Video evidence has been released following the conviction of five of the so-called Toronto 18.  Seven of the group were previously released and six are yet to face trial.  As the evidence involved does not show any of the men still awaiting trial the judge released the images.  One video shows an explosion in a field of a bomb the size the perpetrators had allegedly intended to detonate.  The others show the take-down by police of two of the suspects and  a detonator being demonstrated.  All very interesting and perfect for television.  Especially the RCMP blowing up a dumpster in a field.  Great images.  Who doesn’t like a good explosion?  What none of the videos or any of the other evidence that has trickled out justify is the creation and maintenance of our anti-terrorism laws.

What the public needs to see is the evidence that could only be attained through the use of the enhanced police powers contained in the anti-terrorism laws and how that evidence directly prevented catastrophic loss of life.  Anything else is diversion.  Everything thus far released could have been achieved using standard police procedures.  Why then do we need the added tools of the anti-terrorism law.  That is what must be justified if those laws are to be extended. 

The weakness of the government’s arguments for maintaining the anti-terrorism laws is demonstrated by the mock explosion.  The only reason to include that footage is to terrorize the public.  Terrorism in service of preventing terrorism, there is a metaphor for the new millennium.  Scared and confused the electorate is prepared to accept whatever the government claims will safeguard them, whether it really will or not.  I am surprised that this footage was allowed in court as it is clearly irrelevant.  Whether you are planting a bomb capable only of cracking a ceramic pot or a nuclear device capable of taking out an entire city, you are still committing a crime.  What possible value could a demonstration of the blast from a particular size of explosive be in a trial to determine if these men were guilty of plotting a terrorist attack?  Would they have been less guilty if the explosion planned had been for instance half the size demonstrated.  Or is this the purpose of out anti-terrorism laws?  Are they needed so that the crown may enter irrelevant and inflammatory evidence in order to convict by hatred and anger rather than law.  If so, then it is a frivolous and dangerous justification. 

Eight years after the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington it is time to return to sanity and allow these over-reactions to pass into history.  In the wake of those events a terrified population lost track of what this country and western democracies are supposed to stand for.  Yes it is a dangerous world out there and yes we should be vigilant against those who would threaten our lives.  But in being vigilant let us not become vigilantes.  Let us remember that while law and individual rights and freedoms can leave us vulnerable to dangers, the dangers of a police state without rights are far greater.  In retrospect the chaos of Weimar was preferable to the order of the Third Reich.

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

To elect or not to elect, that is the question.  Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer the inanity of the current parliament with its showmanship and buffoonery or to take arms against this sea of trouble and by a ballot end it.  Ah to vote, perchance to get more of the same.  Aye there’s the rub.  For what spectres of absurdity might come when we shuffle off this current catastrophe must give us pause and make us rather bear those nitwits we have than to fly to others we know not of.

Such is the dilemma of the Canadian people this fall.  Michael Ignatieff vows he will bring down the government at the first opportunity.  An easy vow to make knowing the NDP is in no shape for an election and would be inclined to support the Harper government rather than fly into debt they cannot pay.  Actually Layton and the NDP had been using the same strategy vowing never to support the Conservative government in the knowledge that the Liberals at that time feared an election.  And so the brinkmanship and the nonsense continue.  Caught in the middle of the sandbox, surrounded by surly children each wanting to be King for a day or however long a government lasts these day, is the Canadian people.  Mired in recession, casualty counts from an unpopular war rising and being shafted by the so called friend (U. S.) that dragged us into this mess, Canadians are in no mood for childish behaviour.

The sad thing is that minority governments can be the best government.  Forced as they are to compromise in order to govern, history has supplied us with numerous examples of successful minority governments.  Much of the social safety net we are so proud of today was the result of minority government as were our national anthem and our flag.  Minority government can also be full term government as in the Davis minority in Ontario during the early 1980s and the King federal government of the early 1920s.  Both of those lasted four years.

In this round of minorities the egos of the players get in the way.  Mr. Harper strikes at Mr. Ignatieff’s narcissism and lengthy sojourn to the land of the drive-thru gun shop.  Mr. Ignatieff parries and replies with a thrust at Mr. Harper’s dogmatism.  The King-makers are the 2 court jesters.  Painted harlequins they prance around the two main party leaders, now getting smacked aside, now being embraced and cajoled.  Their patrons laugh and sneer at them at caucus meetings and use them as they wish in the House of Commons.  They stand as the most fitting symbol of the current state of Canadian politics:  parliament would be funny if so many people weren’t getting hurt.

