The Dalai Lama and the oh so sensitive autocrats in Beijing

The Chinese government has 1.3-billion people to be concerned about, yet they obsess about one man. The problem is he isn't one of theirs, so they can't control him. That, however, doesn't stop them from using diplomatic muscle to attempt to control anyone who fraternizes with him.

The man is of course the Dalai Lama. His goal of autonomy for his homeland is understandably annoying to a regime that thinks Tibet is rightly part of China, particularly to a regime composed of control freaks. They express their annoyance loudly and frequently. When Prime Minister Harper welcomed the Dalai Lama to Canada in October, 2007, the Chinese accused Canada of interfering in China's internal affairs and claimed the feelings of all Chinese people had been hurt. They are currently expressing great umbrage over the Dalai Lama's visit to the U.S. later this month where he will meet with President Obama in Washington. And not only heads of state feel the wrath of the Chinese. The granting of an honorary degree to the Dalai Lama by the University of Calgary in December has resulted in the removal of the university from one of the Chinese minister of education's accredited institution lists. The man's persistent popularity in the democracies seems to drive the dictators frantic.

Not that he has particularly impressive democratic credentials himself. Chosen as head of the faith, and therefore by default as head of state, by an arcane process of religious mumbo-jumbo, his claim to legitimacy as leader of the Tibetan people has no democratic foundation. The Dalai Lamas long ruled over an impoverished, backward land of aristocrats and serfs as oppressively as the Chinese rule over their Tibet.

The Dalai Lama appears to have put all that behind him, however, and is now a major spokesman for human rights, and that does nothing to endear him to the barons of Beijing either.

The obvious solution would be to let the Tibetans choose their own future, but that is of course not in the cards. So the Chinese are stuck with this annoying pebble in their shoe. And they may be stuck for a long time. After all, the Dalai Lamas, through reincarnation, live forever. The current incarnation, Tenzin Gyatso, declares he won't be reborn in a land that isn't free and has even suggested Tibetans should be allowed to vote on whether or not they accept his rebirth. It's not surprising the Chinese are concerned about an enemy who may never die. On the other hand, he insists on a peaceful approach to the conflict with China, an approach other Tibetans are highly impatient with. The Chinese should at least be grateful for that.

Wall Street, where failure pays big

In late 2008 and early 2009, the U.S. government bailed out American International Group (AIG), the largest underwriter of commercial and industrial insurance in the country, with $180-billion in aid. The boys and girls at AIG had screwed up big time. The executives of the financial products division had brought the corporate giant to the brink of collapse, triggering the largest corporate bailout in American history.

So, of course, they must be punished. Whereas last year they received bonuses totaling $168-million, this year they will only receive $100-million. That will teach them.

But wait a minute! They're still getting $100-million for screwing up? Can't help it, says Obama's "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg, the contracts were drawn up years ago and "we've got to abide by the law." Well, OK, the law's the law, but that doesn't quite explain how any employer would be stupid enough to sign contracts that hand its executives massive bonuses even if they trash the company. Aren't bonuses supposed to be for doing something especially good? But these guys are getting bonuses for doing something especially bad. Capitalism is so entertaining.

Omar Khadr, conservatives and the tribal impulse

The Harper government's refusal to seek Omar Khadr's release from Guantanamo is the most callous act by a government of Canada that I can remember. Allowing a foreign government to torture and otherwise abuse the rights of a Canadian teenager is almost incomprehensible for a civilized society. Every other Western government successfully retrieved their citizens from that tropical hellhole. But not us.

The obvious reason is that he is a Khadr, a member of a family despised by Canadians. Stephen Harper is, by his own admission, thinking strategy every moment of his waking day, and there are no votes to be gained and possibly some to be lost from the Conservative core by catering to a Khadr. But this just makes it all the more callous: punishing a boy because of his parents. And it fails the ultimate test of human rights. Defending the rights of those you like is easy, defending the rights of those you don't like is hard.

And it is particularly hard for conservatives. We are all tribal, hence we all care more for those who are like us than those who are not. But conservatives are especially tribal. They are more inclined to think in terms of us and them, black and white, good guys and bad guys. Thus their tough stance on crime, their passion for things military, their urge to patriotism, and their contempt even for simple decency for Omar Khadr.

The Khadrs are alien to the Canadian majority in almost every respect: ideologically, religiously and ethnically. So they are beyond the pale, and one of their tribe can be freely sacrificed to the American lust for revenge. To the Harper Conservatives, there are citizens and then there are citizens, some worthy and some not, some too different to be considered one of us and therefore not deserving of the rights the rest of us take for granted.

Omar Khadr is a tough luck kid. Betrayed by his parents to a life of extremism, then betrayed by his country to incarceration and abuse. For him, justice is a stranger.

