"The Cancer Of Inequality"

In a recent post well-worth reading, The Mound reflected on the decline of support for liberal democracy. Today, Star readers respond to an article carried by the paper entitled, How Stable Are Democracies? ‘Warning Signs Are Flashing Red’. Their message is clear: inequality is at the root of the problem, fostered and promoted by the neoliberal agenda:

Re: For democracy, ‘warning signs flashing red', Dec. 11

The graphs for the seven countries in this article show the first real dip in democratic trust by people born in the 1960s and with each generation '70s and '80s trust declines. The pattern of distrust is universal across the democracies; therefore it seems logical that the cause is universal and progressive.

The universal event during the survey's time period of 2005-14 was the Great Recession of 2008 and with the slow recovery it is a progressive event affecting all people, but especially the millennial generation. They and their parents feel cheated; they did what was expected but now face unemployment.

However, is feeling cheated by society the total reason for the decline in democratic trust? I say something else going on: First, the three countries with the largest decline in trust — U.S., U.K. and Australia — consistently show the highest rate of inequality. Second, the country with the lowest decline in trust, Sweden, consistently has the lowest rate of inequality. The remaining three countries — Canada, Germany and the Netherlands — are all middle of the road for decline in trust and for inequality. There seems to be a link between decline in democratic trust and inequality, but the work of Mounk and Foa did not link democratic decline to inequality, as Mounk says more research is required.

Whilst waiting for the research we should consider the work of Wilkinson and Pickett who covered 10 components that make up the social fabric of 23 countries and clearly showed how inequality was bad for everyone, from the wealthy to the pauper.

In the U.K. and U.S. since 1980s, when Thatcher and Reagan condoned Greedism as an economic model, inequality has grown to the point where these two countries are near the top on the list. Both recently experienced quasi-social revolutions that shocked the world: Brexit in the U.K. and the Trump election in the U.S. Both events were rightly tied to trade deals and globalization because both exacerbate Greedism and inequality.

Inequality has been insidiously creeping up on us for the last three decades. In the U.S., the poster child for inequality, it gets little attention; in Canada we do not understand the damage it is doing to our democracy.

Democracy is best explained by five words: “The will of the people.” Looking at Canada I do not believe this is the will of the people. No good jobs, precarious work rising, children living in poverty, loss of self respect and dignity, half a billion dollars in tax forgiveness for 70 CEOs, 80 per cent of the economy fruits goes to one per cent, foodbanks grow.

The cancer of inequality is destroying the fabric of our society and governments must act before rips apart.

Keith Parkinson, Cambridge

This article was important yet frustrating. It missed the obvious connection between economic inequality and dwindling support for democracy. The people of Venezuela, Cuba and other nations give up on democracy when they are economically marginalized. The freedom of the few to accumulate disproportionate wealth and power makes democracy seem useless to many.

Laws that increasingly favour the wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle class deprive most citizens of genuine political power. The citizens become irrelevant, so democracy becomes irrelevant to them.

The histories of Athens, Rome and countless other political systems show that democracy dies this way. It has been written about many times, yet we appear incapable of learning how to stop it.

Paul Bigioni, Pickering

What A Pretty Face Conceals

When one thinks deeply about neoliberalism, one conjures up the face of greed, rapacity and monetary narcissism. Not at all a pretty face. But here in Canada, Thomas Walkom writes, neoliberalism is concealed by a human, some would say pretty, face, that of Justin Trudeau.

The essence of neo-liberalism is globalization. Neo-liberals strive for a world in which capital, goods and even labour move effortlessly from country to country. The aim is to let the free market do its magic and maximize wealth.

Once the centrepiece of the Conservative Party, the legacy of the reviled Stephen Harper is now being carried by our 'new' prime minister. Youth and attractiveness seem to go a long way on a number of fronts, including the temporary foreign worker program that grew to outrageous proportions under the previous regime:

... the Trudeau Liberals are smooth. Last week, they eliminated a rule that prevented temporary foreign workers from staying in Canada for more than four years.

To make the move politically palatable, the Liberal government said it would also require employers to advertise among disadvantaged groups such as indigenous people and the disabled before turning to foreigners.

But the bottom line is that the new rule allows employers to use cheap foreign labour indefinitely.

And Trudeau seems to understand something that Harper refused to: the need for 'social licence':

In Canada, that means wooing indigenous peoples and well-organized environmental groups.... And to win social licence for oil and gas pipelines, he worked on two fronts.

One was climate change. The government established its bona fides here by negotiating a path-breaking agreement with eight out of 10 provinces (plus three territories) to impose a price on carbon.

On its own, the carbon-price agreement is not enough to let Canada meet its climate targets. But in the end, it may be enough to convince enough Canadians that the pipelines from Alberta to the Pacific coast Trudeau wants should go ahead.

Simultaneously, the government has been successfully wooing indigenous leaders — with promises of more money, a more respectful relationship and an inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women.

And while people are oohing and aahing over this new style, globalization plans continue apace:

The free trade and investment deal between Canada and the European Union is closer to fruition. A similar deal with China is on the agenda, as is some kind of free-trade relationship with Japan.

Although Walkom doesn't mention it, my guess is that Trudeau's plans for an infrastructure bank is of the same neoliberal ilk. One may legitimately ask why, when the cost of borrowing is at record lows the Liberals will kick in $35-billion and hope to attract private sector dollars at a ratio of $4 to $5 in private funding for every $1 of federal money. Obviously, if we partner with private sector interests, their rates of return will have to be much more than, for example, a Canada Savings Bond would yield. Will that mean tolls/user fees for roads, bridges, etc.? Whose interests are thus served?

But a pretty face and a pleasing manner can conceal only so much. Perhaps the government's masked slipped a bit recently, and a truer visage emerged, as Walkom notes:

As for the hallmark of neo-liberal economies — the precarious workplace of low wages and multiple jobs — the advice from Finance Minister Bill Morneau is hardly encouraging.

In effect he has said: Get used to it.

A New Word For Me

And that word is kakistocracy. Coined in 1829, it means government by the worst elements of society.

I have a feeling that all of us will become intimately acquainted with its meaning over the next four years.

The Shape Of Things To Come?

The other day, I wrote a post about how NBC Nightly News was attacked by Donald Trump via his weapon of choice, Twitter, a perhaps apt mechanism given the president-elect's incapacity for sustained thought or discourse.

But NBC is hardly the only media outlet in his sights. His latest is an attack on Vanity Fair in retaliation for a scathing review of a restaurant in the lobby of Trump Tower called Trump Grill. This excerpt probably set the Orange One off:

“The allure of Trump’s restaurant, like the candidate, is that it seems like a cheap version of rich,” Tina Nguyen wrote, saying the restaurant “reveals everything you need to know about our next president.”

That seems to have led to this retaliatory tantrum:

"Has anyone looked at the really poor numbers of @VanityFair Magazine," Trump tweeted Thursday morning.

"Way down, big trouble, dead! Graydon Carter, no talent, will be out!"