Arguing that we should avoid an election now because we would just get more of the same begs the question whether we should ever again bother with such an ineffective, expensive farce.  More of the same is what we will get for the foreseeable future.  Even if one of the head knobs were to form a majority government, nothing much would change except that the opposition parties would feel even more secure in mugging for the cameras, portraying themselves as the great champion of the Canadian people.  No my friends Canadian politics has changed.  We can hope that Harper’s Hamlet and Ignatieff’s Laertes politically die on each other’s swords but the hope is probably vain as who might follow may be no better.  No my friends we must come to the realization that the only lions left in Rome are in the arena.

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

Unemployment is rising as our economy swirls the bowl and the Harper government searches for ways to prevent Canadians from accessing Employment Insurance.  I will refrain from making the usual jokes about that idiotic name as it is just too easy and beneath me.  The Liberals under Michael Ignatieff want the government to expand eligibility but Mikey forgets that it was then Liberal finance minister Paul ‘the knife’ Martin that had originally constricted eligibility back in the 1990s.  After Martin had renamed the program from the more accurate Unemployment Insurance two thirds of those previously eligible were no longer so.  This is how the great Paul Martin had balanced the federal budget and created surpluses, by downloading federal costs to the provinces.  Those formerly eligible for federal Unemployment Insurance were dumped onto provincial welfare programs.  The provinces taking the lesson in stride promptly downloaded large segments of their responsibilities onto the municipalities who then cut corners in such things as water testing and treatment and we got the Walkerton fiasco. 

But back to unemployment and the current financial situation.  Disasters like the current crisis should be learning tools.  They are opportunities to rethink a number of previous ideas and practices, from how we regulate financial markets to how we respond to citizens in crisis.  On the latter our system of assistance at all levels needs to be reviewed.  Our social safety net developed ad hoc, various programs appearing at various times as needs arose or ideas presented themselves.  It is time now to systematize their delivery. 

Every Canadian political party has at one time or another toyed with the concept of a guaranteed annual income.  The Conservative Party preferred to call it negative income taxing.  But all parties have considered this basic idea.   There are a number of draw backs which prevented implementation of the policy; start-up costs, bureaucratic reorganization and federal provincial relations.

Under a guaranteed annual income scheme the government would sent every citizen a flat monthly stipend.  Whatever a citizen earned over that would be taxable.  Therefore those who are not in need of the money would have it taxed back.  Our current Old Age Security program works in a similar way.  It is universal.  Those Canadians of wealth declare it as income and end up paying it all back to the government.  A guaranteed annual income would work differently in that it would not be taxable.  Only income earned over that amount would be taxed.  But there would be no personal deductions on your income tax including dependency deductions (because your dependents would be receiving their own guaranteed income).  Not only would personal income tax deductions disappear so would virtually every welfare program now in existence.  Old Age Security (mentioned above), provincial old age supplements where they exist, employment insurance (no need to worry about eligibility arguments), general welfare, disability pensions, family allowance, child tax benefit and the list goes on which shows the waste involved in the current delivery of our social safety net.  Not only would these be replaced by the guaranteed annual income but their bureaucracies would become redundant thus saving millions off the civil service payroll. 

The first year of a guaranteed annual income would be costly.  After the first year though the program would begin to pay back in savings more than it cost initially.  Within a few years governments would have the luxury of lowering taxes or investing the surpluses created.  Of course this idea of short term pain for long term gain would reverse the current philosophy of all Western governments who advocate long term pain for short term gain.  There would need to be a transition plan as the size of the civil service shrank substantially but this problem is not insurmountable.  One of the benefits of a guaranteed annual income is the stability it provides to the economy.  A secure and stable economy would create sustainable growth which would over time absorb the loss in government jobs.  Further, the ability to rely on a base income would encourage individuals to pursue ideas they might now forego for fear that basic family needs could not be met during start-up periods.  This also counters the argument that such a scheme would sap people’s initiative.  That criticism is based on the cynical myth that people only work because they have to.  Like all half-truths this myth has persisted.  The full truth is that people only work at jobs they hate and where they are abused because they have to.   Employers would certainly have to behave better than they currently do to keep valued employees.  A huge stumbling block here in Canada is the idiocy of our federal-provincial relationship.  But once the Canadian public was properly educated in what a guaranteed annual income would mean for them and the country, pity the ignorant government who tried to screw it up.  They might well face the kind of political assassination that happened to the Progressive Conservatives back in 1993.  The Canadian electorate is a fickle lot so piss them off at your peril. 

