Greece on fire .... deja vu all over again

When will we ever learn?

Twenty-five hundred years ago, Plato, noticing the degradation of the land as the Greeks cut down their forests for timber and farmland, observed:

[In earlier days] Attica yielded far more abundant produce. In comparison of what then was, there are remaining only the bones of the wasted body; all the richer and softer parts of the soil having fallen away, .... But in the primitive state of the country, the mountains were high hills covered with soil, and plains were full of rich earth, and there was abundance of wood in the mountains. Of this last traces still remain, for although some of the mountains now only afford sustenance to bees, not so very long ago there were still to be seen roofs of timber cut from trees growing there, which were of such a size sufficient to cover the largest houses; and there were many other high trees, cultivated by man and bearing abundance of food for cattle. Moreover, the land reaped the benefit of the annual rainfall, not as now losing the water which flows off the bare earth into the sea ....

Now history repeats itself. Many of the fires raging in Greece today have been set by arsonists clearing the land for development.
According to Nikos Georgiadis, head forest officer for the Greek office of the World Wildlife Fund, "Most of the reasons concern changing of land use – from forest to something else [such as] construction, or building, or to grazing, or agriculture." Georgiadis adds, "But the response from the government has not been effective at all."

Georgiadis's comment reflects Greece's environmental record, one of the worst in the European Union, particularly on forest protection. Environmental groups claim development is largely unregulated and protected areas are neglected. The Greek government seems ignorant of the country's ancient history when despoliation of the environment was a major reason their civilization collapsed.

Fortunately, like Plato before them, ordinary Greek people today are becoming increasingly aware of the problem and increasingly unhappy with their government's lack of action. "Since the response that we got after the big forest fire on Parnitha mountain, there is a big change," says Dr. Georgiadis, "More and more people became sensitive on environmental matters."

The ancient Greeks taught us so much, yet we failed to learn from their folly of allowing development to overwhelm the environment. Modern Greeks seem, through trial by fire, to be catching on. The lesson is there for all of us.

Good news for Afghanistan's economy

Read that headline carefully. Note that I said Afghanistan's economy, not Afghanistan.

The good news is -- what else? -- the booming poppy crop. Consider the stats:

- The crop has increased for six straight years.
- Afghanistan now produces 95 per cent of the world's opium, up from 92 per cent in 2006.
- Opium and the heroin made from it are worth $3 billion US to the Afghan economy, a third of its gross domestic product.

Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent to defeat poppy growing and have utterly failed. The United States is giving $200 million US this year to Helmand, the major opium-producing province, as part of a strategy of financial incentives to suppress drug production while increasing co-ordination between counter-narcotics forces and the military. Christina Oguz, the head of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in Afghanistan, says: "They use it for growing opium. This is telling the rest of the country 'grow opium and we'll give you a lot of rewards'." This failure is hardly surprising. Imagine how much success we would have with a program whose goal was to decimate a third of our GDP.

In Afghanistan the poppy rules. Those who control the poppy control the economy, and those who control the economy control the country.

Publicly fund Muslim schools? Why not Fascist schools?

The Ontario Conservatives' promise to publicly fund faith-based schools if they are elected on October 10th has rekindled an old debate. If Catholic schools are publicly funded in Ontario, as they are, why not the schools of other denominations? Or should no religious schools at all be publicly funded, not even Catholic?

One rather obvious question that never arises during this debate is, why limit the debate to faith-based schools? Why not public funding for schools based on political ideologies, say Communist schools? Or Fascist schools? Or, for that matter, why limit the debate to ideology. Why not ethnically-based schools? Why not English schools, Chinese schools or Arab schools?

Religious folk insist that religion is of special importance because it's part of them. It's part of who they are. But actually it isn't, at least not physically. There is no Christian gene, or Muslim gene, or Hindu gene. Religion is always imposed on the individual. People are indoctrinated in it.

Our political beliefs, on the other hand, are influenced very much by our genes. People who are genetically conservative will generally adopt a conservative political philosophy, and people who are genetically progressive or liberal, will adopt a socialist or liberal political philosophy. In other words, our political beliefs are truly a part of who we are. They are built into our genes. They would seem, therefore, to justify segregating children more than religious beliefs. This is also true, of course, of ethnicity.

So let us not discriminate. Politically-based schools and ethnically-based schools deserve the same consideration as faith-based schools. On with the debate.

Fighting wars we can win

The news on the war front isn't good these days: Iraq, Afghanistan, the war on terror, they all drag on and on, cost billions and billions of dollars, and seem to go nowhere.

Finally, some good news: a war to be won and to be won cheaply. It isn't a real war -- I just thought I'd borrow from the rhetoric of the day. I refer to the campaign against malaria, one of humankind's greatest enemies, a scourge that kills over a million people every year, mostly children and pregnant women. Kenya has recently announced a great victory in this campaign.

Kenya's Ministry of Health, supported by the World Health Organization (WHO) and Britain's Department for International Development, has distributed thirteen million insecticide-treated nets across the country since 2003. As a result, the number of children sleeping under a net has increased from 5 per cent to 52 per cent, and child deaths from malaria in high-risk areas have nearly halved. Peter Olumese, a medical officer with WHO's Global Malaria Programme, claimed, "Seven lives were saved for every 1,000 nets given out." The WHO recommends that the nets, which cost only $5, be used by all community members. The project is being hailed as a model for other African countries.

Extending the program across Africa would not only save millions of lives, it would go a long way toward invigorating the continent. I can't help comparing this remarkably effective "war" to Canada's war in Afghanistan where we will have spent $4.3 billion (plus another $600 million in aid) when our mission ends in 2009 for results that, so far at least, are at best questionable. One almost weeps to think how much more effectively this money could be spent, how many more lives could be saved, how many more improved -- indeed, how much better we could serve the world.

Do African leaders give a damn about their people?

Africans have good reason to distrust and dislike the West. Europeans enslaved millions of them, murdered millions and stole and exploited their continent. The memories of such atrocities cannot fade easily. However, that was then. For African leaders to allow that experience, as horrific as it was, to interfere with what is best for their people today, is simply irresponsible. And yet that's exactly what they are doing in the case of Zimbabwe and its president, Robert Mugabe.