At one time, being personally and/or professionally attacked by an incoming president would have been a shocking notion to all but the most rabid among us. Now, I fear, it will simply become a common and expected feature of a Trump presidency, one that may have long term consequences.

At a time when mainstream media are losing their cachet and readership, will they have the determination and integrity to continue being the guardians of democracy, or will they mutate, as some already have, into a kind of Praetorian Guard for this strange new emperor of the American Empire? The signs are not entirely promising.

Sarah Kendzior offers some unsettling thoughts on the question:

According to reporter Daniel Dale, Mr. Trump told at least 560 lies during the course of his campaign. Some lies are audacious in that they are easily disproven – for example, when Mr. Trump claimed he did not tell U.S. citizens to “check out a sex tape” after tweeting to them to do so. Flagrant lying is a hallmark of despotism. It sends the message that one should not bother speaking truth to power when power is the only truth. It implies that the teller of the lie defines reality, no matter what evidence there is to the contrary, including the liar’s own words.

It is that later sentence that gives one pause, since the MSM are becoming part of the problem:

... as inauguration looms, Mr. Trump’s team may not have to work too hard to keep the U.S. press in line. U.S. journalists, always his greatest ally due to corporate collaboration and fear of retaliation, [emphasis mine] are already mainstreaming the Trump administration’s most inflammatory ideas. To read the U.S. media today is to see a CNN debate on whether Jews are people, the Associated Press falsely tweet that the KKK has disavowed white supremacy, and countless mainstream media puff pieces on neo-Nazis that focus more on their fashion sense than their fascist beliefs.

Will mainstream media thus become normalizers and apologists for the incoming demagogue? If the following is any indicator, there is much to be concerned about:

Donald Trump's campaign struck a deal with Sinclair Broadcast Group during the campaign to try and secure better media coverage, his son-in-law Jared Kushner told business executives Friday in Manhattan.

Kushner said the agreement with Sinclair, which owns television stations across the country in many swing states and often packages news for their affiliates to run, gave them more access to Trump and the campaign, according to six people who heard his remarks.

The price of this access, it appears, was steep:

In exchange, Sinclair would broadcast their Trump interviews across the country without commentary.

And what about those outlets that insisted upon calling their own shots?

Kushner ... told the business executives that the campaign was upset with CNN because they considered its on-air panels stacked against Trump. He added that he personally talked with Jeff Zucker about changing the composition of the panels but Zucker refused. He repeatedly said in the panel that CNN wasn't "moving the needle" and wasn't important as it once was, according to three of the people present.

The campaign then decided not to work as closely with CNN, and Trump ramped up his bashing of the cable network.

So will this be the shape of things to come? Will the unofficial fiat be, "Play ball with the Trump administration or be denied access?"

I think I know the answer to the above. What I don't know is how many media outlets will opt to save, not sell, their souls.

More Weapons In The War Against Fake News

If you get the bulk of your news from television and print journalism, you may be unaware of the extent to which fake news has taken hold in the virtual world. If you are in that category, here is a link to the stories I have posted revolving around the issue. Or just do a quick Google search. The fact that such fiction has deep traction should worry us all.

Given the suspicion that fake news may very well have been a contributing factor in the recent U.S. election results, especially the prominent role that Facebook seems to have played, the world is now beginning to take this threat seriously and devising ways to ferret out the mendacious from the true. And Facebook will play a leading role:

The social network is going to partner with the Poynter International Fact-Checking Network, which includes groups such as Snopes, to evaluate articles flagged by Facebook users.

If those articles don’t pass the smell test for the fact-checkers, Facebook will pass on that evaluation with a little label whenever they are posted or shared, along with a link to the organization that debunked the story.

While it will not end the scourge of fake news, once the domain of tabloids like The National Enquirer, it will undoubtedly put a dent in it:

The new system will work like this: if there’s a story out there that is patently false — saying that a celebrity is dead when they aren’t, for example — then users will see a notice saying that the story has been disputed or debunked. People who try and share stories that have been found false will also see an alert before they post. Flagged stories will also appear lower in the news feed than unflagged stories.

Users will also be able to report potentially false stories to Facebook, or send messages to the person posting a questionable article directly.

And if that isn't enough, there are other means at our personal disposal through browser plug-ins and extensions, one of which, the B.S. Detector, I previously wrote about. There are others as well:

Slate unfurled This Is Fake, which combines crowdsourcing and editorial curation to identify articles in Facebook feeds that spread misinformation and flag them as false.

An open source project, the FiB Chrome Extension, combs through a user’s Facebook news feed to verify status updates, images and links through image recognition, keyword extraction, source verification and a Twitter search. An artificial intelligence assessment of facts results in a verdict tagged as “Verified” or “Not Verified.” If the story is deemed false, the AI will search for a verified source on the same topic.

Another one is Media Bias/Fact Check. The Daily Dot offers this description:

While Media Bias/Fact Check doesn’t scan your Facebook, it will help you when you end up on a site with questionable news. Or any other type of news. The app works by scraping data from Media Bias Fact Check, a wonderful site that checks for bias across all ideological spectrums.

When you land on a news page and press the MB/FC icon in Chrome, the extension will tell you exactly what kind of bias you can expect from your source. Left, right, center, or somewhere in space, MB/FC will tell you who is lying and when.

As I have said before, ultimately nothing serves to replace skilled critical thinking in assessing what we read and hear. But given the scope of fake news today and its increasingly harmful impact, every development that helps to hem in such deceit is indeed welcome.

On Trump's Hit List: NBC Nightly News

Media reports that Donald Trump is now railing against NBC Nightly News are not really surprising. After all, the truth can hurt.

The network's reports on his cozy relationship with, and profound ignorance of, Russia has raised the ire of the President-elect.

Trump apparently didn’t like an NBC segment that showed excerpts of his “Fox News Sunday” interview with Chris Wallace in which he said he rejects CIA findings regarding Russia hacking the election and opts not to receive daily intelligence briefings.

Undaunted, last night the network reported the following:



One gets the distinct impression that none of this will fork any lightning with either Trump or his ardent acolytes, as both seem quite comfortable living in a 'reality' created by their own fevered imaginations. The larger question is whether or not there are enough actual Republican adults left in the Senate and House of Representatives to put a brake on the confirmation of Rex Tillerson, Trump's pick for Secretary of State and a known Putin intimate.

My guess is they will all fall into line.

We can only hope that mainstream media do not follow suit. In the corporate-driven environment of today, where ratings are paramount, nothing can be taken for granted.

NOTE: If you would like to read more about this issue, check out Owen's post today over at Northern Reflections.

More On Fake News

I was tempted to conflate the first two words of my title to drive home a point, but I resisted.



Meanwhile, Star readers weigh in on that shameful Canadian, Stephanie MacWilliams, who played a key role in the 'pizzagate' fake news story that almost ended in tragedy:

Belleville woman played role in delivering ‘Pizzagate’ conspiracy, Dec. 8

Would-be journalist/detective Stefanie MacWilliams shows no remorse and is, in fact, very proud of the part she played in the Pizzagate fake news fiasco, which resulted in a heavily armed nutbar clearing a restaurant of all clients and workforce.