In the end a guaranteed annual income is the logical solution to our income supplement programs.  Citizens in most modern democracies expect their governments to play a supportive role in their lives.  Therefore, a guaranteed annual income is rational, cost effective, efficient and just plain the right thing to do.

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

Child abuse is the most abhorrent crime I can conceive.  If ever a crime demanded a zero tolerance policy, the abuse of the most vulnerable members of our community qualifies without question.  Physical and sexual abuse speaks for itself.  But what about psychological abuse?  Twisting a child’s psyche is often the most difficult form of abuse to detect and measure.  The consequences, however, can be more far reaching than either physical or sexual abuse but the scars are often invisible. 

There are many forms of psychological abuse against our children, some idiosyncratic and some social.  The young girl driven to suicide by a thoughtless adult who first raised her hope for love through creating a fictitious suitor on a social networking site and then cruelly dashed that hope in a warped attempt to assist her own daughter to bully the victim is an example of just how serious psychological abuse can be.  Social abuse differs only in method not impact.  We rail at the image of children brainwashed to strap explosives on their tiny bodies, becoming human weapons for the political, religious, social or just plain perverse agendas of groups like the Taliban or the Lord’s Resistance Army.  Such psychological abuse of innocents undermines any possible validity their philosophies could warrant.  No justification exists for inculcating hate in the minds of young people.  Brainwashing anyone to make them believe what some other wishes is always wrong.  In the case of youth it is also always criminal. 

I doubt there is a single reader that has disagreed with me so far.  I want to go a step further though.  What about brainwashing by omission.  If we agree with the above arguments should it not be a natural step to say that intentionally withholding knowledge from children for the purpose of manipulating them into believing what some other desires them to believe or to think is also wrong and criminal.  That is a natural corollary of my arguments above.  Al Qaeda does not say to a young suicide bomber, ‘read this treatise by Osama bin Laden and this pamphlet by Thomas Paine and then go kill the infidel because bin Laden is right and Paine is wrong.‘  My suspicion is that Al Qaeda training facilities do not have well stocked and balanced libraries.  The abuse is not in presenting the children with a biased idea, all ideas are by nature biased, it is in presenting the idea as the only idea.  Omitting information from children in order to inculcate any social agenda is abuse.  And therefore anyone who would perpetrate such abuse should be sanctioned by our society accordingly.  Presenting children with all perspectives but saying that we as Canadians, or in this community or this family believe that one or the other perspective is the correct one is different.  That is not necessarily abuse.  A child’s country, community and most particularly family will likely be more persuasive than an obscure author.  The child may therefore be guided by such authoritative opinion but they still are aware that other perspectives do exist.  It might cross the line into abuse if we were to present the other perspectives with derision or ridicule.  This is not an exact science and a judgement call must be made at what point abuse occurs.  But the case I have in mind at the moment clearly crosses that line. 

Currently there is a bill before the Alberta Legislature that would allow parents to withdraw their children from class if the curriculum includes anything which goes against their religious beliefs.  The premier is even trying to defend this abomination by saying that it is only religious questions.  Translation:  Religious brainwashing good; any other brainwashing bad.  I’d bet you hot cross buns to pancakes (the Anglicans should get that one) if I were to demand the right to remove my child from class to avoid having them exposed to capitalist ideals,  the same god-bothering twits behind this bill (wonder what’s in their libraries?) would be pushing to remove her from my home to save her from this twisted old socialist.  Every evangelical from Lethbridge to Fort Macleod would be burning my effigy in their state of the art tele-pulpit.  So why the muted response to this legislation.  A polite whimper from the CBC (okay what do we expect, they’re Canadian) is all the coverage I have seen so far.  Of course the CBC missed a number of child abuse / religion stories until it was too late just ask Catholic choir boys and our Aboriginal people.  Capitalism encourages behaviours and causes practices that I am convinced harm innocent human beings and are anathema to the basic cooperative nature of humanity.  In simple terms capitalism to me is a crime against humanity which should be prosecuted as we prosecuted Naziism at Nuremburg.  So I would be remiss in my responsibilities as a parent to allow some pro-capitalist school system to expose my child to such obscenity.  Right?  If I firmly believe this, and I do, I should shelter my child from it.  Wrong.  I would be abusing my child.  Ignorance weakens a human being and my job as a parent is to strengthen my child to survive in a world of conflict and contradiction.  To disarm that child from the start is the ultimate abuse. 