Mugabe is a psychopathic thug who has reduced his nation to utter impoverishment. And yet, at the Southern African Development Community summit meeting this week, he received what the Guardian referred to as a "rapturous welcome" from his fellow leaders. And South African President Thabo Mbeki supports Mugabe's claim that his country's woes are due principally to UK-orchestrated sanctions.

Mugabe's claim is of course nonsense. It wasn't the UK that expropriated white-owned farms, major contributors to the Zimbabwean economy, and handed them over to his party's favourites. It wasn't the UK that drove 700,000 city-dwellers out of their homes. It isn't the UK who tortures and murders political opponents. This is all Mugabe's work, and it's vintage Mugabe.

After helping liberate his country from colonial rule, Mugabe showed his true colours. He consolidated his power by using a North-Korean trained military unit to inflict massacres on the Ndebele people, the main source of his opposition. Twenty thousand died, mostly innocent civilians.

Nonetheless, the new country showed great promise, becoming perhaps the most stable and economically successful country on the continent. But eventually people began to tire of Mugabe, serious opposition grew, and once again the real Mugabe emerged. His scapegoating of the whites and the brutal suppression of his opponents has created an economic chaos and political wasteland that would have embarrassed his colonial predecessors.

Zimbabweans face hunger, even starvation, as the shops empty of food, and inflation hits 20,000 per cent making money worthless. Thousands of business people have been arrested for failing to obey Mugabe's arbitrary economic measures. A third of workers are unemployed. Millions of Zimbabweans, a quarter of the population, have fled the country. As African leaders applaud Mugabe, Zimbabweans face the bitter reality that they were better off under the colonials. They hardly had less freedom and at least they had enough to eat.

African leaders may continue to treat the West with suspicion and scorn. History gives them the right. It doesn't give them the right to justify the rule of tyrants.

Afghanistan makes nice with its neighbours

The neighbours have been dropping in on Afghanistan lately.

On Tuesday, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, led a high-ranking delegation to Kabul, demonstrating the growing rapport between the two countries. In this, his first visit to Afghanistan, Ahmadinejad referred to their two countries as "brother nations with common interests, cultures and histories," adding, "The present condition of the region demands more exchange and negotiations between Tehran and Kabul. In this trip economic co-operation, especially over Iran's participation in Afghan development plans, will be discussed." Iran is contributing to a number of aid projects in Afghanistan as well as co-operating in combating drug trafficking.

Earlier in the week, Pakistan's embattled president, Pervez Musharraf, flew into Kabul for the closing ceremony of a cross-border jirga, or peace conference, that discussed the Taliban insurgency. He brought an attitude that was positively Woodstock. "This will usher in a new era of love and understanding," cooed his interior minister, Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao, as the two leaders also spoke of "brother nations." Excessively optimistic no doubt, considering the Taliban are still knocking at the door, but a welcome change nonetheless considering the bickering Karzai and Musharraf have been known for in the past.

These blossoming relationships will hopefully be strongly encouraged and supported by the West. They will do far more for peace and stability in the region than we can with our swaggering around, attempting to impose democracy out of the barrel of a gun.

Infant mortality: America's shame

While the abortion issue remains hot in the U.S. (and lukewarm in this country), the fate of babies once they are born seems to be of much less interest. This is surprising. Surprising, because the chances of survival for newborns in the U.S. are among the worst in the developed world. An American newborn is more than twice as likely to die in its first year as a child born in Sweden.

The U.S. infant mortality rate of 6.4 deaths per 1,000 live births compares to Sweden's 2.8 (the world's lowest). Other Scandinavian countries closely follow Sweden's example with Finland at 3.5 and Norway at 3.6. France and Germany follow at 4.2 and 4.1 and we Canadians tag along at 4.6. Our rate is nothing to brag about, but America's, considering that country's great wealth, is downright shameful.

As always in the U.S., race plays a role. For African-Americans, the mortality rate is nearly double that of the United States as a whole. We might expect the lack of medical insurance for millions of Americans to also play a part.

If American pro-lifers demonstrated as much concern about babies surviving as they do about fetuses, they might be more convincing that it is life they care about, not dogma.

Bush or Iran's neighbours ... who to believe?

While George W. Bush persistently insists that Iran is a menace to its neighbourhood, the neighbours beg to differ. Afghan President Hamid Karzai refers to Iran as helpful to his country, while Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki emphasizes the growing ties between Iraq and Iran.

Bush accuses Iran of destabilizing Iraq (a comic accusation considering the U.S. has brought down a chaos on Iraq that would warm the hearts of barbarians like Attila or Genghis Khan). Al-Maliki, on the other hand, praises Iran's constructive role in fighting terrorism in his country.

So, Iran as menace or as good neighbour? Who to believe? Karzai and al-Maliki, who represent the neighbours, or George W. Bush, who represents a nation on the other side of the world and whose ignorance of the Middle East surpasses belief?

I opt for the local boys.

Subsidizing energy

Reading A Globe and Mail article on solar power, I was struck by two facts. One is that Germany is the world's leading solar power generator despite having a wet climate with clouds covering the sky 60 per cent of the time. And two, this leadership results from the industry being heavily subsidized.

Germany generates over half the photovoltaic power in the world and intends to increase its reliance on the source from three per cent of its electrical needs to 27 per cent by 2020. According to the Globe, "It is a thriving industry with booming exports that has created tens of thousands of jobs ...." The photovoltaic systems are owned by homeowners, farmers and small businesses that benefit from a law requiring power companies to buy the electricity they produce for at least 20 years at more than triple market prices.

Detractors might oppose this degree of subsidy because it seriously distorts the market. This argument, however, overlooks the unfortunate fact that the market often doesn't account for the true cost of products, and certainly doesn't with energy.

Gasoline provides a good example. The pump price of a litre of gas accounts for only a fraction of the cost of using that fuel. To begin with, it excludes the costs of the pollution it creates, including its contribution to global warming. Then there are costs like policing roads, the health costs incurred from road accidents, and all the other costs of urban sprawl. And then there's tax subsidies to the oil industry through items such as the depletion allowance, program subsidies such as the cost of transportation infrastructure, research and development. The list is long. The International Center for Technology Assessment calculates that when all costs are included, the price of a gallon of gas is five to 15 times the pump price. The hidden subsidies of fossil fuels can be immense.