Could we please stop "going forward"

Every once in a while yet another obnoxious word or phrase pops up, seemingly out of nowhere, and attaches itself like a leech to everyday discourse. A few years ago what might be the ugliest word in the English language, "exacerbate," was showing up everywhere. What the writer usually meant was "aggravate," a word quite satisfying to the senses.

More recently, we have become plagued by the nonsensical phrase "going forward." In last Saturday's Globe, Michael Ignatieff was quoted as saying, in reference to brain disease, "This is a central health challenge facing our country going forward." The phrase is of course completely redundant. (Could there be a challenge going backward?) What he means to say is: "This is a central health challenge facing the country" ... period, full stop, 'nuf said.

On the Jon Stewart show last week, his guest Elizabeth Warren, bailout watchdog for the Obama administration, marred a lively and passionate interview with her incessant "going forward." Warren and Ignatieff are bright, articulate people, they should be setting an example for the rest of us with their command of the language, not relying on crutches.

But that seems to be the nature of these infectious phrases. They tend to afflict the professional talkers more than the amateurs, as contrary as H1N1. Unfortunately, there seems to be neither preventative nor cure.

On climate change -- even Osama gets it

Not all religious fundamentalists are immune to the threat of global warming it seems. One of their more prominent brethren has seen the light and spoken out. I refer to Islamic zealots' favourite cave man, Osama bin Laden. 

From somewhere in the misty reaches of the Hindu Kush, according to an audio tape obtained by Al Jazeera, bin Laden declared, "All of the industrialized countries, especially the big ones, bear responsibility for the global warming crisis,"  and emphasized that, "Speaking about climate change is not a matter of intellectual luxury -- the phenomenon is an actual fact."
 
Wow! One of the world's true weirdos may have a better grip on the problem than a goodly number of national leaders, including ours. Perhaps our Prime Minister should spend some time in a cave recalibrating his understanding of what science is desperately trying to tell us. If it led to environmental enlightenment, it would be prorogue time well spent.

Everyone agrees with Taliban Jack now

t

Late in 2006,  New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton suggested that talking to the Taliban was important in bringing peace to Afghanistan. He was excoriated in the daily press and treated with contempt by both Conservatives and Liberals. They called him Taliban Jack and laughed him out of the House.

Well, Taliban Jack is laughing now. It seems that almost everyone agrees that talking to the "scumbags" is the only way to peace in that tortured country. That Pakistan is talking to "all levels" of the insurgency is hardly a surprise. But Afghan President Hamid Karzi is also interested in discourse with the more moderate elements. Most surprisingly, U.S. General Stanley McChrystal, commander of the International Security Assistance Forces and the American forces in Afghanistan, agrees with talks. “As a soldier, my personal feeling is that there’s been enough fighting,” McChrystal told the Financial Times. “What I think we do is try to shape conditions which allow people to come to a truly equitable solution to how the Afghan people are governed.” U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates concurs that the Taliban are a part of Afghanistan’s “political fabric.”

Canada's position, too, has evolved over the past four years. Having once ridiculed Layton's position, in 2008 the Conservatives said they would support talks with those Taliban who renounced violence. Now talks with the insurgents is one of the official priorities of the Canadian mission.

The Taliban are a bunch of brutal theocrats but, like the murderous IRA in Ireland, they have a lot of support among their people. They are the dominant force among Pashtuns in the south, where Canadian troops operate. Taliban leader Mullah Omar remains perhaps the foremost spokesman for Pashtun interests. Just as dealing with reality in Ireland meant dealing with the IRA, so dealing with reality in Afghanistan may mean dealing with the Taliban. NATO's special civilian representative in Afghanistan, former British ambassador to Kabul Mark Sedwill, appears ready to deal with that reality, recently stating "If we are going to bring conflicts like Afghanistan to an end … that means some pretty unsavoury characters are going to have to be brought within the system. Because if you don't bring them within the system in some way … you risk whatever fragile peace you build falling apart." Sedwill said further that refusing to deal with the Taliban because of their past behaviour is hypocritical when there are warlords responsible for appalling abuses on the government side.

Bringing the Taliban into a government would be unpleasant, but we are on good terms with the oppressive, misogynistic Sauds in Arabia, a regime that recently sentenced a 75-year old woman to 40 lashes and four months in prison for having two unrelated men in her house, so we can hold our noses and live with similar religious thuggery in Afghanistan.

t

Obama vs. the big banks -- what are the odds?

If U.S. President Barack Obama is serious about bringing his country's big banks to heel, he will be embarking on a very courageous political act indeed. He will be biting the hand that feeds him. In the 2008 presidential election he, like his opponent John McCain, got well over a third of his campaign funding from the financial industry.