Would she be so jubilant if this guy had encountered resistance, and slaughtered any number of innocent people, including the children attending a birthday party on the premises?

MacWilliams is obviously naive, ill informed, and extremely dangerous. Rather than be a “make believe” journalist, she should consider some professional training. Real journalists rely only on facts. People who believe, and then propagate these ridiculous conspiracy theories exhibit a serious mental deficiency.

David Moore, Annan

Creating or purveying fake news is a lucrative business with few costs and is easy to get into. Why work a regular job when you can, in the comfort of home, post fake news and see your bank account get fat quickly?

I see another lucrative business emerging—helping victims of fake news to sue the perpetrators for huge sums of money.

These are the opportunities in the Internet economy.

Salmon Lee, Mississauga

Stefanie MacWilliams has echoed and amplified fake news with a result similar to that of falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre. Do we not put people before the courts for these actions? We should.

Peter Pinch, Toronto

Is A New Purge On The Horizon?

Few of us will forget the disdain with which the Harper regime regarded science, especially the science around climate change. Virtual embargoes that prevented scientists from releasing and discussing with the public their findings were commonplace; the permission that was required from a labyrinthine bureaucracy essentially ensured that no information opposed to government ideology could be released.

It would seem that a similar situation in now shaping up in the United States under the incoming Trump administration, a situation that will also likely have students of history thinking of the McCarthy witch hunts of the 1950's:



The Washington Post reports that these ominous signs are not being taken lightly:

Alarmed that decades of crucial climate measurements could vanish under a hostile Trump administration, scientists have begun a feverish attempt to copy reams of government data onto independent servers in hopes of safeguarding it from any political interference.

The efforts include a “guerrilla archiving” event in Toronto, where experts will copy irreplaceable public data, meetings at the University of Pennsylvania focused on how to download as much federal data as possible in the coming weeks, and a collaboration of scientists and database experts who are compiling an online site to harbor scientific information.

How justified is this precautionary movement?

Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists, argued that Trump has appointed a “band of climate conspiracy theorists” to run transition efforts at various agencies, along with nominees to lead them who share similar views.

“They have been salivating at the possibility of dismantling federal climate research programs for years. It’s not unreasonable to think they would want to take down the very data that they dispute,” Halpern said in an email. “There is a fine line between being paranoid and being prepared, and scientists are doing their best to be prepared. . . .

No one, of course, is sure of what will happen under a Trump administration. But the very fact that these measures are being enacted as a precaution is surely a potent indication of how unhealthy many perceive the new American 'democracy' to be.

UPDATE: It appears that the Energy Department has shown some spine, and is refusing to name names. But will they be able to refuse once Trump is sworn in?

More Threats, Thanks To Our Heedlessness

Out of sight, out of mind seems the attitude of far too many in today's world; as the following amply demonstrates, such attitudes have far-reaching consequences:



Unfortunately, closer to home, the situation is equally, if not more, grim:

Fidel's Legacy

Although the Toronto Star is my newspaper of choice, there are times when I strongly disagree with its content. Recently, its most prolific writer, Rosie Di Manno, wrote a series of articles in which she was withering, to say the least, in her assessment of Fidel Castro. As one who has visited Cuba many, many times, and gotten to know a fair bit about the reality of its citizens' lives, I felt her scorn was both ill-informed and ignoble.

I see that I am not alone.

In today's paper, an array of readers' letters, only a few of which I reproduce below, take exception to her sweeping condemnations of Castro's legacy:

Having visited Cuba at least 15 times, I have nothing but utmost respect for the Cubans and their system. Fidel Castro achieved what no other leader in the Caribbean achieved—free medicare and education (including university).

My GP in Toronto was trained by Cuban doctors; their reputation world wide is phenomenal. I am outraged that so few people have acknowledged this. Whenever I have visited other Caribbean countries I have never felt as safe as I do in Cuba.

Ingrid Nicholson, Toronto

With some exception, your coverage of Cuba surprises for its lack of substance and facile Cold War rhetoric.

Rosie DiManno’s columns are an example. Long is the list of shortcomings, and few the nods of recognition for gains made against all odds. Adult literacy, education, and health made available to Cuba’s poor majority post-1959, and recognized as exemplary by the United Nations, is a singular achievement in social rights.

Among the greatest beneficiaries have been Afro-Cubans – children and grandchildren of slaves – who in that deeply racist country had been pushed to the margins. The children of once marginalized poor Cubans, and their children, are the professionals now clamoring for change.

These lessons in social justice are more relevant than ever given persistent racism, poverty, inequality and exclusion—certainly no longer exclusively for Latin America. And, echoing DiManno’s stridency, while many North Americans flocked to San Francisco to join flower power, we in Latin America were inspired by the Cuban example to fight for a more just and inclusive society. Let us not minimize or trivialize this.

Verónica Schild, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Ms DiManno actually wrote this, “And damn his eternal soul”? Really? And you published it? Really?

Our Prime Minister was castigated widely for saying a few kind words about Fidel. What will the assembled pundits and columnists say and write about her now?

If anything.

Ted Turner, Toronto

...This story was an “opinion piece” by Rosie DiManno, a very long piece that carried on to the second page under the headline, “Fidel’s dark legacy survives” and which ended with the phrase “And damn his eternal soul.”

The Star is Canada’s largest circulation newspaper. As such, it comes very close to speaking for Canadians. Ms DiManno is welcome to her opinions, but I believe the Star has insulted the Cuban people by putting her opinions on the front page at a time when they have just lost their leader of over 50 years. Sovereign countries have a right to determine their own path. And each country’s people have a natural tendency to admire and even love their leaders, especially at the time of their death.

To allow one non-Cuban person to tell Canada what the Cubans who live in Cuba – and they are the overwhelming majority of Cubans—are thinking about Fidel Castro is incredibly presumptuous, and simply not right.

Wayne Robbins, Toronto

If You Are Stumped When It Comes To Inspired Gifts

.... may I suggest Trump On A Stump?

Fake News

While the following is hardly an in-depth report, the interview with the fake-news writer near the end of the report is rather interesting in that it sheds light on the mercenary motives behind such shameful work:

UPDATED: This Makes Me Happy

Whether or not we like to admit it, Canadians are often a smug lot. We look, for example, at the seemingly rampant racism of the society to the south of us, shake our heads and cluck our tongues. How can people treat other people that way?

Yet we have a far from unblemished record when it comes to race and ethnic relations in our own country, the most egregious examples being the Chinese head tax and the internment and dispossession of the Japanese and the Italians during the second world war. While most people know of those shameful episodes, far fewer know about the discrimination black people have faced here. That is why the decision to put Viola Desmond on the next $10 bill is such cause for celebration.