Criticizing solar, or other more environmentally sound energy sources, because they are subsidized makes little sense without an accurate evaluation of all the costs involved. No energy sources carry their true weight in the marketplace. All are subsidized. The simple fact that solar power produces no emissions almost certainly makes it cheaper than fossil fuels, keeping in mind the cost of global warming could be civilization itself.

Lucy goes on tour

The famous Lucy, or at least 40 per cent of her skeleton, is about to be put on display at museums in the U.S.

Lucy, a 3.2 million-year-old Australopithecus afarensis, was once thought to represent our most ancient human ancestor. Although only a little over a metre tall, with a brain case the size of a chimpanzee, she walked upright and is, therefore, considered one of us.

Not everyone is happy with Lucy departing the Natural History Museum in Addis Ababa. Indeed, the agreement between Ethiopia and the Houston Museum of Natural Science for her tour would seem to violate a resolution of the International Association for the Study of Human Paleontology which states that fragile fossils should not be moved from their country of origin. Ethiopia and the U.S. both signed the resolution. Renowned palaeontologist Richard Leakey insists the skeleton is too fragile to be moved while some museums, including the American Museum of Natural History in New York and the Smithsonian, have refused to participate in the exhibition.

Nonetheless, Lucy has resided in the United States before, having spent the first nine years after her discovery in the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. Let us hope the venerable lady survives her current trip.

Fairness in broadcasting doctrine revived in U.S.

An encouraging development as the U.S. presidential election creeps ever closer is the revived interest in restoring the Fairness Doctrine for radio and TV broadcasting in that country. The doctrine, which required licensed broadcasters to present controversial issues of public importance in an honest, equitable and balanced manner, was introduced as policy in 1949 and incorporated into the U.S. Federal Communications Commission regulations in 1967. Although unwieldy and subject to challenge in the courts, it served to bring a measure of fair play to American broadcasting until it was abolished under the Reagan administration in 1987. Attempts by Congress to restore it were vetoed by Reagan in 1987 and George H. Bush in 1991.

Now, a number of Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, are aggressively expressing interest in restoring the doctrine. The dominance of right-wing talk radio and the rampant bias of Fox News, among other things, have revealed the failure of the American "free" market in broadcasting to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views.

If citizens are going to put public forums in the hands of private interests, they must have assurance those interests will serve the public good. Licensed commercial broadcasters want to be trustees of public property -- the air waves -- but without responsibility.

Perhaps the Fairness Doctrine is not the best way of providing the requisite assurance. As American journalist A.J. Liebling once pointed out, freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who are rich enough to own one. Rupert Murdoch and other oligarchs can afford to own many, and the Fairness Doctrine won't change that. The only real answer is more philosophically diversified ownership and local control. That, however, will require much more comprehensive reform than restoring the Fairness Doctrine. Meanwhile, at a time when American mass media remains the property of those few who are rich enough to own it, the doctrine would introduce at least a modicum of fair play.

So good luck to Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in this initiative. Needless to say, the quality of debate of issues in the United States often affects us all, so we all have a vested interest.

Canadians also have work to do in bringing democracy to our mass media. While it is true we do have one TV and radio network that is independent of the plutocracy, and we haven't yet thrown up a journalistic wasteland like Fox, here too, except for the CBC, TV networks and the daily press are in the pockets of a few oligarchs. We, too, should be discussing ways of assuring balance and variety in our mass media.

This is hard to do when the public forums, which in the modern world are TV networks and the daily press, are owned by a tiny special interest group that prefers to avoid such a discussion. But democracy demands no less. A new grassroots organization, Canadians for Democratic Media, is addressing itself to this very issue. They, too, deserve our support.

Support our troops ... we have a choice?

There seems to be a lot of noise these days about supporting our troops, whatever that means exactly. Even bumper stickers have crept into the debate. Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach in his wisdom is allowing "support our troops" decals on provincial government vehicles after lobbying by Alberta sheriffs. Applying these decals on public vehicles has also been an issue in the city councils of Toronto and Calgary.

I wasn't aware we had a choice about supporting our troops. Everyone who pays their taxes supports them, and our teachers, and our police officers, and our garbage collectors, and all the rest of our civil servants. I may support our troops with some reluctance, never having been a great admirer of the killing professions, but support them I must.

No word yet if Premier Ed will allow "support our postal workers" decals on public vehicles.

Obama chooses his quagmire

It's well over a year before the U.S. presidential election, but Democratic candidate Barack Obama has already chosen his war. Iraq is Bush's war, so that won't do. Obama will pull out of Iraq. Instead, he has warned Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf that if he doesn't take a stronger stand against terrorists in his country, the Americans under an Obama presidency would invade and do the job themselves.

Obama chooses his folly well. The Hindu Kush has a long history as a quagmire for foreign armies.

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, has been out-machoing Obama and apparently it's working as her popularity rises and his falls. She voted to go into Iraq, of course, and has been dismissing his willingness to talk with nations like Iran and Cuba without conditions as naive. She seems to be ahead on the testosterone scale and this is worrying her opponent.

It appears the "war" on terror will survive the next American presidential election regardless of who wins. And so will bogging down the country in foreign military adventures. Plus ca change ....

Death on the track

In my last post, I said I was one Calgarian who tried to ignore the Stampede and the accompanying yee-hawing. It isn't easy as the exhibition and rodeo grounds are practically across the street from me. Not is it easy when animals continue to be sacrificed for fun and profit.

On Saturday night the chuckwagon races claimed the lives of three more horses, making it 11 in the last six years, almost two a year.

The man who caused the crash that resulted in the deaths, Kelly Sutherland, a veteran racer described as an "icon" in the Calgary Herald, was suspended for one day. Stampede senior manager Lindsey Galloway believes the suspension "sends a strong signal to everybody involved that [the Stampede] will not tolerate anything that compromises the safety of animals and competitors." The man whose horses died as a result of Sutherland's misconduct, Gary Gorst, doesn't agree. He says it feels like a slap in the face to him and insists Sutherland should be banned from racing for life. Animal rights activists suggest it's chuckwagon racing that should be banned.

