of no return.

And, according to environmental science, that point is fast approaching.

But people vehemently protest when ideas such as cap and trade (a program that was working extremely well) or a carbon tax are initiated. We want action, but not if it costs “me.”

The Ford government prefers to tap into our fears and inherent self interest by stating that saving the environment will cost too many jobs and add to the cost of operating our vehicles and heating our homes. So they fight the very initiatives they should be supporting.

Rather than justifying inaction, it is government’s responsibility to lead the way in educating every citizen on the environmental emergency facing this and future generations. Instead they close their eyes to this inconvenient truth, saying they got elected on improving the economy so that’s their priority.

Nothing is more important than doing all that can be done to reverse the effects of climate change. And it is time for each citizen to insist that we are willing to inconvenience ourselves and contribute financially to government and private initiatives to save our planet.

Present and future generations will be grateful instead of cursing our stupidity and short-sightedness.

Shoulder Shrug

Like many of the commentators and bloggers whom I read, I regularly feel a deep frustration over the passivity of people. No matter what the problem, be it political, social, environmental or a host of others, too many have a 'can't-do' reaction that debases so many in a myriad of ways. Indeed, it appears to be one of our species' defining characteristics, one at which Canadians seem to particularly excel, if our current political landscape is any indication.

Perhaps we need a national shoulder-shrug symbol as an expression of the what-can-you-do paralysis that cripples so many, a condition that undoubtedly facilitates the dark manipulation our political 'masters' so gleefully engage in.

My reflections are partly prompted by a column in this morning's Toronto Star by Rick Salutin entitled David Cameron and Jim Flaherty prove fatalism is back. Using the picture of British Prime Minister David Cameron in boots wading through flood-ravaged south-west England, Salutin sums up the photo-op in these terms:

It’s the shots of British Prime Minister David Cameron slogging through the floods there in wellies that convinced me: fatalism is back. He may have looked as if he was trying to do something, but it had nothing to do with addressing the causes of flooding. He was all accommodation: like Noah building an ark after hearing from the Lord that the skies were going to burst.

That image parallels the reactions people had in Toronto and beyond after the ice storm that left so many without power for so long; rather than to start a real discussion about climate change, people instead carped about how long it took to restore power. An 'action plan' in the form of an independent panel convened by Toronto Hydro to address that concern was our way of avoiding acknowledging and confronting the real issue.

Similarly, during the flooding that hit the Toronto area last July, concern seemed to be limited to how long it took to rescue stranded Go Train passengers. Indeed, at the time Environment Canada's senior climatologist urged a stoic acceptance:

"No infrastructure could handle this...you just have to accept the fact that you're going to be flooded."

Salutin offers this observation:

... ours is the first era ever possessing strong evidence that human action has shaped the climate. It’s simply a case of trying to undo what we’ve (with high probability) done. If you had substantial evidence that food or water was killing your kids, you wouldn’t futz around about “the science” being inconclusive. You’d act.

And here he gets to the meat of his thesis:

I’m not talking about the tendency of governments, corporations and ideologues to lie and manipulate. I mean the propensity of populations to meekly accept brutal realities because that’s just how it is.

The columnist then trains his lens on the federal budget brought down the other day by Jim Flaherty, who apparently had more pressing concerns than people's lives in the days leading up to the budget:

The economy’s another example. How dared Jim Flaherty present that budget? Where did he get the balls? He ignored the state of jobs and debt in people’s lives, the way Cameron ignored climate change while wading in the water.

And so things go merrily along, collective amnesia and widespread denial being a comfortable refuge until the next 'unforseeable' crisis.

A Battery Recharger

Still trying to get my psychic energy back, I thought I would take this opportunity to post an interview of Neil Turok conducted a few months ago by Alan Gregg. Turok, the currrent head of the Perimiter Institute, delivered this year's Massey Lectures on The Universe Within. While some of what he discussed is beyond me (the world of quantum physics) the first and last part present a man who is deeply humane, the antithesis of the kind of arrogance embodied by people like Richard Dawkins.

I especially appreciated two things about Turok: his surprising optimism ("The problems we face were created by humans, and they can be solved by humans.") and the respect he has for various pursuits of knowledge, including religion which, along with science, he acknowledges as seeking utimate answers. If you want to skip the heavy topic of quantyum physics, I would recommend you watch the first several minutes of the interview, and then skip ahead to about the 16:00 minute mark for more comprehenisble and relatatble fare as he talks about Africa's potential and his respect for a variety of disciplines, including religion.

Please note there is a slight glitch at the start of the video, with several seconds of silence.