In this year's congressional elections, candidates will be heavily dependent upon the banks for campaign dollars. And with the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations to donate without limit, supporters of Obama's policies could be facing a veritable flood of corporate money. And then of course there is the bankers' lobbying machine with 1,500 lobbyists in Washington, three for every member of Congress, to drive home the reality of American politics in the 21st century. Congressmen and women will eventually have to approve Obama's measures and the lobbyists will make it very clear what the price of that approval would be.

It will certainly be clear to the Democratic head of the Senate's powerful banking committee, Chris Dodd. In the last four years, financial companies have provided the good senator with $8-million in campaign contributions. He is retiring at the end of this year, but it's unlikely he will forget who his friends are.

So I'm betting on the banks. As Democratic Senator Dick Durbin said last year about the banking industry's Washington lobby, "They own the place." Still, it's a gutsy move on Obama's part, and if he can somehow get anything substantial through Congress, it will be a great victory for the American people, both politically and economically.

Stephen Harper discovers Canada

Canadians, like most peoples, have an image of themselves that carries both a certain amount of truth and a certain amount of wishful thinking. A favourite image of ours depicts us as a gentle, reasonable people, cautious in our worldly affairs and caring toward each other. This image is how many others see us as well, rightly or wrongly, but it is not an image our Prime Minister has seemed to hold in very high regard. After all, he once described us to a crowd of Americans as "a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term."

And yet, and this is my surprise of the day, I read in the morning papers that when he addresses the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Thursday, he will emphasize a couple of very Canadian themes. First, he is expected to talk about how Canada's well-regulated banking system brought our banks relatively unscathed through the global economic crisis. And second, he will call on countries to address the challenge of maternal and child health care in the developing world, something he wants to be a key priority when he hosts this summer's G8/G20 meetings.

The cynics will no doubt say the forever-strategizing Mr. Harper is simply trying to downgrade the climate change issue for the G8/G20 meetings, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, when Stephen Harper, the champion of free markets and small government, goes all communal and puts the very Canadian virtues of well-regulated banks and caring for the less fortunate high on his agenda, considerable progress has been made.

Cindy McCain -- poster girl for NOH8

Cindy McCain – attractive, intelligent, filthy rich and married to a prominent U.S. senator – offers a picture of the best and brightest of Republican womanhood. Yet she has a flaw. She supports gay marriage. And isn't shy about it. She not only has come out in support of the NOH8 gay marriage campaign, she has posed for a campaign poster. NOH8 opposes California's proposition 8, a law banning same-sex marriage.

Her husband, former presidential candidate John McCain who once supported a similar law in his home state of Arizona, has been forced to declare that while respecting the views of his family he still "believes the sanctity of marriage is only defined as between one man and one woman." Gossip-mongers have suggested Cindy is simply taking a shot at her husband because of his behaviour toward her in the past. (He once publicly called her a cunt.) I prefer to think she genuinely believes in gay marriage and is making the point that Republicans can be progressive on the issue. As her daughter Meghan McCain, who also appears in the poster campaign, said, "I couldn't be more proud of my mother for posing for the NOH8 campaign, I think more Republicans need to start taking a stand for equality."

Good for Meghan. And good for Cindy.

Supreme Court further undermines U.S. democracy

I have frequently emphasized in these pages that Canada is not a democracy. When corporations own most of the mass media, dominate the economy and fund political parties, think tanks and lobby groups, we are as much a plutocracy as a democracy. We have a hybrid system.

Occasionally we do take measures to advance the democratic component. The federal government, for example, has banned corporate funding of election campaigns. 

Our neighbours to the south have just been told they will not be allowed to take even this reasonable step to protect democracy from the corruption of wealth. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, by a 5-4 margin, that governments can not restrict corporations and unions from spending on ads expressly urging a candidate’s election or defeat. Big money is moving quickly to exploit the ruling. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has promised the largest, most aggressive election campaign in its history to defeat congressional Democrats who support Obama's proposals for overhauling the health insurance and financial systems and limiting carbon emissions.

The founding fathers of the United States would cringe at how their great democratic experiment has been perverted. Thomas Jefferson, who believed in a democracy of craftsmen, farmers and small businessmen, advised that the new nation should “crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength.” The aristocracy he feared has now, with the help of the Supreme Court, triumphed yet again over his dream of a citizen-based democracy. The Court, it seems, is unable to distinguish money from speech.

Is "tough on crime" bankrupting California?