But that isn't going to happen. Stampede management says ending the races isn't even up for discussion. And the attitude of the racers seems to be shit happens, life goes on. Racer Wayne Knight says, "We feed those horses and look after them just like kids." We can only hope Mr. Knight and his fellow racers wouldn't enter their kids in an event that killed two children a year.

The Calgary Stampede - the voice of heresy is heard

This morning's Globe and Mail ran an article on the Calgary Stampede which -- horrors! -- contained critical material. As a proud Calgarian, I feel obliged to respond to this heresy.

The article is entitled "The Tyranny of Stampede" and focuses on the social and career pressure on Calgarians to dress up and get in the mood. At the risk of having to get an unlisted phone number, I publicly admit I thoroughly appreciated the piece. YAHOO for the Globe and Mail.

The whole Stampede thing has become somewhat embarrassing for those of us who believe Calgary may not be a big city yet but should at least have grown out of its cow town phase. We should no longer have to pretend we all enjoy the same things. Nor should we have to believe that getting "sauced" before noon is a matter of civic duty.

As the Globe article emphasizes, much of the pressure to conform comes from employers. As one young employee of a supplies store observed, "There is this total tyranny that takes hold. It's this total Big Bother aspect ...." More boosterism than fun, it seems.

Speaking for myself, I have absolutely no interest in all that horsy cowboy stuff. As for the cultural heart of it all -- rodeo -- I simply cannot accept that tormenting animals for entertainment or "sport" is something to be celebrated. And yes, my individualism is offended by the group think, or perhaps I should say group drink, of coercive fun-making.

One native Calgarian summed it up this way: "I can't take it any more. The dressing up, the partying -- it's all just too much now. I'm going to Vancouver for Stampede."

Me, I just ignore it.

Is there hope for Dubya after politics?

Contemplating this weekend's Live Earth concerts, inspired by Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection, I couldn't help but note how American ex-presidents, or in this case a near-president, can be such forces for good in the world while the current president seems to foul everything he gets his hands on.

Jimmy Carter's work advancing human rights and alleviating human suffering through the Carter Center and Habitat for Humanity; Bill Clinton's fund raising for AIDS and other causes and his foundation's initiatives to address a range of global problems; and of course Al Gore's magnificent work on global warming; all testify to powerful commitments to make the world a better place by peaceful means.

Intriguingly, all three of the above were to a degree failures at political office. Jimmy Carter was a one-term president, losing in his bid for a second term after the Iran hostage crisis. Bill Clinton had a disappointing presidency culminating in near impeachment over a little white lie any gentleman would have told (of course, a real gentleman wouldn't have put himself in a position where he had to lie). And Al Gore famously lost a presidential election even though he got more votes than the other guy.

So maybe there's hope for George W. Bush after all. If Carter, Clinton and Gore can all rise above mediocre political careers, maybe even Dubya will do something worthwhile after his presidency mercifully ends. At least, if he can be trusted with anything.

Killer priests?

As if pedophile priests haven't embarrassed the Catholic Church enough, now they're having to deal with torturers and murders. Although church bishops condemned the tactics the Argentinian military used to suppress dissent during their 1976-83 dictatorship, not all the priests were on side. One, Christian Von Wernich, is now on trial charged with participating in seven murders, 42 kidnappings, and 31 cases of torture while he was chaplain to the Buenos Aires police force. Apparently, he isn't alone. About 20 other priests are suspected of collaborating with the military during the "dirty war." Von Wernich was extradited from Chile where he was practicing as a priest under the name Cristian Gonzalez.

One ex-policeman, Julio Alberto Emmed, has testified, "The three ex-subversives who were still alive were taken out. ... the doctor gave them two injections each, directly in the heart... They were loaded on to a van belonging to the unit and were taken to Avellaneda. We went to wash and change our clothes because we were bloodstained. ... Father Von Wernich saw that what had happened had shocked me, and spoke to me telling me that what we had done was necessary; it was a patriotic act and God knew it was for the good of the country. "

A former detainee, Luis Velasco, stated, "I once overheard Christian Von Wernich reply to a detainee who was begging for his life to be spared that 'the life of men depends on God and your collaboration.' On another occasion he came to me and touching the hair on my chest smiled and said, 'They burned the hairs ...'"

Like the pedophile priests, the accused murderers are aberrations. Nonetheless, Von Wernich's story of persistent evil, of never being appropriately dealt with by the Church, and then simply going on to serve another parish, has disturbing echoes.

A few millennia late, but Egypt finally bans female circumcision

Believed to have begun in the time of the pharaohs, it is one of the more despicable atrocities committed upon women to control their sexuality. I refer to clitoridectomy, an exercise in barbarism to which 97 % of Egyptian women, Christian and Muslim, are subject. Now, after all these millennia of suffering, The government of Egypt is finally banning the practice. Anyone performing circumcisions will be punished, according to a health ministry official.

Meanwhile the practice will continue in almost 30 countries across Africa. What a barbaric species we are.

"She made it clear that [Brown] is not our poodle"

Is there hope after all for nuclear responsibility in the West?

While Western nations, particularly the United States, express alarm over Iran possibly developing nuclear weapons and thereby violating the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, they continue to violate the treaty themselves. The treaty, after all, is a quid pro quo, the non-nuclear nations agreed not to develop weapons and the nuclear nations agreed to get rid of theirs. None of the latter are filling their part of the bargain.

But there is at least one indication that may change. Britain's foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, is calling for major reductions in the nuclear arsenal of the two major powers. Ms. Beckett pointedly said that the "stagnant" condition of nuclear disarmament is undermining efforts to rally international opinion against nations like Iran. She noted that of the world's 20,000 nuclear warheads, 96% are in the U.S and Russia.

Of course convincing either country to reduce its armaments at a time when both are in a belligerent mood is quite the challenge. And Ms. Beckett will probably be replaced by the new prime minister, Gordon Brown. Nonetheless, British officials made it clear she was speaking for Mr. Brown, and the fact her remarks were made in Washington, only a few hundred metres from the White House, indicated the new prime minister will not be catering to Bush intransigence on the issue. As one American official remarked, "She made it clear that [Brown] is not our poodle." A welcome change, indeed, and on a critical issue.