As the activist in the above video states, the selection of Desmond will not end the racism that still exists (a sentiment echoed by Yusra Khogali, co-founder of Black Lives Matter Toronto), but it makes it easier to address.

And I would add two points: it should also be a point of real pride for the people of colour in our country, as well as a humbling and eye-opening development for the rest of us, including me, who did not know her story, nor the kind of segregation people experienced here.

Perhaps we are finally moving toward a time when we recognize people by the integrity, resilience and fortitude they possess, not the colour of their skin or the religion or ethnic group they belong to.

'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.

UPDATE: This Star editorial is a fitting complement to Viola Desmond:

Putting a Canadian woman on a bill is long overdue. The choice of this particular woman is an especially powerful symbol of acknowledgment of past wrongs and tribute to someone who, at great risk to herself, fought against them. It should also be read as a promise from the state that it will take seriously and work alongside those who continue to resist in the spirit of Viola Desmond’s unfinished project.

In Pursuit Of Answers

Yesterday's post featured the thoughts of my sister-in-law, Ruth, on how to restore humility and a sense of proportion. This morning, she alerted me to the following, a fitting complement to that post.



If you liked the above, this one is even better:

Restoring Humility And Proportion

One of my main nightly rituals is to watch one hour of television news. The first half-hour is devoted to both a local and a regional station, while during the second half-hour I generally watch NBC Nightly News, sometimes switching back and forth between it and Global National. Such a practice usually provides me with an overview of local, national, and international events, while recognizing the limitations that such coverage provides both in depth and selection of stories.

Sometimes during this ritual, I find myself growing philosophical as I bear witness to events that often have a common subtext: the fragility and brevity of life. From the extermination of men, women and children in Syria to the loss of innocent lives in natural disasters and human-caused mayhem, the fact that our lives could end at any time through no fault of our own is never lost on me.

That got me wondering about our species' loss of humility and sense of proportion. We spend so much time getting and spending, to borrow from the poetry of William Wordsworth, that we have lost touch with both ourselves and the world around us. Should you doubt this, just look at the state of the world from an environmental, economic or sociological perspective. If you lack the time, check out one of The Mound's latest posts.

What haunts me is our collective refusal to live with a little dignity, a little restraint and a little gratitude for the very fact of our lives, precious and precarious as they ultimately are. This led me, on a bit of a whim, to post the following on my Facebook account:

A question: How do we, as a species, recover a measure of humility and a realistic sense of proportion?

The most thoughtful response came from my sister-in-law, Ruth, whose meditation follows:

The only place I can begin is with myself. And I think that's where everyone needs to begin. We can be fully present by putting down the "devices" and, for me, getting out into nature where we reconnect with that sense of grandeur and awe. It might be something different for someone else...but whatever gets them into that place where they can slow down and be humbled and grateful. We can meditate to turn off the inner chatter that can make us so unhappy which in turn can help us turn off the messages that buying more stuff will make us happy.

I'm studying to be a spiritual director to help others get to that place where they are in touch with the inner voice of God and their soul. I know it doesn't seem like much...but if even 10% of the population did those few things...in addition to reducing, reusing and recycling, buying organic, supporting local...I think we could begin to regain that sense of our place in the world.

Keep the faith..never give up. But that's in my humble opinion anyway...

Should anyone else like to address this question, I welcome your comments, as always.

An Update On An Update

Yesterday, I posted about a man an one of Edmonton's LRT stations showing his Islamophobic/racist colours, as reported by CBC. I am happy to report that an arrest has been made:

Edmonton police have a suspect in custody in connection with a possible hate crime aimed at two hijab-wearing women.

Police thanked the public for helping the Hate Crimes Unit with the investigation.

Further details will be released when they become available, police said in a news release.

Meanwhile the Islamic community is speaking out about the incident.

"It's very unfortunate to say the least," said Arangzeb Qureshi, with the Alberta Muslim Public Affairs Council. "This is Islamophobia at its worst."

Qureshi credits technology with holding people who may be committing a hate crime to account.

"It's an advantage for people who are unfortunately going through this type of discrimination."

When these kinds of incidents occur, we have an obligation to intervene. To turn away from such hate crimes is to be complicit in them. End of discussion.

Toward A New Clarity Of Language

With conventional media fighting an ever-growing juggernaut of fake news, news that is either outright lie or gross distortion, two national journals have joined a growing chorus in refusing to use the euphemism alt-right: The Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail.

After much discussion and input, Kathy English, The Star's Public Editor, reports the following:

... several senior Star editors met to discuss this issue. In order to seek some measure of consistency, we decided to consult further with our main wire services – The Canadian Press and the U.S. based Associated Press.

This week, both services issued “style notes” on how to refer to the self-labeled alt-right....

The main points to guide Star journalists in writing and editing:

Avoid using alt-right generically.
“We should strive to be accurate and precise, and at least for now, the term ‘alt-right.’ is neither. Terms like ‘white nationalist’ or ‘white supremacist’ are known, accurate and much clearer to readers.”

If you use the term alt-right, define it.
“Phrasing like ‘the ‘alt-right,’ a white nationalist movement’ is appropriate.”

... the Associated Press provided a clear definition of the alt-right, telling us that it’s a name embraced by “some white supremacists and white nationalists to refer to themselves and their ideology, which emphasizes preserving and protecting the white race in the United States.”

And, it adds, “the movement criticizes ‘multiculturalism’ and more rights for non-whites, women, Jews, Muslims, gays, immigrants and other minorities. Its members reject the American democratic ideal that all should have equality under the law regardless of creed, gender, ethnic origin or race.”

With all that’s at stake here, journalists must not rely on euphemistic words that gloss over racism and hate. As the AP rightly tells us, be specific and call it straight: “We should not limit ourselves to letting such groups define themselves, and instead should report their actions, associations, history and positions to reveal their actual beliefs and philosophy, as well as how others see them.”

Language matters. It is our job as journalists to provide readers with accurate, clear and precise words that tell it like it is, not veil reality. We should not serve as unquestioning heralds for those who espouse ideology abhorrent to universal values of equality.

To be clear: the so-called alt-right stands for white supremacy. By any definition, that is racism.

In an abbreviated form, The Globe's Sylvia Stead says essentially the same thing.

While I regularly consult a number of alternative news sites, all of which enjoy sterling reputations, it would be foolish to suggest that the days of mainstream media are over. Now, more than ever, journalists toiling in conventional media may be our last highly visible bulwark against a rising tide of darkness, division, and devolution.

UPDATED: Trump's America

From Facebook: Three Racists attack innocent Black man while yelling "Get out of my country!" Is this what they mean when they say make America great?



UPDATE: That this happens in Canada makes me feel deeply ashamed for my country:

Police are looking for a man in connection with a possible hate crime at a south Edmonton LRT station.

The man approached two young women wearing hijabs at the University of Alberta station at 8:20 p.m. on Nov. 8, police say.

The man, believed to be in his 60s, pulled a rope from his pocket, tied a noose and said: "This is for you."