Everyone knows the state that was once the epitome of the American dream is crumbling into bankruptcy. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has recently proposed an $82-billion budget for California, a state with a population larger than Canada's. It will almost certainly be inadequate. Out of that $82-billion, $10-billion will go to the prison system. And that of course excludes police, courts, and all the other paraphernalia of criminal justice.

California's prison population has exploded with an array of get tough on crime legislation including the infamous "three strikes and your out" law. While the population of the state has doubled over the past thirty years, the number of prison inmates has increased almost six-fold. Before the incarceration binge, California spent about $5 on higher education for every $1 on prisons, today it spends more on prisons and corrections than on its universities. As a result, its once vaunted university system is in decline.

And, ironically, all this money spent on incarceration hasn't even produced a decent prison system. The system's physical and mental health care is so bad the federal courts have declared it unconstitutional, and its drug rehabilitation and vocational training programs are being dismantled.

The get tough on crime laws proposed by the Harper government are certainly not as severe as those in California, but it is nonetheless worth keeping in mind the road we are on to make sure we don't travel too far along it.

There is spending and then there is Olympic spending

Some juxtapositions in your daily paper leap off the page at you. Such a one did just this in Saturday's Globe and Mail. On Page A5, we find an article discussing spending on the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Games. The total is estimated at a whopping $6-billion. But the number that really caught my eye was the expected $900-million on security. Almost a billion B.C. and federal taxpayer dollars for security at a sports event!

Turn over to Page A6 and you find an article about a lack of funding for cancer studies. Apparently clinical trials that could significantly improve patient care are being stopped or not performed at all because the money isn't there. Michael Wosnick, vice-president of research for the Canadian Cancer Society, observed "... I have no way to know whether the next Nobel Prize winner in cancer research ... doesn't get funded because we just don't have the money," and Ralph Meyer, director of the NCIC Clinical Trials Group, asked "Where does it place Canadian investigators in a global environment, in terms of the competition to be successful in research?"

Lots of money to compete for Olympic medals, not so much to compete for Nobel Prizes in medicine. Is it just me or is there a fundamentally flawed set of priorities at work here?

Of all the records set at the Olympics, spending is the one that more than any other gets the gold.

Who does this lazy Parliament represent anyway?

As Parliament snoozes away the winter, we might ask just who isn't being represented during this hibernation. An answer to that question has been offered by that indefatigable pursuer of democratic representation, Fair Vote Canada. FVC has recently written two letters, one to the Conservatives and one to the opposition parties, suggesting they make use of their winter break to think about creating a democratic Parliament. A telling passage from one letter particularly caught my eye:

Judging from the current “representation” most Quebecois want to quit the federation; most Canadians are reluctant to elect women; there are no Conservative supporters in Vancouver, Montreal or Toronto; there are no Liberal supporters in Alberta. There are no New Democrat supporters in Saskatchewan and remarkably few elsewhere, and no Green supporters anywhere in Canada.

Although it appears farcical, this is indeed what the current makeup of Parliament suggests, and it's a sad and disturbing message. The fact that Conservatives are not represented in our three major cities and Liberals are not represented in Alberta, even though many people in those areas support those parties, contributes to dangerous divisions in an already regionally divided nation. That millions of Canadians are unable to help elect someone who represents them is a democratic tragedy.

This doesn't justify shutting the thing down, but it certainly gives our "representatives" something to occupy their minds while on their extended holiday. You can read both Fair Vote Canada letters here. And, if you too are concerned about our undemocratic Parliament, you can support the letters with your own.

Moneymen go green

The voice of $13-trillion of assets is speaking out loudly in favour of a green agenda. A group of 450 investors, meeting in New York, is urging world governments not to wait for an international climate change treaty but to take immediate action on global warming. They warn that delay will risk loss of the opportunity for a clean and sustainable low-carbon economy.

Peter Dunsombe, chairman of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, a forum that includes some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, said "Given that Copenhagen was a missed opportunity to create one fully functional international carbon market, it is more important than ever that individual governments implement regional and domestic policy change to stimulate the creation of a low carbon economy." Anne Stausboll, chief executive of the California Public Employees Retirement System, largest public pension fund in the U.S., said that they are prepared to increase their green investment as soon as Congress passes climate change legislation.

Pension funds are heavy hitters in the investment world and if they are keen to invest in a low-carbon economy there should be no shortage of funding for green technology. If $13-trillion won't bring the politicians around, what will.

Kudos to the feds on Haiti

So far, our federal government is responding admirably to the catastrophe in Haiti. Things are moving well on a number of fronts:

• Our emergency aid has been swiftly dispatched.
• Red tape has been reduced for aid transports from other countries refuelling in Canada.
• Ways are being discussed to fast-track Haitian immigration.
  

Prime Minister Harper may have given Parliament a long winter's nap, but he is wide awake on this issue.