For those who want to argue that the two things are not the same tell me why.  If you can’t defend your argument, you don’t have one.  Premier Ed Stelmach, if you pass this bill you are a child abuser.  You are a pariah in our society and should be sanctioned accordingly.  To the RCMP (let’s pretend they might listen to reason and are not just the goon squad for sordid politicians), if child abuse is an abhorrent crime within our society you must focus all of your resources into bringing Mr. Stelmach and every member of the legislature in support of this bill before the bar of justice and seek out those who use the money of god to manipulate and control society.  Save our children now and we won’t need a parade of religious leaders apologizing later.

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

Nothing like a little town hall meeting to mark one hundred days in office.  A nice win one for the Gipper speech before a receptive audience to make everybody feel better in bad times.  Barack Obama is perhaps the best president since Ronald Reagan when it comes to being able to speak to the hearts of an audience.  And America needs it now.  Things are not good and everybody needs some reassurance that we can get through this crisis. 

Of course the problems of the American auto industry were front and center in his words today.  Bad decisions had led to the position we are in now and President Obama could not justify more bad decisions with taxpayer dollars.  He would demand of auto executives that they table workable plans for a sustainable recovery if they wished to dip into the pockets of ordinary American citizens.  He is absolutely correct.  Bad decisions did bring us to this point.  But much as I dislike corporate executives and believe me, they must shoulder a significant portion of the blame, they can’t be tagged for it all.  Those bad decisions were made in a social culture that demanded just the decisions that they made.  It is a social culture that still exists and was reinforced in the president’s speech. 

Obama spoke of a time when the American auto industry built the cars that people wanted but lost their market to foreign competitors due to poor corporate decisions.  There certainly was a period of complacency that resulted in poor quality design and manufacture processes.   The American auto industry was producing vehicles that were plagued by breakdowns and recalls.  They lost the trust of the North American consumer who sought out imports that sold themselves on quality and fuel efficiency.  The president is absolutely correct lazy and stupid are bad decisions.  But were they not still designing vehicles that people wanted?  The answer is yes they were.  A cursory look at Japanese automobiles (still the chief competitor) since they broke onto the North American market will show you that Detroit didn’t change, Tokyo did.  How do the 6 and 8 cylinder four door luxury sedans full of computerized crap that just means more to break down compare to the Toyota Corolla and Corona with their simple functional design and fuel efficiency.  Not too well.  It is not that GM, Ford and Chrysler were force feeding us larger vehicles, we demanded them.  Look at the highways today and you see them full of over-sized quasi-trucks.  Many of those with brand names like Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and Mitsubishi.  That is what the people want.  There lies the problem.  We cannot afford to give the

Photo by David Williams, Knoxville Tennesee. Retrieved from FUH2.com

people what they want.  Just like you shouldn’t let your kid go on that all sugar diet she wants, you can’t let the childish North American have his Hummer.  The Earth is mad as hell and is not going to take it anymore.  (I know that GM is currently in the process of dumping its Hummer line.  Actually it is hoping to sell off the brand.  Take my advice, sell the brand to an adult toy manufacturer and not to some idiot that will try to make another ugly-ass vehicle out of it causing carbon and visual pollution.)

But there is more.  I said that Obama was correct in saying that bad decisions led us to this point but more bad decisions are not going to bail us out.  Bailing out the current automobile industry is an error of Earth shattering proportions, pun intended.  Obama’s speech mentioned moving to fuel efficient, environmentally friendly, blah, blah, whatever cars.  Hybrids, green cars, bio-fuels are all pacifiers stuck into the mouths of whining little brats who can’t get it through their heads that the private automobile must go.  If the money used to bail out these dinosaurs of our adolescence was put toward creating a comprehensive public  transit system (which would be both faster and cheaper) and into technologies such as carbon recovery, passive housing, etc.  it would create more jobs, make the economy more sustainable and guarantee our children and their children a future. 

Oh but wait that would make sense.  Can’t do that then.  And we won’t.  We will poor good money into this bygone contraption and when the inevitable comes we can only hope their is enough money and time left to save the planet.  And hope is all we have given the short-sightedness we continually confront and the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse, Eco-Catastrophe, breathing hard on our necks.  For now though we will all skip merrily over the cliff because no politician or community leader has the courage to just speak the truth.  But like the Earth I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore.  So to paraphrase Shakespeare I say ‘First let’s kill all the people who own Hummers and see where we get from there.’ 