Israel and the dictators gang up on Hamas while Tony rides to the rescue

So Egypt's president, Hosni Mubarek, invites Jordan's King Abdullah and Israel's Ehud Olmert to join him in a summit with the now autocratic leader of the Palestine Authority, Mahmoud Abbas.

All are delighted, of course, with Abbas ridding the Palestine Authority of its democratically-elected Hamas government. Israel fears Hamas because it won't submit to their design for the region. Abdullah and Mubarek fear Hamas because it is prepared to take the democratic route to government and dictators fear nothing more than democracy. Both Egypt and Jordan have nascent movements associated with Hamas, and the dictators no doubt would like to strangle them in the cradle.

Meanwhile, Western powers cheer the process on, all their talk of wanting democracy in Palestine, or indeed in the Middle East, now revealed as hypocrisy.

What mischief this all is. The possibility of achieving peace in the Levant without including a force as powerful and popular as Hamas in the process is remote, while dealing for peace with the hopeless Abbas and his corrupt Fatah is futile.

But will the appointment of Tony Blair as envoy for the "quartet" turn things around? One thing he has going for him is the recognition from his experience in Ireland that all parties, even those you like to call terrorists, have to be brought to the table. But can he convince Israel and the United States to sit at the table with Hamas? As Bush's poodle, it seems unlikely he can convince the president of anything. Furthermore, he has thoroughly discredited himself in the Middle East with his contribution to the catastrophe in Iraq, The prospects are not good.

The Palestinian people, it seems, their freely elected government crushed by forces greater than themselves, have a lot of suffering to do yet.

The Darfur crisis: Are we the cause?

For millennia the herders and the farmers of the province of Darfur in western Sudan managed to get along in relative peace even though they followed different occupations on essentially the same land. Then, in 2003, all hell broke loose. Militias called Janjaweed, formed from among the nomadic herders, descended upon the farmers, committing rape and mass murder and driving millions from their villages. Something terrible had happened.

Various factors were in play. The farmers, after years of neglect by the central government, had risen in revolt. The government, exhausted after fighting a brutal civil war in the south, responded by arming local militia and supplementing them with criminals.

But the underlying question remains. Why would the nomads turn on their agricultural neighbours with such ferocity? What had changed? The answer lies in a shrinking land base. Populations have been increasing, as has the size of herds, straining the land. Meanwhile, the rains have failed and the region subjected to massive drought. The land becomes less capable of sustaining life and the desert creeps down from the north. In parts of Darfur, precipitation has fallen by a third in the past 80 years. The climate has changed.

The rapists, murderers and pillagers are desperate men, their traditional way of life unravelling in the face of catastrophic change in the weather. To quote The Guardian, "Global warming created the dry tinder. Khartoum supplied the match." And the tinder will become drier. Forecasts suggest that as climate change continues, rainfall will continue to decline and crop yields will drop further, up to 70 per cent in the worst areas.

And who is the principal perpetrator of global warming? Not the Janjaweed, and not the government in Khartoum. It is us, the industrial nations of the West. We are the guilty party.

So the question is what are we going to do about it, other than letting them kill each other until their populations have been reduced to a level the land can carry. The only response offered so far is stopping the violence. It goes without saying this is the first priority, but it is obviously not a long-range solution. We could immigrate the surplus populations, but this may be far from optimum for either them or us. The answer lies in dealing with global warming. In the medium term, this means dramatically reducing the amount of greenhouse gases we vent into the atmosphere, and in the short term, instituting massive land reclamation projects in the affected regions. In other words, we need to give them their land back, the land we are stealing from them with our profligate use of fossil fuels.

Darfur may be the first climate-change war, possibly the first of many -- yet another challenge to add to our global warming agenda.

Knighting Salman Rushdie

Britain's knighting of Salman Rushdie has predictably caused great distress in and, sadly, threats of violence from the Islamic world. Perhaps the most serious comes from a minister in the Pakistani government, Ijaz-ul-Haq, who is quoted as telling his country's national assembly, "If someone commits suicide bombing to protect the honour of the Prophet Muhammad, his act is justified." This intolerant gentleman is, as we might expect, the minister for religious affairs.

Yet again we witness the dangerous and violent passions that religion arouses. Maybe Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, et al., are right in confronting organized religion. It may simply not be wise to leave such mischievous institutions unchallenged.

Why are we opposed to a Muslim democracy in the Middle East?

As I read about our enthusiastic restoration of full relations with the Palestinians now that they have rid themselves of their democratically-elected government, I can't help but wonder why we in the West are so opposed to Muslim democracy in the Middle East.

We can go back to the 1950s when the United States and Great Britain conspired with the Iranian military to overthrow the Mossadegh government and replace it with a police state under the Shah. The chickens from that atrocity are still coming home to roost in very dangerous ways today.

The most recent episode of course is our concerted and now successful effort to undermine the Hamas government in Palestine. Chosen by their people in a free and fair election with a voter turnout better than we can muster, Hamas met with nothing but scorn from the West.

The answers to why we opposed democracy in these two cases are obvious: Mossadegh was threatening our control of his country's oil reserves, and Hamas would not submit to Israel. Perhaps more difficult to answer is why we aren't satisfied in simply undermining democracy wherever it rears its head, but why we also ardently support the region's dictatorships. Egypt, whose torture chambers are notorious (a great place for renditions), receives more foreign aid from the United States than any other country in the world except for Israel. As for our very favourite dictatorship in the region, Saudi Arabia, the British government recently offended one of the basic principles of our civilization, the rule of law, so as not to interfere with its massive supply of armaments to that most misogynistic of places.

On the one hand we crush their democracies while on the other hand we generously support the dictators who oppress them. And then we wonder why some respond with rage.

Public services: the key to capitalism

One - two - three, that's the order in which Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal ranked for ease of doing business in MasterCard Worldwide's new MasterCard Worldwide Centers of Commerce Index.

MasterCard's index ranks the world's top cities in terms of their performance as centers of commerce in the global economy. It consists of six dimensions designed by a team of eight independent economic, urban development and social-science experts from leading academic and research institutions around the world. Canadian cities topped the index in the dimension "Ease of Doing Business," defined as "Availability of quality, cost-competitive trade logistics; level of interconnectedness; and ability to attract and retain talent due to a high quality of living."