The man then proceeded to sing O Canada in front of the women, one of whom shot video of the performance.

Police are asking anyone who recognizes the man to call 780-423-4567 or #377 from a mobile phone. They can also call Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-8477 or online at www.tipsubmit.com/start.htm.

Let us all hope this miscreant is brought to swift justice.

Damage Control From A Disingenuous Dick

Apologies for my rather coarse title, but it seemed the only appropriate way to describe that Dorian-Gray-in-reverse-politician, Chris Alexander, who provided a conductorial complement to a rabid crowd in Edmonton offended by the very concept of taxation in general, and carbon taxes in particular.

At a rally in Edmonton hosted by perennial crank Ezra Levant and his self-described Rebel Media Group, as the erstwhile Immigration Minister played to the prejudices of the crowd, this happened:



You will note the zeal with which Alexander embraced the "Lock her up!" chants, seeming to enter a blissful zone accessible only to the extreme right-wing. However, perhaps realizing such a state of nirvana might not play well in all sectors of the Conservative Party he hopes to lead, and desperate to control the damage to 'his brand' that might have occurred, he issued this disclaimer, saying

he felt "uncomfortable" during a rally at the Alberta Legislature this weekend as the crowd chanted "lock her up" in response to his comments about Premier Rachel Notley's leadership.

In a video posted on Twitter by Rebel Media reporter Sheila Gunn Reid, Alexander is nodding and smiling in front of the crowd of about 1,000 as they chant "lock her up" in response to his comments about Notley's leadership.

At no point in the video does Alexander attempt to calm the crowd or denounce their chanting.

"I could clearly hear what they were saying and I was uncomfortable," Alexander told CBC News on Sunday.

"It was not something I initiated, it was not something I said at any point and it's not something I agree with. I was smiling because I was trying to think of a way to change the chant."

Yesterday, I wrote about a software plug-in, a b.s. dectector, to help ferret out fake news. I think it is safe to say no such software is needed to evaluate Chris Alexander's above disavowal.

An Easy-To-Use Weapon Against Fake News

People of a certain 'vintage' will well remember the above commercial, in which a family appears to take great delight in fooling dad about the spread he is using. All in all, a humorous and harmless deception, one with no lasting consequences. Today, however, we face challenges to truth that the people of that commercial's era could never have imagined, challenges that are not the least bit amusing: the proliferation of fake news, aided and abetted by the ubiquitous Internet.

What defences do we have against such manipulations? Actually, there are many, only one of which I shall address in today's post.

We live in a very rushed world, one in which people often do not take the time to properly assess the information they access. Now, thanks to an exciting software innovation, that task has been made easier. Daniel Sieradski has created a browser plug-in that, with an extensive data base, flashes a warning at the top of one's screen alerting users to the questionable provenance of any given site. Interviewed on CBC's As It Happens, he explained why he created it:

It was in response to Mark Zuckerberg's statement that Facebook couldn't really handle the problem of fake news without a massive effort requiring the development of an algorithm and all these other things. I was able to work out a solution in just about an hour that showed that that was nonsense and that this issue could be easily addressed, if they really wanted to invest their energy in it.

Its principle seems elegantly simple:

Basically, it scans a given web page for the presence of links and then checks the links against a database that has been compiled of fake news sites, satire sites, conspiracy theory sites and so on and then it inserts a warning label adjacent to the link letting the user know that it is not exactly a reliable source of information.

The beauty of this approach is that it censors nothing; it simply issues a warning of unreliable content, and it is then up to the readers as to what they do with that information.


I strongly recommend that readers give it a try. Compatible with the majority of web browsers, I installed it on Chrome, and then tested it by consulting a list of fake news sites. It worked flawlessly on the ones I went to.

If you are interested, here is the link to the software. A further explanation as to its operating basis is supplied there as well:

The list of domains powering the B.S. Detector was somewhat indiscriminately compiled from various sources around the web. We are actively reviewing this dataset, categorizing entries, and removing misidentified domains. We thus cannot guarantee complete accuracy of our data at the moment. You can view the complete list here.

Domain classifications include:

Fake News: Sources that fabricate stories out of whole cloth with the intent of pranking the public.
Satire: Sources that provide humorous commentary on current events in the form of fake news.
Extreme Bias: Sources that traffic in political propaganda and gross distortions of fact.
Conspiracy Theory: Sources that are well-known promoters of kooky conspiracy theories.
Rumor Mill: Sources that traffic in rumors, innuendo, and unverified claims.
State News: Sources in repressive states operating under government sanction.
Junk Science: Sources that promote scientifically dubious claims.
Hate Group: Sources that actively promote racism, misogyny, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination.

Incorporating the plug-in is one defence against the increasingly strong assaults on truth and accuracy being mounted by those who seek to impose their distorted and indefensible views on the world. In a future post, I shall discuss the hard work that is also required if this battle is ever to be won.

Beguiling Words

The propaganda machine of the extreme right has scored a double hit, it would seem. Not only do they and their racist brethren have Breibart-founder Steve Bannon warmly ensconced in the White House as chief strategist and Senior Counselor to Donald Trump (whether he will also be keeping the president's seat warm in the Oval office in what are certain to be frequent presidential absences is anyone's guess), but many in Congress now appear to be conduits for Breitbart propaganda.

The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, headed by Republican Lamar Smith, has a new weapon in its attack on climate science: Breibart 'science':

The content of this tweet is the same sort of thing you’d get if you fed a bull 20 kilos of Ex-Lax and stood behind it for a while. Global warming, of course, is real. The Breitbart article in question is written by James Delingpole, a flat-out climate change denier who has a history of writing grossly misleading articles about global warming. He gets this information from yet another climate change denier, David Rose, who wrote an article for the execrable Daily Mail claiming that global temperatures have dropped by an entire degree Celsius since this summer. Contrary to what the Daily Mail might have to say, global temperature is indeed increasing.

In a nutshell, Rose is guilty of extreme cherry-picking. He looked at a single temperature data set from a specific layer of the Earth’s atmosphere and only used measurements over land. And to make matters worse, he only used data going back to 1998, a big no-no: That year was unusually warm, so starting there falsely makes it look like temperatures haven’t risen much.

He also is chasing local fluctuations and ignoring the decadeslong trend. And that trend is up. The Earth is heating up. If you want more details, Tamino at Open Mind debunks Rose’s claims quite thoroughly.

Somehow, I doubt that the propaganda machine in Washington is going to alter too many people's thinking. The true believers of climate denialism will dismiss the critiques, and those who trust the scientific data will be unmoved by such blatant attempts at manipulation.

But what it does show is that the need for critical thinking is greater now than it ever was. In what I hope will be my next post, I will discuss some of the ways one can vet information for its veracity or falseness.

And Speaking of Our Post-Truth World

Yesterday's post dealt with the challenges real journalism faces in this era of presidential prevarications and attacks on the media.

The following video, via Mother Jones, shows what critical thinkers everywhere have to contend with.