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

After renaming a highway and a full court press by high command and the government to label each and every fallen Canadian soldier in Afghanistan a hero, in the end the Canadian military has shown they are just another parcel to be delivered.  If it is more convenient or economic to jostle them to and fro for three hours to unload baggage and another 117 soldiers, so be it.  The body of Karine Blais was returned to Canada Thursday but was forced to make a stopover in Ottawa before being delivered to her final destination, CFB Trenton, Ontario (for my American readers, Trenton is Canada’s Dover).  Many are outraged at this turn of events.  Those of us who have had friends and relatives in the Canadian military just smile.  Getting a flight home was always a problem and the fear of getting bumped by some officer or his dog anywhere along the line a constant fear.  At least she wasn’t put on a baggage cart with other luggage to switch planes as one report suggests happened in Rochester, New York with a returning American coffin.   Of course they are not heroes in the United States.  America has far too many casualties to do the whole hero thing for every one. 

But only the Canadian army could screw up public relations to this level.  First there is the waste of taxpayer dollars to convince us that Afghanistan is a great and noble cause.  I guess this incident means that plan is history.   It gets worse.  This was a female soldier which adds to the public relations fiasco.   But wait there is more, she was French serving with the Royal 22nd (Van Doos).    I can’t wait to see reaction in the French sovereigntist press.  Who is in charge of propaganda at National Defence Headquarters, Gilligan?  In its imperious ineptitude, they have managed to offend just about every group one can think of.  I am surprised they didn’t wait until it was a Black French woman with autism to pull this boner.  I mean let’s piss everyone off at once and get it over with. 

Don’t forget taxpayers.  The part of this story that has raised no comment as yet that I can find is that the governor-general and minister of defense met the coffin at CFB Trenton.  Hold on.  Think about this.  The coffin was on the ground for three hours in Ottawa.  Ottawa is where the governor-general lives and the minister of defense works (and lives while he is working, if he works, I don’t know).  So, let me get this straight.  The minister and governor-general and the coffin all travelled at taxpayers expense to Trenton for what exactly, a photo-op?  Did they all travel together?  You can drive from Ottawa to Trenton in less than 3 hours maybe one of them could have made room in the back seat.  Why do they even have to be there?  Maybe the prime minister should be there too.  Hell bring the whole freaking parliament.  They love nothing better than a free trip.  Here’s a thought.  Take the coffin home, to the family.  Shouldn’t they be the priority not protocol?  Do we need an official “Death Camp”?

Military observers (cheerleaders) commented to news outlets that it was a minor controversy being blown out of proportion.  I tend to agree.  It was an insensitive decision but in overall terms the coverage in the mainstream press is probably causing more grief to the family than the incident itself.  Military observers are worried though about their little traditions and customs being broken such as failure to lower the flags while the plane was on the ground in Ottawa.  If it was me in the coffin they could shove the flag where the sun don’t shine for all I would care.  Actually when I die the flags over municipal buildings in my town will be lowered to half mast because I once served on city council.   Honestly, if they forget I couldn’t care less.  I would imagine the whole dead thing will be bothering me more at that moment. 

Where I differ from the hotties with the olive drab pompoms is, if you make out that she was a hero, you can’t say this is a minor controversy.  Heroes are a special category of people or sandwiches if you come from New York.  Therefore this would be by definition a serious controversy.  But she wasn’t a hero.  She was a young woman with her whole life before her who died under a foreign sky for geopolitical reasons she never fully understood.  This is a tragedy; not the fall of Agamemnon.  Calling her a hero implies her death was necessary; it served a greater good.  That may assuage the consciences of the political masters who threw her life on the dust heap of history.  But it will never fill the empty chair at family gatherings or give her parents grandchildren.  Maybe if Canadians would come to grips with that we might have fewer tragedies and the Canadian military would have fewer opportunities to trip over its own braid.

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

Poverty is not the cause of social turmoil as the common myth would lead us to believe.  Rather, disparity is the culprit.  People generally are accepting of poor circumstances as long as they feel the pain is felt universally.  When Marx and Engels talked about the withering away of the state this is what they had in mind.  In a society where wealth is concentrated in a few hands it is necessary to maintain a highly coercive state apparatus.  If however wealth and economic power is widely distributed very little coercion is necessary to maintain a calm and secure society. 

It is interesting to note in current times that those who most argue for a minimalist state are those who also argue for greater state coercive power.  The New Right does not want the state to be involved in our lives except to keep THOSE people under control and we all know who we are.  When they talk of a minimalist state they are referring to the Hobbesian Grand Watchman.  Government should keep us secure.  Good idea on the surface.  But justice would keep us even more secure without having heavily armed paramilitaries running our streets with guns and tasers (see past articles on RCMP love of tasers). 