"The strong performance of Canadian cities as Worldwide Centers of Commerce reinforces how fortunate we are to live and do business here," said Kevin Stanton, president of MasterCard Canada. "Canadian cities stand shoulder-to-shoulder with leading global economic centres."

The criteria that made Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal the top three in the world included "a strong national health care system, excellent infrastructure, low traffic and easy access to public transportation." The index illustrates how good public services are essential in making cities good places to do business, i.e. to do capitalism. Investing heavily in items like health care and public transportation doesn't just make for better living for people, it makes for better business opportunities. It makes us, if you'll forgive the somewhat clichéd expression, more competitive in the global marketplace.

It's no coincidence that high tax regimes in northern European countries produce both prosperous economies and high social standards. As MasterCard's index demonstrates, it's precisely what's to be expected.

For American children, every year is 9/11

As we are incessantly reminded, on September 11th, 2002, Islamic extremists flew planes into the World Trade Center in New York and into the Pentagon, killing up to 3.000 people. As a result, President Bush declared a war on terror.

What we are rarely reminded of is that that many children are killed by firearms in the United States every year, about two-thirds of them homicides. That's not once in all of history, but each and every year. Yet, curiously, the U.S. administration has not declared a war on guns. On terror, yes, and of course on drugs, but not on guns, even though American children are 16 times more likely to be killed by firearms than children in 25 other industrialized nations averaged together.

If George W. Bush's first concern was the security of the American people, as he so often claims, clearly he would be waging a war on guns in his own country rather than a war on terror internationally. Indeed, not doing so seems inconsistent, even perverse, yet it is in fact perfectly consistent. Waging a war on terror is the macho thing to do, and packing guns is the macho thing to do, so a war on the former and a peace pact with the latter meshes perfectly with the mores of a macho administration.

The death of 3,000 children a year is simply collateral damage.

"The hanging gardens of Halliburton"

Babylon is being turned into an archaeological desert.

In an article in the Guardian, Simon Jenkins describes the rape and pillage of the heritage treasures of Iraq under the American occupation. The greatest storehouse of ancient human history faces two assaults: first, the trampling of archaeological sites by the heavy boot of the American military and, second, the unrestricted looting carried out by thieves operating with impunity in a climate of chaos.

It may seem callous to worry about artifacts -- mere things -- when tens of thousands of people are dying and millions are turned into refugees, but we aren't talking about any old archaeological dig here. This is the birthplace of our civilization. This is where intensive agriculture began, where the first city states arose, where written language and arithmetic were invented along with the wheel and the plough, where time was first measured with clocks and 12-month calendars, and where the first codified systems of law and administration were developed.

We are witnessing one of the greatest acts of vandalism in history. And as trivial as vandalism may be relative to human suffering, this one is nonetheless a crime against all of us.

Kudos to Dara Fresco and friends

Earlier this week, Dara Fresco, a head teller with the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, launched a $600-million class-action lawsuit against her employer. Ms. Fresco launched the suit on behalf of 10,000 of her colleagues who regularly work overtime for which they aren't paid.

And it's about time. Statistics Canada reports that over 1.6 million Canadians worked unpaid overtime in April. Almost a quarter of the work force regularly puts in over eight hours a day but only ten per cent gets paid for it.

Employees are protected against unpaid overtime by labour laws, but it isn't difficult to have them "volunteer" for overtime when employers can hold promotions, raises, or even just keeping their jobs, over their heads. And a round of layoffs, real or threatened, is often enough to whip recalcitrant employees into line.

And why wouldn't employers take advantage? Keeping costs down and profits up is the name of the capitalist game. Without the occasional swift kick, employers will push their advantage to the limit. Ms. Fresco's courageous suit may just deliver the kick business seems in need of at the moment. Similar suits in the U.S. have squeezed huge retroactive overtime payments to employees out of a number of companies including $78-million out of Wal-Mart's Pennsylvania stores.

Incidentally, after ten years with the bank, Dara was making the princessly sum of $30,715 a year. She claims she is owed $50,000 for unpaid overtime. She deserves every penny. Plus interest, of course -- at the bank's top mortgage rate.

Quebec's carbon tax may just work

Quebec has announced it will implement Canada's first carbon tax in October. The tax will be applied to gasoline, diesel fuel and heating oil at just under a penny a litre and collected from petroleum companies.

Natural Resources Minister Claude Bechard said he hopes the companies will pay the tax without passing the cost on to consumers. If Mr. Bechard's vain hope was somehow fulfilled, and the companies absorbed the cost themselves, the tax would do nothing to discourage people from driving. The minister is quoted as saying, "Every Quebecer has a responsibility." He then institutes a tax that is designed to relieve every Quebecer except the petroleum companies of that responsibility.

But of course Mr. Bechard is just playing politics. He knows full well the companies will pass the cost on to the consumer. They pass all their costs on to the consumer.

So, despite Mr. Bechard's political gamesmanship, the tax will add to the cost of gasoline and should therefore discourage driving. The more someone drives, the more they pollute, and the more they will pay. Each will be accountable, each will pay for his or her own mess. Just as it should be.

If the $200 million a year the tax is expected to raise goes toward energy-saving initiatives such as public transit, as the Quebec government promises, it will be a model and a challenge for the rest of the country.

Television, advertising and the CRTC

In an editorial in Monday's Globe and Mail, the writer suggests the CRTC, who he or she (will editorial writers hide forever behind anonymity?) refers to condescendingly as “a bunch of civil servants,” should not be setting the advertising limits for television. Rather, he (or she) insists, viewers should do this via the magic of the remote control.

The writer is being disingenuous. He (or she) knows perfectly well if the viewing public could choose the amount of advertising on TV, they would choose none. This, the broadcasters, who are instruments of advertisers, could not abide. They will thus dismiss the viewers most meaningful choice and offer them only those options amenable to their own narrow interests. Such is often the working of the “free” market.

A good example is the BBC, a service the market could never provide. A truly meaningful alternative to the sameness of commercial broadcasting, the BBC not only operates without advertising, it is probably the finest broadcaster in the English-speaking world.

If the CRTC doesn’t set the limits on TV advertising, network executives will. I fail to see how giving this right to “a bunch of corporate servants” is better for the public interest than leaving it to “a bunch of civil servants.” Not surprising the editorial writer would think so, though; after all, Globe editors are corporate servants themselves.