Considering the above, we, as a species, clearly have little to be arrogant about.

Surviving In A Post-Truth World

Reading my morning paper, the Toronto Star, I came across a notice to subscribers that rates are once again increasing. As part of what is frequently referred to as their 'legacy readers," I am not happy about this, but I will continue with my subscription, despite the fact that I have full access to a complete digital version of it and hundreds of other papers through my local library via its Press Display service.

Why? First of all, I much prefer the print version of anything I read, but secondly, and more importantly, it is only through a steady income stream that newspapers can fulfill their traditional roles as safeguards of our democracy.

And lord knows that we need those safeguards, especially given the explosion of fake news sites, some of which may have influenced the U.S. election, not to mention the attacks on traditional media much in evidence these days, instigated, aided and abetted by demagogues like Donald Trump. Consider this:



The above campaign rally brought out this observation from the New York Times:

...even reporters long accustomed to the toxic fervor of Trump rallies were startled — and even frightened — at the vitriol of a Cincinnati crowd on Thursday evening as more than 15,000 supporters flashed homemade signs, flipped middle fingers and lashed out in tirades often laced with profanity as journalists made their way to a crammed, fenced-in island in the center of the floor.

Or how about this scene from another rally?



Last week, veteran journalist Christiane Amanpour was given an award honouring her for her extraordinary and sustained achievement in the cause of press freedom. Her acceptance speech, which you can see here, expressed her concerns over this kind of pillorying, a concern that the CBC's Diana Swain discussed with her:



It would not be wrong to conclude that the mainstream media, through a combination of laziness, obedience to corporate imperatives and frequent abandonment of their sacred responsibilities, deserve criticism. But it would be wrong to conclude that they no longer have a place in informing the public through deep research, factual renditions of stories and fearless resistance to the pressures from unhinged members of the public, opportunistic, manipulative politicos and feckless employers.

I shall continue to do my part in trying to realize the above ideal by paying for the paper I most trust. I leave you with the reflections of a Star letter-writer, who recognizes the challenges facing traditional media today:

Journalist Christiane Amanpour’s address last week to the Committee to Protect Journalists in New York is extremely relevant. The need for the mainstream media to re-commit to an unwavering role in delivering pure facts is more important now than ever.

Some news outlets may have been more committed to delivering facts than others. So it’s up to readers, viewers and listeners to decide where they get their information.

But too many, it seems, have relied over the past year or more on social media. Donald Trump aside, this has been a very dangerous trend. And dwindling ratings/circulation and news coverage budgets have not helped.

The media have always been under attack from one source or other, but never to the degree that we’re seeing now. And it’s not only from Trump. While re-dedicating themselves to ever-higher standards, media will now have to reinvent themselves to deal with what social media is pumping out in the form of fake news (to which Trump has been just one major contributor).

Some social media may also have learned some lessons from this and may have accepted responsibility, as Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg recently acknowledged.

Amanpour asked a very good question off the top. What would Ed Murrow do? Fifty-one years after his death, the iconic CBS newsman is still regarded by a (admittedly-dwindling) number of reporters as a leading light in truthful, gutsy, advocacy journalism. He took on an earlier narcissist sociopath in the 1950s by the name of McCarthy – and won. Joe McCarthy self-destructed within months.

Nobody – doubtless including himself – knows what will happen with a Trump presidency. As we know, he’s already reversed himself on several issues, probably thanks to prevailing wisdom that has eked its way through to the Trump Tower. He may, in fact, moderate his attitude about mainstream media, as well. Who knows?

But the same media are going to have to figure out how to deal with this guy in, one hopes, some constructive way. And Trump will be forever totally unpredictable.

Amanpour’s warnings are critically important at this worrisome time. She has articulated the urgency of the message better than we’ve heard from anyone else to date.

Ian Sutton, Kingston

The World Needs More People Like This

Living in Texas, I doubt this man will have endeared himself to many. All the more reason to laud his courage and integrity in displaying this sign outside of the Islamic Center of Irving, Texas.

The Fight Must Continue

Because I am quite a private person, I rarely discuss anything personal on my blog. But I will, to a small extent, break that general rule today to convey something I have come to understand.

The catalyst for today's post is a comment that Kirby Evans made in response to something I posted yesterday, two videos depicting the empowerment of homophobes and racists now that the demagogue Trump has been elected president. Kirby is one of the bloggers that I read regularly and deeply respect for his heartfelt convictions and analyses. Since he made the comments public on my blog, I am sure he will not mind me featuring them in this post:

I must admit, Lorne, that I have largely lost heart. I avoid the news, can't bring myself to write blogposts. I just feel like all the years of fighting have left me drained and bereft of my humanity. In my dad's last years he was continually predicting the return of the 1930s because he said that the spirit of hate is too strong to keep down. As sad as it sounds, I am glad he didn't live to see this stuff. I know I need to keep fighting for my daughter's sake if nothing else. But I just don't know how any more. I feel like the tide of history has changed and we are just going to lose.

Here is what I wrote in response:

I felt the same way in the immediate aftermath of Trump's election, Kirby, but somehow found renewed purpose. I hope you will regain your spirit, Kirby.

Thoughtful, reflective and analytical voices like yours are far too important to be silenced. The war, in my view, is always worth fighting, if only to deny final victory to the rabid right, the morally twisted, and the outright bigots who live amongst us.

What I didn't mention was the catalyst for my renewed purpose, which is where the story gets a little more personal than I am usually comfortable with.

It was probably two days after the Trump victory that I received a phone call from an organization looking for someone to canvas on my street for their charitable cause. Although it was a worthy one, I immediately responded by telling her that I wasn't interested. It wasn't my refusal that was noteworthy, since it is not the kind of thing I do, but it was what I felt when I refused, which I will come back to momentarily.

Probably the same day, or perhaps the next, I was coming out of a library branch and walking to a nearby grocery store when a man sitting on a bench asked me if I had some spare change for a coffee and a doughnut from a nearby Tim Horton's. As is my usual practice, I said "No." (I should add here that I usually refuse such requests in the full knowledge that the area where I live is well-served with organizations providing breakfasts, lunches and dinners seven days a week, and we prefer to donate to organizations rather than individuals.)

My refusal was not delivered with any rancour, and his response was, "Oh." Yet something didn't feel right to me. As I continued my walk to the store, it occurred to me what it was. It was not that I had refused his request or the request of the telephone solicitor that bothered me. It was my realization of a certain mean-spiritedness I felt in issuing those refusals. It dawned upon me that I had, indeed, been deeply affected by the repudiation of my values and principles thanks to the Trump election and I had, in fact, allowed that victory to infect my own psyche. In a word, I think I had momentarily surrendered to the power of darkness cast by Trump and was, in fact, acting as a Trump supporter would have.

I am not sure if I am explaining myself clearly here, but the fact of my refusal was not the issue. I will repeat, it was what I felt when issuing the refusals. To counteract that, upon my return from the store I went into Tim Horton's and bought a gift certificate, hoping the man was still on the bench down the street. He was, and he once more made the same request of me. I handed him the gift card.

Such gestures may be largely meaningless, and certainly are unusual for me. But it hit me with full force that the only way to combat the darkness enveloping us now is to be proactive, to be on guard against such psychic infection, and to carry on as best we can in fighting the forces that would have us devolve into a lower form of existence.

I hope Kirby Evans at some point finds a renewed sense of purpose and resumes his blog. Win or lose, we all have a role to play in this fight, if only to deny final victory to the barbarians at the gate.

More Discrimination Thanks To Trump

I see reports and videos daily about the actions taken by the unhinged right-wing, the bigoted and the morally diseased. Most I choose not to include on my blog, but two especially egregious examples merit further attention. Both are brought to you from Raw Story:

(Bitter) Fruits Of Our Neoliberal Governments

It would seem that Star reader Douglas Porter of Peterborough sees with unusual clarity what so many prefer to ignore:

It seems that many things in history do a repeat cycle about every 80 years. I hate to think that we are on target for another societal unravelling evidenced by what we are seeing in the EU, U.K. and the U.S. that’s similar to what happened in the mid 1930s Europe prior to World War II.

But when 40 to 50 per cent of everyday working people are experiencing a steady 30-year decline in living standards and feel nothing but despair for the future, they often fall for the appeal of a charismatic strongman (or woman) who promises prosperity and better times ahead.

We are seeing a polarization of people that is worsening with more and more of us living in our silos and social media and sneering elites fanning the flames. It’s pretty clear the major cause is increasing income inequality and poverty.

Here in Ontario we are seeing hundreds of thousands of people driven into financial distress, low income status or poverty by an essential public service called electricity. Our government can’t even provide the basics of life any more in an affordable manner. Not housing, energy, child care, pharmacare or basic dental care.

Canada is the only Western democracy without a food security program, if you can believe it. What the hell kind of society are we creating? Water, electricity, food, affordable housing and even Internet in today’s world should be considered human rights, not luxuries. And remember that people outside of the bigger cities pay several times more for hydro, and those with electric heat and hot water pay about three times more again. Some 60,000 people had their hydro cut off last year and 600,000 were behind on their bills.

The Ontario government’s answer to everything is more booze — to kill the pain I suppose. Their electricity pricing is economic insanity and cruel social policy like nothing I’ve seen in 50 years. A vicious attack on the poor and utterly immoral. As if booze, drugs and gambling weren’t enough.

Our Post-Privacy Era

Have you ever found yourself, whether intentionally or by accident, on a webpage discussing STDs? Or how about a porn site? Perhaps you are interested in the online recruiting methodology ISIS? How about the latest research on the use of hallucinogenics to treat alcoholism or PTSD? Whatever you intent might have been, those searches, indeed, all searches, will now be preserved by law by your ISP if you live in Britain.

In a frightening development that would not surprise Orwell but should shock and appall the rest of us, Big Brother has flexed his mighty muscles:

After months of wrangling, Parliament has passed a contentious new snooping law that gives authorities — from police and spies to food regulators, fire officials and tax inspectors — powers to look at the internet browsing records of everyone in the country.

Civil liberties groups say the law establishes mass surveillance of British citizens, following innocent internet users from the office to the living room and the bedroom.

The Investigatory Powers Bill — dubbed the "snoopers' charter" by critics — was passed by Parliament this month after more than a year of debate and amendments. It will become law when it receives the formality of royal assent next week.

While this chilling bill will not provide access to the individual pages you may have consulted, it will provide the websites visited as well as the apps used and messaging services utilized.

As if this bold intrusion into citizens' privacy weren't enough,

Officials won't need a warrant to access the data, and the list of bodies that can see it includes not just the police and intelligence services, but government departments, revenue and customs officials and even the Food Standards Agency.

So shouldn't people simply rely on encryption methods to keep their communications private? Unfortunately, it's not that simple:

Service providers are also concerned by the law's provision that firms can be asked to remove encryption to let spies access communications. Internet companies say that could weaken the security of online shopping, banking and a host of other activities that rely on encryption.

It might be tempting for Canadians to heave a sigh of relief that they do not live in this brave new British world. But that would be unspeakably naive, considering the wish-list of our own RCMP:

The RCMP is lobbying the Prime Minister's Office for new powers to bypass digital roadblocks in cases where national security threats and other "high priority" suspects hide online and operate anonymously beyond the reach of police.

"I can safely say that there's criminal activity going on every day that's facilitated by technology that we aren't acting on," RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson told CBC News and the Toronto Star in an exclusive interview.

There will undoubtedly be those lazy thinkers who claim that since their own lives are above reproach, they have nothing to hide. Putting aside the obvious objections to such capitulations, perhaps they should consider this:

Today's idle online curiosity may very well become tomorrow's crime.

I'll Keep Posting These Kinds Of Videos

.... whenever I find them.




Meanwhile, these letters from Star readers remind us that the threat of racism is never far from home. We must be constantly vigilant and ready to take action against it:

Re: Signs in Toronto urge white people to join ‘alt-right’.

Marilyn May is correct in asserting that these fringe racist groups are emboldened by the attention such beliefs have received in the press with the ascent of Donald Trump and right-wing xenophobia in the U.S.

Before we get too smug; we should reflect on the fanaticism displayed by our own Rob Ford and the so-called Ford Nation. While that issue was not racist, it was a reflection of the resentment of certain groups against what they considered the elites in downtown Toronto, or the fringes versus the centre.

There will always be tribalism amongst humans and, on a smaller scale, this gives a sense of belonging and coherence in many groups. When it becomes confrontational, it is dangerous and inimical to the public peace.

In times of rapid technological and social change, we experience high levels of personal and social stress, no matter how comfortable and safe we might be compared to our forefathers.

It is interesting to note that the support of radical Trumpism has a religious twist. Christians, in particular, feel threatened and scared by the apparent incursion of other, foreign faiths or from those who have no faith at all.

I’m not sure Jesus would have approved.

Sigmund Roseth, Mississauga

It comes as no surprise to me that Donald Trump’s victory has emboldened those who periodically pop their intellectual manhole covers and bring their hateful views to the light of day.

The only difference is they believe there is now a place for their unfortunate views and they choose to remain above ground a little longer and soak up some sun.

I, however, have a great deal of faith in my fellow Canadians and don’t believe there to be fertile soil for open displays of hate here. These misguided bigots will soon enough discover this and retreat their views from whence they came, replacing their manhole covers firmly.

David Ottenbrite, Mississauga

What a mournful state of affairs has gripped Toronto. Strange indeed that men in Toronto think that because Donald Trump loves to hurl racist slurs, it makes it legal for white men in our city to do the same.

The whole world will regret that such a man could ever be elected by any group of people. Shame on the U.S. voters

Joy Taylor, Scarborough

Not only should we heed columnist Desmond Cole’s advice not to be smug. Since the appearance of alt-right posters in east-end Toronto and other reported terrible incidents of racism, we should avoid complacency about such attitudes within our society. We must be vigilant, call out unacceptable behaviour and develop strong positive responses.

Paul A. Wilson, Toronto

For What It's Worth

Unfortunately, bias and prejudice are an ingrained part of human nature, and as much as we might wish to deny it, there are demons that reside in all of us. The only honest way to deal with them, in my view, is to admit to and confront them as the first steps in overcoming them.

Like many Canadians, I have long wanted to believe that we occupy a higher moral ground than, for example, the United States, when it comes to racial, ethnic and religious equality. Of course, both history and recent events, including what was covered in this podcast, show that to be but wishful thinking. The internment of Japanese-Canadians and Italian-Canadians during WW11 is a historical rebuke to such notions, but there are other, lesser-known blots on our collective conscience.

You may have heard that a Canadian banknote set to circulate in 2018 will feature the first woman who is not the Queen. While the top five finalists are all worthy choices, my preference is for this woman:

Most people have heard of Rosa Parks, but how many know about Viola Desmond?

A business woman and beautician, Desmond is best known for her stand against racism as a black woman in Nova Scotia. While attending a movie in 1946, Desmond daringly took a seat on the main floor of the theatre rather than the balcony — reserved for non-white customers — after being refused a floor seat by the cashier. She was convicted in court for her actions, but was posthumously granted a pardon in 2010.

And this video conveys the situation she faced with such courage and conviction:



Historical injustices can never really be atoned for. However, they can be acknowledged and used to educate all of us, with the hope they they will never, ever happen again, however fond and unrealistic an aspiration that may be.

Use Your Words

This, courtesy of our friends at Raw Story:

UPDATED: Words Are Important

Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.

- Excerpt from George Orwell's Politics and the English Language

As a reader, writer and retired English teacher, words have always been important to me. Words rarely exist in a vacuum; they are almost always laden with context, either implicit or carefully spelled out. They have the power to convey meaning and truth, but they also have tremendous power to either help to heal or to destroy. Words need to be respected.

It is within this context that I was very happy to see ThinkProgress offer this note from its editors:

You can learn everything you need to know about the “alt-right” by looking at the man who popularized its name. Credit goes to Richard Spencer, head of the white supremacist National Policy Institute (NPI), and one of the country’s leading contemporary advocates of ideological racism.

The weekend before Thanksgiving, Spencer keynoted an NPI conference in Washington, D.C. Over the course of his speech, he approvingly quoted Nazi propaganda, said that the United States is meant to be a “white country,” and suggested that many political commentators are “soulless golem” controlled by Jewish media interests.

... ThinkProgress will no longer treat “alt-right” as an accurate descriptor of either a movement or its members. We will only use the name when quoting others. When appending our own description to men like Spencer and groups like NPI, we will use terms we consider more accurate, such as “white nationalist” or “white supremacist.”

We will describe people and movements as neo-Nazis only when they identify as such, or adopt important aspects of Nazi rhetoric and iconography.

The point here is not to call people names, but simply to describe them as they are. We won’t do racists’ public relations work for them. Nor should other news outlets.

An article by Lindy West in The Guardian makes a similar point:

In my column last week, I wrote: “One defining aspect of alt-right white supremacy is that it vehemently denies its own existence … This erosion of language is an authoritarian tactic designed to stifle dissent. If you cannot call something by its name, then how can you fight it?”

So I was heartened yesterday when KUOW, a public radio station in Seattle, released a statement announcing that they will be substituting “white supremacy” or “white nationalism” for “alt-right”. The reasoning, laid out in a memo to staff: “‘Alt right’ doesn’t mean anything, and normalises something that is far from normal. So we need to plain-speak it.”

Such measures as described above are all to the good. As I wrote in a recent post, New Yorker writer David Remnick points out the fact that the media are now beginning to 'normalize' Donald Trump and his ilk. This must not be allowed to continue, and it is to be hoped that more news agencies will find the courage and integrity to tell things as they are, not the way their corporate masters and Trump racists want us to believe.

I leave you with one final warning from Orwell:

Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

UPDATE: At noon, CBC's Ontario Today had a show about words that hurt. It is painful to listen to, but also a sobering reminder that Canada is hardly free from racism.

How Can We Remain On The Sidelines?

We cannot be silent in the face of this:

No One Escapes Blame: A Guest Post

In this guest post, my good friend Dom offers a point of view well-worth serious consideration. In contrast to my post yesterday, in which \i heaped scorn on those who either voted for Donald Trump or absented themselves from the electoral process, Dom argues that there is plenty of blame to be borne by everyone, included the progressives.

In the spirit of a good rant:


If Americans want to take a long hard look at the reason why Donald Trump won the election, I would suggest the left and centre in the US get a mirror. Have a good look. They are the reason that a pussy-grabbing, tax-dodging, bankruptcy-profiteering, climate-denier, war-monger, white-supremacy-supporter, health-care-abolisher, demagogue, and narcissist won the presidency of the United States. That’s right. The left is responsible. Why?


Because of their arrogance. Because of their sanctimonious dismissiveness of the right. Because of their seemingly cultural superiority of the right. Because of their unwillingness to have meaningful conversation with the right. Because of their constant insults of the right. Because of their “club-left” and exclusionary attitudes the right. That’s why.


How can any rational person think that the US democrats were going to win an election when their platform was to insult the right? “Trump”et across the country that the only answer was theirs. Remind right wing voters on a daily basis that the Washington Elite is the only answer and that their concerns are secondary to those of every other special interest group on the planet. Divide and leave out of the equation. That was the platform Hillary Clinton and her democratic party put forward.


Hillary Clinton: a corporate supporting elite that pretends to have the interest of the working class. That is the leader the democrats choose to represent the middle and working class? The US citizens are supposed to go to the polls and chant, “well at least she’s not Trump.” This is what the “the land of the free and the brave” boldly offers its citizens: a woman who stands for nothing, and a man who stands for the 15th century. But I digress…the right put forth the man that represents their interests. Yes, a fearful to your bones interest, but never the less a clear choice. What the hell did Hillary stand for? You would never know, for it was buried so deep, I doubt she would be able to find it with a soul searching GPS.


And don’t even think of getting me started on the protesting abstainers. Their arrogance and narcissism is beyond anything I have witnessed of Donald Trump. To think that abdicating responsibility of voting makes a statement is beyond comprehension. Votes “count”. “Count.” Arithmetic, simple arithmetic. When you don’t vote, you don’t count! There is no greater cause in abstaining a vote. There is no point to be made in choosing not to vote. The only point you are making is that you are a narcissist. You choose not to participate because you believe you’re special and your sacred vote should not be tainted. What you are is irresponsible and self-indulgent.


Trump was elected by the left. He was rocketed to power because of an unwillingness to adopt inclusiveness of the right by the left. There is no doubt in my mind that the US has been put on a path toward oligarchy and it has the majority of its people to blame. There can only be one thing left to say, “You get the government you deserve.”