The slogan so commonly chanted at rallies and marches, No Justice - No Peace, is not a threat but a statement of fact.  In an unjust society motivation to violence is never far away. Where justice prevails only those few who suffer from anti-social disorders would create a problem diminishing the need for state coercive power.  We could save young people entering the police force the psychological damage done them by a training regimen that makes them the social problem they are today.  Saving not only them but their families and friends as well.  Current police personnel could be put into rehabilitation facilities where mental health experts can attempt to salvage something human in them.  Okay.  Okay.  I digress.  My ranting aside my point remains valid.  Where people feel they are treated justly, they are less motivated to destabilize the society by violence. Less violence; less need for coercion.  Simple.

As factory workers and the service workers who rely on their commerce lose their homes, anger is bound to rise.  It is not that we think that everyone should be paid exactly the same or live exactly the same lifestyles.  Equality is not sameness.  But there should be some relationship between what someone can legitimately expect to receive from society and what they contribute to the society.  Here in Canada we have a game called hockey.  It is a fun game and I have fond memories of playing it myself in a vacant lot or on the roadway.  But today grown men are paid millions of dollars to chase a frozen rubber disc around an ice pad.  Is there any connection between contribution and recompense here?  America has its equivalent baseball and football.  Today, men (mostly anyway) are receiving multi-million dollar thank yous for driving companies into the ground.   Only bad management and arrogance can explain General Motors plunge from number one to bankruptcy in fifty years.  Especially since the number of cars sold today is exponentially higher than the number sold then.  Apparently they not only did not gain any of the increase but lost the customers they had.  Quality management there, eh?  With grown men playing for millions while children scavenge to survive; with incompetence rewarded by the very people it destroyed; how can anyone expect peace and calm? 

For a practical example of a peaceful yet poor society one only need look at the Tanzania of Julius Nyerere.  Nyerere retired from office and returned to live in the village in which he had been born.  There was no coup or assassination attempts.  Tanzania is a very poor country and Nyerere died as poor as any other citizen.  Justice works.  But in North America we see increasing calls for more police, tougher sentencing, greater restrictions of citizen rights.  The Patriot Act and the anti-terrorism laws in Canada are just the tip of the iceberg.  (One thing I will give Americans, they always have neat names for their laws ).  Terrorism is a convenient excuse to accelerate a process that has been going on for decades.  Particularly since the expansion of the franchise to all formerly discriminated groups, we have seen a steady gutting of the political sphere and an aggressive campaign for control by economic players.  Can’t have THOSE people thinking they can determine the course of their own lives.  If you go back and watch the scene in the film Remains of the Day where Anthony Hopkins character is being ridiculed by the participants of the pro-Nazi meeting you will witness an example of the attitudes of any of our current business leaders.  The very concept of democracy is ridiculed. 

And there is the problem.  Justice means sacrifice.  Justice requires honour and humanity.  Police are cheaper.  So lock your doors tonight but don’t feel all that secure.  Remember the words of Phil Ochs’ song ‘Outside a Small Circle of Friends:’

Living in the ghetto with the coloured and the poor

The rats have joined the babies who are living on the floor

Now wouldn’t it be a riot if they really blew their tops

But they got too much already and besides we got the cops

For now anyway, for now.

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

Green.  The word of the 21st century.  Everybody has the Green solution to the end of the world.  Recycle your waste.  Switch to coily light bulbs that take a while to get bright when switched on (Kind of like me in the morning).  Buy a hybrid car (Need to find a new name.  This one brings up images of a Camry and Corvette doing nasty things in the dark nine months ago).  Use public transit.  The litany goes on and you are all as familiar with it as I am.  It is being preached from the steps of parliament and the South Lawn.  Children are indoctrinated with it in the class room.  Talking heads on television run off at the mouth like a soup sandwich about it (all organic vegetable of course).  And since it is preached, that bastion of preaching, the church, can’t be left out.  Yes it is being preached from the pulpit as well.  God has become Green.  Actually I could deal with him better as a mischievous leprechaun with a sick and twisted sense of humour. 

I confess the whole thing has me a bit confused.  Global warming is a crisis and we need to deal with it.  The problem I have is that I hear a lot of talk but don’t see much action.  At least I don’t see a lot of improvement.  Sympathetic magic is a concept used by modern witches.  The theory is based on Like produces Like.  Well this looks like the environmental plan decided on by our social and political leaders.  If we talk about it long enough and wish for it hard enough then maybe the fairies of fate will grant our wish.  I can see the coven meetings in Ottawa now with Stephen Harper as High Priest complete with stag horns with John Baird his faithful familiar. 