Norway: land of peace and plenty

Not only is Norway one of the world's most prosperous nations, it has now been ranked the world's most peaceful by the Global Peace Index. The index, compiled by The Economist with a team of international experts, ranked 121 countries on the basis of 24 indicators which measured ongoing national and international conflicts, national safety and security, and militarization.

New Zealand and Denmark came second and third. Canada ranked eighth -- not bad. Rock bottom, not surprisingly, was reserved for Iraq. Our wayward neighbour to the south, instrument of Iraq's woes, managed to break the top 100, but barely, at 96th.

So kudos to Norway. What with its vigorous economy (its petroleum-based heritage fund is now worth over $300-billion), it sounds like a very nice place to be indeed.

The catch-22 of Omar Khadr

Omar Khadr is the young Canadian who was captured by the Americans in their war in Afghanistan. He fought heroically. The last survivor of a five-hour battle, he was subdued only after being seriously wounded (he is now blind in one eye). Before succumbing to his injuries, he threw a grenade that killed one GI and wounded others.

Omar can hardly be blamed for his actions. He was only fifteen at the time, a victim of brain-washing in extremist Islam since his birth. He was sent to Afghanistan by his father. And he was, after all, fighting in a war. Nonetheless, the Americans intend to try him for murder.

But how, you might well ask, can he be tried for murder for killing an enemy soldier during a war? Well, the Americans answer, he isn't a prisoner of war, he is an "unlawful combatant," a term invented by the U.S. administration to circumvent the Geneva Convention.

Now, the Americans have declared that if he is acquitted of the charges, they can hold him indefinitely anyway. Why? Well, they say because the war on terror isn't over and convention allows them to hold captives until a war ends. But if he was captured in a war on terror (their words), and he is held indefinitely because the war continues, mustn't he be by definition a prisoner of war?

So this is Omar's predicament. He can be tried for murder because he isn't a prisoner of war. If he's convicted, he could be sentenced to life in prison. But if he's acquitted, he can still be imprisoned indefinitely because he is a prisoner of war. Catch-22.

How sad that Joseph Heller isn't still with us. He would have appreciated yet another example of his famous phrase in action.

Why are subsidizing these counterfeit Canadian TV networks?

The two private Canadian TV networks, CTV and CanWest, recently went on a huge buying spree in the U.S., continuing their trend to spend more on American shows than on Canadian. CanWest alone bought 13 new U.S. dramas. They did announce one Canadian production -- set in Boston.

In 2006, private broadcasters spent $478.6 million on drama, a 15 per cent annual increase, for American shows, and just $70.9 million, a 16 per cent decrease, for Canadian shows. That's seven times as much. As for overall programing, they spent $686 million on foreign programs in 2006, $619 million on Canadian programs.

Every penny the networks receive, they receive from Canadians. Their revenue depends entirely on advertising and of course the source of all advertising revenue is us, the buying public. Every time we buy something, we pay for the cost of advertising the product, and therefore, whether we like it or not, we pay for the mass media (and yes, that includes the daily press). We have no choice, at least not if we want to buy food, clothing, gas for our car, and all those other mundane things. Unfortunately, this coercive subsidizing of corporate media we can do nothing about.

Government handouts to media we can do something about. Canada's broadcasters receive over $200 million a year in public support from the Canadian Television Fund, Telefilm Canada, and several provincial tax supported programs. Considering that we already subsidize all their expenses via advertising, handing out another $200 million ventures beyond generosity into foolishness. That money should be spent on programming for the one truly Canadian network, the CBC.

Is fighting global warming a lost cause?

Yet another article in my daily paper has me wondering if exercising environmental responsibility, and fighting global warming in particular, isn't delusional.

The article in question had to do with house size in the United States. As the average number of people per household declines, now down to 2.6, the houses they live in get bigger. The fastest growing house type in the country is those with five or more bedrooms. The average new house is now 2,434 square feet. That's almost 1,000 square feet per person -- what are those 2.6 people doing in all that space? Do they ever run into each other? And why do they each need two bedrooms?

So as I truck down to the recycling bin with my little collection of newspapers, cans and bottles, am I kidding myself? Are my efforts for the year undone with the building of just one more monster house?

Maybe the only sensible thing to do is get in on the hedonism. Drive the big SUV, buy the big house, fill it up with stuff, and enjoy, enjoy, enjoy. Life is short, you only live once, let the future take care of itself, etc., etc. Or maybe I just got out of the wrong side of bed this morning.

First the Cloverdale Rodeo, next the Calgary Stampede?

To its credit, the Cloverdale Rodeo in suburban Vancouver has dropped four events from its program. Calf roping, team roping, steer wrestling and the cow-milking race will no longer be part of the "fun." Finally, somebody in this questionable business has recognized that tormenting animals for pleasure is not perhaps the most humane thing to do. Other events will continue, but this is at least a start.

Debra Probert, executive director of the Vancouver Humane Society, has this to say about rodeo: "They're exploiting the reaction of animals to pain, fear and stress. They harass them. They kick them. They goad them. ... they harass them into acting like wild animals." All true, of course.

As a Calgarian, I am embarrassed each July when our internationally famous Stampede, "the greatest outdoor show on Earth," features the torment of innocent animals as prime entertainment. And it appears I will continue to be embarrassed. A spokesman for the Calgary Stampede & Exhibition stated they don't anticipate eliminating any events, claiming, "The Calgary Stampede is passionate about the proper treatment of animals."

So the cruelty will continue. Ya-hoo!

The Manitoba voter -- an analysis

The Manitoba NDP won a convincing victory on Tuesday, capturing their third term in a row while winning more seats each each time out. The results depended on some interesting demographics, as revealed by a Winnipeg Free Press/Global TV survey conducted just prior to the election.

Not surprisingly, women were much stronger NDP supporters than men. Forty-eight per cent intended to vote NDP with only 34 per cent supporting the Conservative opposition. Men were much more evenly split at 41 per cent NDP, 40 per cent Conservative.

Voters over 55 showed majority support for the NDP (51 per cent) compared to 34 per cent for the Conservatives. Youth on the other hand, those between 18 and 34, narrowly went the other way, 41 per cent Conservative, 37 per cent NDP. Those in-between sided with their elders, 47 per cent NDP, 37 per cent Conservative.

Interestingly, income made little difference with all groups from rich to poor favouring the NDP at a ratio roughly 1.2 to 1. University-educated voters, on the other hand, showed a strong preference for the NDP, 48 per cent to 33 per cent, while those with less than university education split about evenly between the two parties.

Town and country made a major difference. Winnipeg voters, particularly in the inner city, strongly preferred the NDP, 51 per cent to 29 per cent. In the rural areas, the picture reversed with the Conservatives topping the NDP 49 per cent to 34 per cent. Liberal support varied little, 17 per cent in Winnipeg and 15 per cent in the countryside.

So that's the picture. NDP voters are more likely to be women, over 30, university educated, and urban. And, of course, they are more likely to vote for the winning party.

Is George Bush fulfilling Osama's dream?

According to Lawrence Wright, author of The Looming Tower, a history of the events leading up to 9/11, Osama bin Laden's master plan was to do a Soviet Union on the U.S. He would provoke the Americans into invading Afghanistan where they would be humiliated by the mujahedeen. The collapse of the United States would quickly follow. That, after all, was what happened to the Soviets.

But he spectacularly miscalculated. He drew the Americans into Afghanistan all right, but instead of being humiliated, they nearly destroyed al Qaeda. And if they had pressed on, they probably would have. But of course they didn't. Inexplicably, they eased off and threw their efforts into Iraq instead.

The result, of course, has been the fulfillment of bin Laden's plan. So far, at least. The Americans are being humiliated while Islamic extremists grow in numbers and expertise. But will the final phase of his plan come about -- the collapse of the United States? The war has bitterly divided Americans, but collapse? Of course not. Nonetheless, things could get very much worse.

Bush and his neocon advisers have not only precipitated bloody chaos in Iraq, they are destabilizing the region. Forty to fifty thousand refugees are fleeing Iraq every month, mainly to Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, and these countries simply cannot sustain such a migration. Just feeding them and providing shelter is a huge burden. The refugees often face tough restrictions that prevent them from finding work or gaining access to health care and other public services. As they become increasingly angry and bitter, they will increasingly threaten the stability of their host nations.

No, the US. will not collapse, but Iraq has and much of the rest of the Middle East could follow. The stage is being set, by the United States no less, for a triumphant surge of militant Islam in the Middle East. Osama must be smiling in his cave.

Paul Wolfowitz -- neocon to the end

So they didn't have to drag Paul Wolfowitz kicking and screaming out the front door of the World Bank after all. I would say he had the decency to resign; unfortunately he didn't resign decently. Admitting to no sins, offering no apologies, he had, according to The Globe and Mail, "only praise for himself."

He exhibited the same arrogance, the same self-righteousness, the same contempt for the opinions of any who had the temerity to disagree with him, that was characteristic of the neocons who led the United States into the Iraq debacle, of which he was a chief architect.

The damage he has done to the Bank is serious but should be easily reparable. Not so reparable is the damage done to the influence of the United States on the Bank's affairs. The disenchantment of the Europeans is manifest, and already the right of the Americans to appoint the president is being challenged.

This is symptomatic of what the neocons have done to their country. They have not just created immediate problems but have done deep damage to their country's interests. The next administration will have a big repair job on its hands.

NATO - the new arm of empire?

NATO's Director of Policy Planning Jamie Shea has announced his organization is considering deploying sea-borne rapid-reaction forces to help private oil firms. So far, NATO has been in discussions with Shell and BP. "We are looking very actively at using our maritime resources ... to see how we can link up with oil companies," Shea said. This could mean sending forces to Africa, Asia and the Middle East to protect oil company facilities. NATO has also approached Qatar about securing its liquified natural gas facilities and may approach Saudi Arabia. All this, of course, is in the name of energy security.

First the North Atlantic, then the world.

Holding the bully's coat

The Bush administration is doing it again. They will persist in picking fights. And we apparently are, to borrow Linda McQuaig's phrase, prepared to hold the bully's coat.

As host of next month's annual summit meeting of the G8 industrial powers, Germany has prepared a strong declaration on climate change which includes pledges to limit global temperature rises to 2C this century and reduce world greenhouse gas emissions to 50% below their 1990 levels by 2050. A modest goal, yet according to Reuters news service, the United States has "rejected any mention of targets and timetables, don't want the UN to get more involved and refuse to endorse carbon trading because it must by definition involve targets." Yup, sounds like the Bush administration. And apparently our benighted government intends to support the U.S. position.

In addition to pushing for an ambitious plan to combat global warming following a European Union deal earlier this year, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has also made a sincere attempt to improve Germany's relations with the United States. With their opposition to her initiative on global warming, the Bush people could undermine that budding relationship before it blossoms. This administration seems bent on alienating its friends.

Nothing is more important than dealing with global warming, and the United States produces more greenhouse gases than any other country. This is an opportunity for Americans to show some responsibility and support Chancellor Merkel's proposal. They could even show some leadership and propose even tighter targets than the Germans. But no, they refuse even to follow, never mind lead.

And, sadly, we will tag along behind. Holding their coats.

Gouged at the pumps: good or bad?

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has issued a report claiming oil companies are overcharging us to fill up our gas tanks. Even if they are right, I admit to ambivalence.

Of course I don't want to see consumers ripped off. Nor do I believe corporations should profit through oligopoly rather than through honest competition. But I also recognize the higher gas prices go, the less gas people will use, and isn't reducing consumption the best way to reduce greenhouse gas production?

I also recognize the price of gas deceives us about the real cost of driving a car. If we had to pay directly for all the associated costs, including tax subsidies to the oil industry, the full cost of transportation infrastructure, the cost of policing roads, and the vast range of environmental, health and social costs created by environmental degradation and urban sprawl, the price of a litre of gas would be many times the current pump price.

So if the price of gas is artificially high because of the oil oligopoly, drivers are still getting a free lunch, and a hearty one at that. If environmental damage and urban sprawl are mitigated even a little, the higher price certainly isn't all bad. Making progress requires picking the right battles. I'm not sure the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives chose well in this case.