The other problem is that each solution is being pitched as THE solution.  Whether it is the demon spawn of macho muscle cars with the little veggie car that could or a new coloured box weekly set out at the curb, do this and all will be well is the pitch.  Reality dictates that none of these really is THE answer and ALL of these are the answers.  We must comprehensively change the way we live and the way our societies are structured.  That is something none of our leaders want to talk about. 

Recycling helps and it is a good thing to do.  It is starting now to expand but more has to be done and fast.  One of the saddest facts of the recycling program is that most of our recyclables end up in landfill anyway, just not our local landfill.  Out of sight, out of mind.  (I believe most of my recyclables are land-filled around Hamilton, Ontario which should annoy some of my colleagues )That’s not going to get us anywhere.  There is not yet a strong enough market for the materials.  The way to change this is to not offer a choice between products from recycled materials and new materials.  If it can be made from recycled material, it MUST be made of recycled material.  If we want to be serious about this process that must be our mantra. 

The new energy efficient light bulbs being championed by David Suzuki solve one problem but create another.  No plan to dispose of the mercury contained in them is presented along with the songs of praise.  We cannot afford solutions that create problems elsewhere.  The global biosphere is an wholistic system.  The goal is to save it, not sweep the problems under a different leaf.  Suzuki and other proponents of these bulbs make two arguments in their defense.  Their long life means that the mercury is contained for perhaps a decade or more, there will be fewer light bulbs land-filled and therefore the impact will be minimal.  I forget.  How many billions in a minimal?  Their lifespan is impressive providing nothing goes wrong.  No incompetent handyman clips one with a ladder.  No child disobeys a parent and plays ball in the house.  No roof leaks.  You get the picture.  The second argument is that the amount of mercury is minimal.  (See my previous question concerning minimal)  We are told the mercury content is no more than that found in a watch battery.  That really isn’t very much but I have only owned about a dozen watches through my life.  Disregarding the ones that I had to wind that leaves three.  I am currently wearing one and the other two, sentimental mementos of times gone by, are resting sans batteries in my jewelry box to be taken out only in those private moments of tears and scotch.  I have only ever replaced the battery in one of them.  But light bulbs?  I got light bulbs coming out the ying yang.  I counted 35 in my little semi-detached.  Multiply that over the billion or so people in the industrialized first world and we are talking impact.  The other problem I have with Suzuki’s argument here is that it is dismissive.  He doesn’t argue that it is not a problem but that we shouldn’t worry about it.  That is straight from the playbook of the idiots that got us all into this mess in the first place so excuse me if I am not real receptive to it. 

As for the demon spawn mentioned above, hybrid cars, they show minimal carbon saving once all factors including manufacturing are considered.  Transportation is the toughest environmental nut to crack.  No one wants to give up their car.  Actually I do.  I can’t wait until I retire and go back to a car-less life.  Right now I would get rid of my vehicle if there were a viable public transportation option.  Currently we are spending billions, maybe trillions, of tax dollars to bail out an industry that must disappear if we want to spare this planet the horrors of an environmental holocaust.  The only answer is the disappearance of the private automobile.  Remove one or two lanes from the current multi-lane highways and dedicate them to public buses.  Move the terminals to major highway interchanges with local systems feeding them and voila public transit is faster and more convenient than private vehicles.  Eighty percent of the automobile traffic currently on the roads must be gone withing twenty years.  Let’s get over it and move on.  While there will be a transition of jobs with the change over, there need not be any net loss of jobs.  The naysayers seem to believe that if we eliminate the private automobile that the world will come to a stop as the people of this planet fall into a stunned silence, immobile for the rest of eternity. 

David Suzuki and others are supporting the creation of a carbon tax as a means to really get serious about the environment.  It does hold promise to reduce carbon emissions.  A carbon tax is a means of rationing by price.  That has been done successfully before .  However, in every case it has meant and will again this time that those at the bottom will shoulder the burden of lifting the world out of the crisis while those on top sail through their privileged lives with barely any inconvenience.  Heaven forbid that the people David socializes with, or he himself, pitch in.  Case in point, Suzuki was in the news this morning as part of a convention on Global Warming and winter sport I believe.  It really doesn’t  matter what the conference was about, it is the conference itself that was the problem.  Participants travelled many miles, most in airplanes to get to it.  Why?  Why couldn’t it have been done virtually given our current communications capabilities?  This would have made a gigantic carbon saving but Suzuki wouldn’t have the pleasure of staying at a luxury hotel and hobnobbing with his pals.  Before you start putting more pressure on the working class and those on fixed income to fight the good fight one more time, you should maybe enlist yourself and spend a little time at the front.

A better answer would be direct carbon rationing as suggested in George Monbiot’s book Heat(click on page on sidebar to see review).  Decide up front exactly how much carbon we can afford to expend each year and divide it up equally.  If I don’t use all of mine because I am careful and conserve I can sell the left over credit to some wasteful slob with money.  And trust me he will pay dear if he wants it.  (Actually let me thank George Monbiot for the alternative solutions he presented in his book which I have borrowed here.)  Publicly controlled rationing has also been done successfully in the past and it is fair and democratic.  But then I keep forgetting, most people don’t really believe in democracy, apparently including David Suzuki, the Verdant Prince.

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

The RCMP are at it again.  This time the Commissioner, while visiting Kandahar, told Canadians not to jump to any negative conclusions about the force because of recent scandals such as the Dziekanski case.  ‘Walk a mile in my shoes’ he said comes to mind.  Modern policing is very challenging, things are not always black and white and a situation can turn nasty quickly.  All of that is true but it does not change the fact that a man died needlessly.  Testimony at the enquiry continues to raise questions about the training and conduct of the officers involved. 

The inquiry shows no indication that a life or death crisis existed at the time Mr. Dziekanski was killed.  I am not jumping to conclusions.  But I do admit a prejudice against people and organizations that exert maximum effort to deny and obfuscate their mistakes instead of owning up to them.  Something went wrong at Vancouver airport that tragic day and we could have gotten to the bottom of it long ago and implemented corrective measure had the RCMP not dug in their heels, protected officers whose testimony varied, and generally tried to push off the blame on the victim. 

If you want public respect, don’t insult our intelligence with the we know better than you defence and own up to your conduct. 

As a side note of an even scarier nature, the Commissioner was in Kandahar because the RCMP will be training Afghan police.  All I can say is the Afghan better keep their staplers holstered.

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

President Obama today called for an end to the mentality of boom and bust.  Shades of Herbert Hoover here.  The Depression is psychological so just be happy and it will end.  This was perhaps good politics and certainly good theatre (Obama’s forte) but as economics it is nonsense.  He cannot go on to say he supports capitalism but wants to avoid boom and bust because boom and bust are necessary to a capitalistic system. 

Wouldn’t it be nice if politicians actually talked to us like we were adults.  It is an insult to our intelligence that our leaders should deflect our concerns with scripted gobble-de-goop.  But what really boggles the mind is that we (in the royal sense of society as a whole) accept it, jump in our snugly jammies, nestle in our nice warm beds to dream the sweet dreams of the innocent.  Safe in the knowledge that Daddy president or prime minister will chase away all the monsters and bad men that want to hurt us.  This might be funny if it wasn’t so sad and we could just turn our faces and ignore the sadness if it wasn’t so dangerous.  This complacency is what horror is madeof.  It led to the deaths of more than 60 million people (total death toll of World War 2) in the middle of the last century. 

Politics has followed numbers into becoming a way to turn off the human mind.  It is well established that most modern people shut down as soon as someone starts rattling off statistics or columns of figures.  Most of us are functionally innumerate.  Politics now seems to have the same effect.  I am just not sure when this happened.  Politics really rose as a mass interest as we moved toward a more inclusive understanding of society.  The English Civil War, the American and French Revolutions, the First World War and the Socialist and Communist revolutions that followed propelled the kiss of politics to every lip.  The rights of man, democracy, Liberté Egalité Fraternité, dictatorship of the proletariat, the International Working Man’s Association, the Industrial Workers of the World, and in my own era Students for a Democratic Society, The July 26th Movement, the Southern Christian Leadership Committee and more were founts of information not just for radicals and political specialists but for all.  Politics was the stuff of dinner table conversations (and the cause of my ulcers but I bear them proudly as a battle injury in the war to create the good society).  Politics was not just important, it was exciting.  It offered the possibility of a better society not just a richer one.  The ideal taken from the Christian Bible of ‘What gaineth a man if he should inherit the whole world but lose his own soul’ meant something.  I am by no means a religious person although I do consider myself a spiritual man.  But what that verse stands for is not about religion it is about integrity.  The opposite sentiment is expressed as everyone has a price. 

Today’s world seems to function on the latter sentiment.  When did gluttony replace honour and expediency replace justice?  When did we stop caring about what is right and start closing our minds at the first tones of political thought?  We have surrendered our freedom not to foreign terrorists but to the seductress in our midst.  The syrupy placations of our own political succubi rape our soul and leave us unable to stand for our own beliefs.  Unable to challenge their actions lest the narcotic poison be withheld, we become our own murderers.

Twitter This

Usuario: Password: