We regret to inform you that executions may be delayed

Bad news for American supporters of capital punishment. The pharmaceutical company Hospira reported it has suspended the production of Pentothal because it is unable to obtain enough of the drug's essential ingredients. Pentothal, or sodium thiopental, used as an anaesthetic in hospital operations, is one of the three drugs that make up the cocktail for lethal injections, Americans' favourite form of legal execution. Hospira is the sole producer of the drug.

Executions have already been postponed in Oklahoma and Kentucky, and Arizona and California are expecting delays. Oklahoma has enough sodium thiopental to kill one of the two inmates scheduled to die, but faces the awkward business of which one. Flip a coin, perhaps?

Some capital punishment supporters suspect that Hospira has an ulterior motive -- that it is attempting to avoid its products being used to kill people. Although the company insists the current shortage is due to a problem with supply, it has also stated, "The drug is not indicated for capital punishment, and Hospira does not support its use in this procedure," so maybe it is up to some altruistic mischief. Director of the Death Penalty Information Centre, Richard Dieter, observed, "There will be more of these sorts of problems so long as you try to use a medical method for executions."

All hope is not lost for the executioners, however. Texas, apparently, has ample supplies of Pentothal on hand.

Got a question about religion? Ask an atheist

A recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life offered some intriguing results. The survey of 3,412 Americans indicated that atheists and agnostics were the most knowledgeable about religion. They were closely followed by Jews and Mormons and then more distantly by evangelical Christians. Out of 32 religious knowledge questions, atheists/agnostics answered, on average, 20.9 correctly, Jews 20.5, Mormons 20.3 and evangelicals 17.6. The survey average was 16.

While Mormons and evangelicals knew more about Christianity, Jews and atheists/agnostics knew more about other religions. Curiously, even though the United States is perhaps the most religious country in the West, many Americans know little about the major religions, including their own. For example, while two-thirds of Americans believe school teachers are not legally allowed to read from the Bible, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated the Bible may be taught for its “literary and historic” qualities as long as it is part of a secular curriculum.

Part of the reason that atheists and Jews know more about religion is because they are better educated. (The survey indicated that education is the single best predictor of religious knowledge.) "However," the survey goes on to say, "even after controlling for levels of education and other key demographic traits ... Atheists/agnostics and Jews stand out for high levels of knowledge about world religions other than Christianity, though they also score at or above the national average on questions about the Bible and Christianity."

If you want to check your own knowledge of religion, you can find the survey here. And how did this atheist blogger do on the test? I'm not saying. Suffice it to say I did better than the average atheist.

Will our government do right by "Hoder"?

Blogging is an entertaining but, as an influence in world affairs, an overrated medium. It provides vast quantities of opinion but little hard news. For that we must still rely on conventional news sources, principally the always dependable daily press, in hard copy or on line. Blogging, it seems to me, is rather like a vast letters-to-the-editor page.

Nonetheless, it is taken very seriously indeed in some quarters. For instance, Iran. The Iranian authorities, in yet another display of bloody-mindedness toward those who don't appreciate their divine truths, have sentenced blogger Hossein Derakhshan to 19 years in prison. Derakhshan -- online name of "Hoder" -- is widely referred to as the "blogfather" of Iranian blogging for helping pro-democracy activists use the web in Farsi to promote their cause.

Derakhshan, a Canadian and Iranian dual citizen, was sentenced for co-operating with hostile countries, spreading propaganda against the establishment, promoting counter-revolutionary groups, insulting Islamic thought and religious figures and managing obscene websites. In other words, for being a pain in the ass to a bunch of self-righteous mullahs. Apparently the prosecutors in the case wanted the death penalty. No doubt if he was a female blogger they would have wanted him stoned to death.

The Canadian government now has the responsibility, both because Derakhshan is a Canadian and because we should defend freedom of speech, to work for his freedom and his return to Canada. They should be able to perform their duty here -- after all the man isn't a Khadr.

Britain - a sensible new foreign policy?

The speech by Britain's deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, to the UN General Assembly appeared to set out a new foreign policy for the U.K., a policy along much more civilized lines than that of the infamous Tony Blair and his New Labour government.

Clegg stated, for instance, that "The United Kingdom will also show leadership by example. As fierce advocates of the international rule of law, we will practice what we preach. No nation can insist on the law, and then act as though it is above it." This is of particular interest given Clegg's belief, vigorously stated in the British House of Commons, that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. It should also mean that Britain will provide less encouragement to the United States for its gratuitous military adventurism.

He also promised that Britain would be more multilateral in its approach to international issues. Consistent with this, he suggested the UN Security Council add permanent seats for Brazil, Germany, India, Japan and Africa.

Clegg declared that terrorism and conflict are best dealt with by debate and persuasion, insisting that "Democracy cannot be created by diktat." The UN Human Rights Council, he suggested, should be strengthened to deal with "outrageous abuse" of human rights. A greater emphasis on peaceful means of expanding democracy and human rights throughout the world, particularly through the offices of the UN, will be welcome after New Labour's self-righteous militarism.

This new approach, suitable to a Liberal Democratic party and indicative of his party's influence in Britain's coalition government, is a pleasing change indeed.

Ahmadinejad preaches conspiracy theory and gets a hearing

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has gotten himself into the headlines again, something he's very good at. This time for supporting the popular conspiracy theory that 9/11 may have been orchestrated not by al-Qaeda but by the American administration.

I'm not much for conspiracy theories myself, so I think Ahmadinejad is just doing his usual piss-off-the-Israelis-and-the-Americans shtick. But then he's not preaching to me. He's preaching to the Middle East. And there his words will earn a friendlier reception.

He is quite wrong when he claims that most Americans, as well as most people in other parts of the world, agree that elements within the U.S. government orchestrated 9/11 in order to "reverse the declining American economy" and to justify US military operations in the Middle East to "save the Zionist regime." According to a 2008 world public opinion study carried out by the University of Maryland, only 15 per cent of the people in the 17 countries studied believed the U.S. government carried out the attacks.

The Middle East is another matter.  In Egypt, only 12 per cent thought the Americans were responsible, but 42 per cent believed Israel was. Only 16 per cent blamed al-Qaeda. In Jordan, 31 per cent blamed Israel with only 11 per cent blaming al-Qaeda. And in Turkey almost as many accused the U.S. (36 per cent) as accused al-Qaeda (39 per cent). Among the Palestinians, al-Qaeda was the most likely culprit (42 per cent), but the U.S. (27 per cent) and Israel (19 per cent) were high on the list. Ahmadinejad's rantings obviously get a hearing in this part of the world

President Obama Obama lashed out at Ahmadinejad's view, claiming it contrasts with that of the Iranian people. But judging by the above results, he might be wrong. This wouldn't be the first time the Americans have misjudged the attitudes of people in the Middle East. Just such a blunder helped lead them into the Iraq debacle.

The good news is that Americans aren't spending

Many politicians and economists alike are decrying the fact that Americans have rediscovered thrift. After a decades-long binge of maxing out their credit cards, American consumers are deciding to put a little more in the bank, or under their mattresses, or wherever.

Americans' personal savings rate had dropped from around 10 per cent in the 1970s to zero by the time the recession hit, but has now been over five per cent for almost two years. Before the recession, Americans bought on average 16.6 million vehicles a year. The forecast for 2010 is 12 million, and passenger cars have largely replaced SUVs and pickup trucks. Of course, much of the reduced spending is due to unemployment; nonetheless there seems to be a mood of thrift in the country and it seems to be increasing. While promoters of endless growth complain that all this saving will not help lift the economy out of recession, those who believe there are limits to growth are encouraged. The Earth is finite after all.

Although most economists believe this is temporary and Americans will eventually return to their free-spending ways, it is possible, remotely perhaps but possible nonetheless, that Americans, and the rest of us, will come to our senses before we consume ourselves into environmental collapse.

Well ... we can always dream.

Tea Partyers - the useful idiots of capitalism

Back in the bad old days of the Cold War, one frequently heard the expression "useful idiots." The term described people in the West who sympathized with Soviet communism naively believing it to be a force for good. The Soviet Union cynically used them even as it held them in contempt.

This term now applies perfectly to the Tea Partyers. They ardently support the neo-liberal dogma of unfettered markets and small government, assuming naively that power removed from government devolves to the people. Unfortunately, it doesn't. It is absorbed by those best positioned to absorb it, and that is usually the rich, particularly the corporate sector.

We have just experienced a clear and powerful example of exactly that. I refer of course to the financial and economic collapse triggered by Wall Street greed. U.S. governments stripped themselves of power in the financial sector by increasingly deregulating the industry. Did this power devolve equitably to the American people? Hardly. It was assumed by bankers who used it to fabulously enrich themselves at the expense of the public. Not only did ordinary Americans not gain possession of the power government gave away, they were exploited by those who did get it. And then they were plunged into the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression. So much for the virtues of small government.

The chief beneficiaries of reduced government handsomely fund those who do the dirty work. A recent article in The New Yorker describes how the immensely rich Koch brothers, Charles and David, have donated over a hundred million dollars to a vast network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups dedicated to reducing the size of government. The Koches are the richest men in the United States after Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Heavily invested in energy and chemicals, they have even outspent ExxonMobil in funding organizations fighting climate change legislation. (Koch Industries is one of the top ten air polluters in the U.S.) A former Koch adviser bluntly described their approach, “They’re smart. This right-wing, redneck stuff works for them. They see this as a way to get things done without getting dirty themselves.”

While David Koch insists, “I’ve never been to a Tea Party event. No one representing the Tea Party has ever even approached me,” the Americans for Prosperity Foundation -- an organization he started -- has worked closely with the Tea Party from the beginning. It helps educate Tea Party activists on policy details, offers them “next-step training” after their rallies, and provides them with lists of elected officials to target.

Tea Partyers fit every criteria of the definition of useful idiots. They believe the neo-liberal philosophy of unfettered markets and small government is a force for good when it is, for ordinary citizens, a recipe for economic disaster. Those who do benefit cynically use people like the Partyers to enhance their own power and greed.

Like the useful idiots of communism, the Tea Partyers are well-intentioned. They genuinely feel they have found the holy grail of political and economic salvation. But, also like the useful idiots of communism, they unwittingly serve powerful masters much more sophisticated and much more devious than they.

Want to build a church in Indonesia? Good luck!

We have heard a great deal about mosque-building recently. Locals in American towns such as Murfreesboro,Tennessee, Sheboygan, Wisconsin, Temecula, California, and of course, New York, are objecting to the building of mosques in their communities. Not to be outdone by Christian bigots, Muslims in Indonesia are protesting the building of a church in a suburb of Jakarta.

Government regulations require that anyone intending to build a house of worship in Indonesia obtain permission from the local community. In a country overwhelmingly Muslim, that can create a major challenge for Christians. Nonetheless, this congregation insists they had enough signatures until hard-line Muslims convinced some of those who had signed to change their minds.

The moderate majority in Indonesia supports the rights of Christians to build churches and is concerned about the rise of "angry Islam." Moderates in the United States similarly support the right of all faiths to worship freely. The reputations for religious tolerance in both countries are now under siege from the "true believers." The trouble with religion is that too many people take it too seriously.

Murder, infanticide and the psychology of crime

A recent news item about a teenager suffering from postpartum depression who admitted to smothering two of her babies caught my eye. She had been accused of first degree murder, but her trial judge reduced the charge to the lesser offence of infanticide and sentenced her to one day in jail, three years probation and a 20-year peace bond. Crown prosecutors intend to argue in an appeal that L.G. should be convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.

According to University of B.C. law professor Isabel Grant, "What the Crown is saying is that if a woman intended to kill her child, murder is the only option." She claims that prosecutors across the country are taking a hard line, arguing that "the circumstances that led to the crime of infanticide don't exist any more."

Perhaps they don't, but postpartum depression certainly does. L.G.'s lawyer, Timothy Breen, states that Parliament includes infanticide in the law because it presumes that "a mother would not intentionally kill her child unless she were suffering from a disturbed mind." That L.G. was suffering from a disturbed mind is to be expected. Her parents were emotionally unstable alcoholics who separated when she was a child. Her mother ultimately committed suicide. According to an article in Psychology Today, "In almost every case of significant adult depression, some form of abuse was experienced in childhood, either physical, sexual, emotional or, often, a combination."

If L.G. committed her crimes because of such a background, then punishing her is to some extent punishing her for being a victim. And this I suggest is what we commonly do. Psychopaths, for instance, who make the worst of criminals, are commonly the product of abusive infancies and childhoods. According to Dr. Arthur Becker-Weidman of the Center For Family Development in New York, "Abused and neglected children have poorly integrated cerebral hemispheres. This poor integration of hemispheres and underdevelopment of the orbitofrontal cortex is the basis for such symptoms as difficulty regulating emotion, lack of cause-effect thinking, inability to accurately recognize emotions in others, inability of the child to articulate the child’s own emotions, an incoherent sense of self and autobiographical history, and a lack of conscience." Psychopaths are victims who in turn create victims.

Is it justice, then, to punish victims for being victims? Obviously if they are a danger to others, they must be constrained, but should they be constrained by a criminal justice system or by a mental health system? In the case of L.G., confining her in prison for life, as the Crown wants to do, seems medieval, yet she can't be allowed to go on killing babies. The answer would seem to lie in an approach that monitors her carefully and provides her with the therapy and training to help her be a good parent.

Not all that long ago, we were at a loss as to what to do with the mentally ill, so we locked them up in "madhouses" where they were often cruelly misused. We have greatly progressed since then. Yet we still have a long way to go in dealing appropriately with mental illness that manifests itself in what we term criminal behaviour. It requires a combination of justice, compassion and subtlety that currently eludes us.

"During war there are no civilians"

"During war there are no civilians." The words of an Israeli Defence Forces training unit leader testifying at the Rachel Corrie trials being held in Haifa.

Rachel Corrie was killed by a bulldozer while she and other members of the nonviolent International Solidarity Movement were attempting to prevent demolition of Palestinian homes by the Israeli military on March 16, 2003 in Rafah in the Gaza Strip. Her parents are suing the Israeli government, claiming it was an intentional act, a view denied by the Israelis.

This open admission of an indiscriminate policy towards civilians, Palestinian or foreign, shocked many in the courtroom, but it is hardly surprising after Israel's invasion of Gaza in 2009 when Israel killed 1,400 Gazans, including 400 children. It does, however, prompt a question about terrorism. If it truly is Israel's policy that "during war there are no civilians," and one would have to assume it is if an Israeli military spokesman testified to it in a court of law, then how can Israel claim that terrorist attacks on its civilians are illegitimate?

If Hamas, or any other group considers itself to be at war with Israel, then purposely killing civilians, i.e. terrorism, would seem to be a legitimate strategy. Whether or not the group is pursuing a legitimate cause is of course another matter, but considering the situation of the Palestinians -- both their oppression by Israel and their lack of military means to do much about it -- their cause would seem to be very legitimate indeed.

When we contemplate a terrorist attack by Palestinians against their oppressor, we should therefore keep in mind they are using a weapon that Israel itself has apparently legitimized.

A new look

Google has come up with a nifty new template designer and I felt obliged to give it a go. The result, for better or worse, is the new look you see before you. Note the tabs.

Unfortunately, you will be stuck with the same old writing style, but at least it will, I hope, have a prettier face. I hope you will find the transformation tolerable and continue to find something of interest in these pages.

If only the Pentagon would pulp my books

Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer of the U..S. Army Reserve is one lucky author. The colonel writes his first book and before it even hits the shelves, one customer wants to buy out the entire first printing of 10,000 copies. The customer is the United States Defence Department and it doesn't want to read the book, it wants to pulp every last copy.

In the book, Operation Dark Heart, Shaffer, a former intelligence officer, describes his participation in the "dark side" of the American military that operates outside the usual constraints. He led a group that specialized in "black ops" inside Pakistan. The army cleared the book, but when the intelligence services and defence department officials saw it they went into panic mode, allegedly identifying hundreds of passages of classified material.

The publisher, St Martin's Press, said it has offered to sell the first print run to the Pentagon. Meanwhile the publicity has sent the book soaring on the bestseller lists and it hasn't even been released yet.

It isn't fair. I've written three books and the Pentagon has never done anything for me. But then, if the price is engaging in "black ops" inside Pakistan, whatever that entails, I believe I'll pass.

Iran and the military-industrial complex

Once again the United States is fueling the fires of war in the Middle East. It has announced the sale of up to an incredible $60-billion worth of arms to Saudi Arabia. And these are offensive, not defensive, weapons. Sixty billion in arms to an oppressive dictatorship is irresponsible beyond measure. And equally hypocritical. While it excoriates the Taliban for their treatment of women, the U.S. arms the world's most misogynistic dictatorship to the teeth.

The excuse, of course, is Iran, a nation which in all its modern history has never invaded another country, unlike the United States which invades other countries routinely. And unlike Israel, the country the U.S. is ostensibly protecting, which invades its neighbours routinely. Israel, needless to say, supports the sale.

And then there's another possible reason for the deal. The products to be purchased are aircraft: fighter planes, attack helicopters, etc. This will be a bonanza for U.S. defence contractors. Boeing alone is expected to involve 77,000 jobs in 44 states in supplying the aircraft. Could this, the biggest U.S. arms sale ever, be just another stimulus program? Yet more weaponry may be just what the Middle East doesn't need, but it will provide a welcome boost to the American economy. The military-industrial complex wins another one.

Saving billions with a pharmacare plan

"Universal pharmacare touted as way to save billions," said a front-page headline in the Globe and Mail yesterday. "Universal pharmacare could save billions: study," confirmed the CBC. The headlines refer to a Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report which claims a national pharmacare plan could save Canadians almost $11-billion a year in drug costs.

The savings would come principally from adoption of a national drug-purchasing policy that combined rigorous drug assessment and price negotiations with pharmaceutical companies. New Zealand, where both per capita spending on drugs and growth in drug costs are less than half what they are in Canada, was offered as a model. Further savings would come from lower administration costs and ending tax subsidies to private plans.

The report states that our policy of setting drug prices high to encourage research and development in Canada is a failure. It results in us spending three dollars more on drugs for each dollar we generate in R&D spending.

As for the burden national pharmacare would place on public finances, the report points out that drug costs have been increasing twice as fast in private plans as in public plans. As the author of the study, Marc-Andre Gagnon of Carleton University, pointed out, "Canadians cannot afford not to have universal pharmacare."

Professor Gagnon also emphasized that a national plan would be much more equitable across the country and across social groups.

There should be no surprise here. We know from Medicare and public auto insurance that a public, single-payer system is the most efficient approach when comprehensive insurance is required. When provincial health ministers meet this week in St. John's, they should keep this fundamental fact uppermost in their minds.

We are in Afghanistan why?

The highly respected International Institute for Strategic Studies recently released its 2010 Annual Review of World Affairs. On the subject of Afghanistan it states, "Many worry that the large presence of foreign troops is what sustains and fuels the Taliban fighters." That sending thousands of troops to occupy a country might "fuel and sustain" a militant opposition is just common sense; nonetheless, it is refreshing to hear it from an institution like The Institute for Strategic Studies.

And the occupation goes well beyond provoking retaliatory violence in Afghanistan. It provokes violence from Muslim extremists everywhere, including home-grown terrorists in Canada. According to the RCMP, the latest group arrested was fueled and sustained by opposition to our military mission in Afghanistan, just as the infamous Toronto-18 gang was.

As for our stated objective of making Afghanistan a terrorist-free state, the Institute has this to say, "It is not clear why it should be axiomatically obvious that an Afghanistan freed of an international combat presence in the south would be an automatic magnet for al-Qaeda’s concentrated reconstruction. Al-Qaeda leadership, such as it is, may be quite content to stay where it is, while Taliban leaders who remained in Afghanistan might think twice of the advantages to them of inviting al-Qaeda back given the experience of the last decade." In other words, there is no good reason to think al-Qaeda would return to Afghanistan if the Taliban formed the government, but good reason to believe the Taliban wouldn't want them back.

It was always nonsensical to think we would defeat Islamic terrorism by invading Islamic countries. Simple logic tells you it's more likely to do the opposite. And it seems it has. 

What makes for a good university - not high tuition fees apparently

A recently released ranking of the world's universities by QS University Rankings announced that Cambridge University had overtaken Harvard as the world's top university. The QS rankings are based on quality of academic research, graduate employment rates, student-to-faculty ratios and international make-up of the student body and faculty.

As interesting as the comparison of the merits of the two institutions is a comparison of their fees. Tuition fees at Cambridge are the same as for all undergraduates at European Union universities: $4,126 for all courses. By comparison, the fees at Harvard are $34,918. In other words, a Cambridge student attends a better university than Harvard at a little over a tenth the cost.

What does this mean to Canadians? Well, if nothing else it suggests that higher fees don't result in better institutions, a rather important point in the fee debate.

Development lunacy in Russia

If you sometimes shake your head in dismay at the destruction of heritage for new development in this country, consider what's happening in Russia. Russian authorities plan to auction off the gardens of Pavlovsk Station to property developers. Pavlovsk Station, located near Saint Petersburg, is one of the largest, oldest and most important seed banks in the world, housing 12,000 varieties of apples, strawberries, cherries, raspberries, currants and other varieties of plants, many not found anywhere else in the world. Pavlovsk attracts scientists from around the globe seeking rare genetic material. Unlike frozen seed banks, living samples grow in its fields.

The timing of the sell-off, or sell-out, is interesting - a time when food supplies throughout the world are increasingly threatened by climate change and Russia has seen the worst drought in its history destroy much of its wheat harvest. Pavlovsk is a global, not just a Russian, treasure and its loss would be a blow to the world's scientific and agricultural communities, and result in a weakening of world food security.

The history of the seed bank and gardens is inspiring. It was founded by the brilliant geneticist Nikolai Vavilov in 1926, pioneer of the modern seed bank. During the siege of Leningrad in World War II, its scientists starved to death rather than eat the seeds that could have sustained them. Vavilov himself died of malnutrition in prison in 1943, having criticized Trofim Lysenko, Stalin's favourite agronomist. What a tragedy if their sacrifice were to be in vain, trashed by the greed and ignorance of the modern Russian state.

All is not yet lost, however. Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has ordered an inquiry into the issue. A letter to the Russian ambassador might be timely. He can be found at:

Ambassador Georgiy Enverovich Mamedov
The Embassy of the Russian Federation
285 Charlotte Street
Ottawa ON  K1N 8L5

The terrorist threat - we should not be surprised

When the 9/11 bombers did their dirty work, it was highly politically incorrect to suggest American foreign policy had contributed to the atrocity. Now that the RCMP and CSIS are busily rooting out some home-grown terrorists in our fair land, we may hear similar sentiments about our foreign policy. But let's face it, we are part and parcel of Western behaviour, including that of the American empire, and the West has given the Islamic world much cause for hostility. Some examples:

• We North Americans continue to unilaterally support Israel as it persists in its oppression of the Palestinians and the theft of their land.
• The West generously supports dictators who oppress their Arab populations, notably the Sauds of Arabia and Mubarek of Egypt. Egypt continues to receive more foreign aid from the United States than any other country except Israel and Iraq.
• The Americans and their allies claim to support democracy in the Middle East, yet when it arises they crush it, such as in Iran in the 1950s and in Palestine more recently.
• The West, particularly the U.S., persists in inflicting wars on Islam that kill large numbers of Muslims. At least 100,000 Iraqis have been killed because of the American invasion, and that only counts those killed directly, not for instance the children who have died from malnourishment and lack of medical care.

Any one of these would be cause for profound anger. Add them together and we can only wonder why there isn't a great deal more Islamic terror directed at the West.

But does all this justify killing innocents? I certainly don't think so, but then I'm not much for killing under any circumstances which puts me somewhat at odds with Western foreign policy. When the U.S. was attacked on 9/11, it used that to justify waging war on two countries. Tens of thousands of innocents have died as a result and millions turned into refugees. This makes it hard to demand of Muslims they not retaliate against the offences listed above because innocents may get hurt.

As Haroon Siddiqui wrote in a recent column in the Toronto Star, "The solution [to terrorism] is not to panic or hector the Muslim community to rein in their own - they would if they could - but rather to stop being in denial that there is no connection between the wars we wage and the terrorist mayhem that they trigger, there and here."

The NDP split - democracy as it should be

Michael Ignatieff and his Liberals, joined enthusiastically by the media, are all over Jack Layton these days because the NDP caucus is split on the future of the gun registry and some members may not vote with their colleagues. He is being told - in parliamentary jargon - to "whip" his caucus, an apt term indeed. If this tells us anything, it tells us why so many people are turned off by politics.

The NDP MPs who oppose the registry are apparently acting in accordance with the wishes of their constituents
(assuming they are listening to their women constituents as well as the men). So, here we have representatives who want to do not only what they were elected to do but quite probably what their consciences tell them to do, and their party leader is being told to punish them unless they betray both constituents and consciences.
What kind of people would accept this? If refusing to be "whipped" violated their party's core philosophy or a major policy, that would be one thing, but in this case it doesn't. In this case, as in most, they must be whipped to make the party leader look strong, to make him look like a big man who can bend others to his will, even if it offends their conscience. Only men or women without pride or self-respect would put up with that kind of treatment. And politicians, apparently, are expected to fall into that category - poodles, to be whipped into obedience. Self-respecting citizens can only look on with dismay.

But quite aside from revealing the shabby nature of politics and politicians, this kind of group-think is bad democracy. Caucus solidarity reduces most MPs to the status of cheerleaders when they enter the legislature. Our representatives deserve the right to state their views openly and freely, to vote on them just as openly and freely, and we deserve the right to measure their performance as our, not their parties’, representatives. Free votes make for a Parliament that more accurately reflects the wishes of the people, i.e. a more democratic Parliament. They can help parties work together and thus make government, particularly minority government, more effective. Caucus solidarity tends to do the opposite. As constitutional scholar C.E.S. Franks of Queen's University put it, “parties are interested in confrontation and drama, not in parliament as a legislature, or the back benches as an influence on government.”

I sympathize with Michael Ignatieff and his need to whip (how suitable that word seems) his caucus. He needs all the morale-boosters he can get. And if his MPs' integrity has to be sacrificed in the process ... well, that's politics. Frankly, I don't think Jack Layton is as desperate. I hope he will opt to respect his MPs - and the democratic process - and leave them free to vote their conscience.

White slavery or the Underground Railroad?

A comment in a Globe and Mail editorial got me thinking not simply about the Tamil boat people but about human smuggling generally. The editor roundly condemned human smuggling, referring to it is as "a form of modern-day slavery." I wondered just what kind of human smuggling he was thinking about. Smuggling women to coerce them into prostitution, certainly. That isn't called "white slavery" for nothing. But how can smuggling a refugee from conditions of oppression and persecution into a free country be considered "a form of modern-day slavery"? It is rather more the opposite: a form of modern-day liberation.

Would the Globe editor, if he were writing in the 19th century, have been so censorious of the Underground Railroad. The Railroad brought at least 30,000 blacks to Canada from the American South. The Tamil "invasion" is a trivial matter by comparison. The Railroad operated in strict violation of the fugitive slave laws of the time, yet most people today think of it as a good, indeed noble, endeavour.

The Tamils are not, like the blacks riding the Railroad, escaping slavery, of course, but they may be escaping intolerable conditions nonetheless. And for that matter, what if they are simply looking for a better life, what if they are economic refugees? How does that have anything to do with "a form of modern-day slavery"? They may incur a debt - about $50,000 apparently - but many university students graduate with greater debts than that. Starting a new life isn't always cheap. And they may be jumping a queue, but considering the queue is imposed on them, there wouldn't seem to be much reason they should accept it.

The Globe editorial concludes by insisting countries must work together "to protect impoverished migrants from those who prey on their desperation." Yet the Globe strongly supports the kind of globalization that allows corporations to prey upon impoverished and often desperate workers in countries such as China and Mexico. We might wonder who is the greater predator, the capitalist who exploits cheap labour in the Third World or the smuggler who helps the exploited move to the First World.

Ominous rumblings from Zuma

"Is the political discipline in China a recipe for economic success?" So asks South African President Jacob Zuma, currently on an official visit to the Asian nation.

Is Zuma just being polite to his Chinese hosts? Or is he taking advantage of his visit to tweak the West's nose? Certainly African leaders do get tired of the conditions and lectures attached to Western aid compared to the typically unconditional offers from China. So a little teasing of Western donors is understandable. Or is it something more ominous?

South Africa is currently beleaguered by labour strife. Strikes by public service workers are paralyzing the nation's cities and half of the country's young black men are unemployed. The relationship between Zuma's African National Congress (ANC) and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu), an ally in the anti-apartheid struggle and a kingmaker within the ANC, has sunk to a serious low. Cosatu has threatened to shut down the economy if the government doesn't agree to an 8.6% wage increase and a 1,000 rand ($144) monthly housing allowance.

Is Zuma looking at these troubles and envying the "political discipline" that China applies to its workers? The Chinese government keeps working people in line by depriving them of the freedom to associate and form strong, independent labour unions like those represented by Cosatu. And this clearly provides China with an economic advantage. Perhaps that advantage is looking good to Zuma at the moment.

Let us hope not. The Chinese leaders, despite their predilection for dictatorial discipline, do seem to keep the welfare of their people in mind. African leaders, on the other hand, have a sordid record of using any extraordinary powers they can muster to ruthlessly enhance their own interests at the expense of their people. The last thing South Africa needs is another strongman.

The American Empire: will the sun ever set?

The United State recently announced the departure of its last combat troops from Iraq. Yet 50,000 troops will remain in over 100 bases in an "advisory capacity." That is an occupation by any measure.

At one time it was said that the sun never set on the British Empire. Now Great Britain is the mere poodle of the new Anglo empire, the American version. And on this version the sun truly never sets.

The United States deploys its military on more than 700 bases in over 100 countries around the world. Add to the military the private contractors who do everything from prepare meals to carry out covert operations. And then there's the CIA, largely responsible for secret wars that extend the Empire's reach beyond occupation, including assassinations by the use of drones. These wars have been intensified under the Obama administration to the point where The New York Times recently referred to the CIA becoming a "paramilitary organization."

Much of the Empire's muscle is directed at the Muslim world, with 50,000 troops occupying Iraq, 100,000 fighting an insurgent war in Afghanistan and covert operations in a host of Arab and other countries including Algeria, Somalia, Sudan, Iran, Pakistan and Yemen. The potential for creating Islamic hostility and potentially terror would seem almost infinite. Such is the price of empire.

Perhaps as their country plunges ever further into debt, Americans will eventually begin to question the price. Perhaps they will even begin to recognize that they create the very terror that leaves them in constant fear. But there is little sign of that now. Obama seems as caught up in the web of empire as his predecessors. Iraq is a good example. He "withdraws" but leaves an occupying force of 50,000. Next year he promises to leave Afghanistan. One wonders how many tens of thousands of "advisers" will be left there. And then there's all those possibilities in Iran, Yemen, etc.. No, no sign of the sun setting any time soon.

Earth Overshoot Day arrives a month earlier

Last Saturday, August 21st, was Earth Overshoot Day. Each year, the international think tank Global Footprint Network calculates the day on which we humans have consumed as many of the Earth's natural resources as it can provide in a full year. Every year that day, "the day when humanity begins living beyond its ecological means," falls earlier, this year a full month earlier than last year.

By the Network's calculations, we first went into overshoot in 1986. Until then we were consuming resources and producing waste consistent with what the planet could produce and reabsorb. By 1996, we were using 15 percent more resources per year than the planet could supply. Now, we are using almost 50 per cent more. We are devouring the Earth.

Earth Overshoot Day is a good day to pause and reflect on our profligate ways. Those of us fortunate enough to live in the First World live a life of great indulgence. Unfortunately, our indulgence is imposing an ever-increasing ecological debt on future generations. We are enjoying our way of life largely at the cost of theirs. This reminder from the Global Footprint Network is timely indeed.

To calculate your own ecological footprint, go to http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/.

Barbaric justice - Iran vs. California

Which is the worst travesty of justice: being stoned to death for adultery or sentenced to 25 years to life for stealing food? Both are barbaric, what is surprising is the countries that impose these sentences. We could easily guess who would practice stoning: Iran, for example, or Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. But many would be surprised that the country that sentences a man to 25 years to life for stealing food would be the United States, and in the great state of California at that.

Actually, when Gregory Taylor broke into the kitchen of St. Joseph's Church in downtown Los Angeles because he was hungry, he wasn't committing his first offence. Taylor, a homeless man, had been convicted years earlier of a purse-snatching and an unarmed, failed attempt to steal a wallet. As to breaking into the kitchen, the pastor of the church testified on Taylor's behalf saying that he was often given food and allowed to sleep in the church. The priest said he was a peaceful man struggling with homelessness and crack addiction. Nonetheless, trying to pry open the door to St. Joseph's food pantry was a third offence and in California that can get you, as it did Gregory Taylor, 25 years to life.

I don't know what drove Taylor to his "life of crime," but it isn't hard to imagine. The life of another victim of California's three strikes law, Norman Williams, is illustrative. Williams' third strike was stealing a floor jack from a tow truck. His two earlier offences were burglarizing an apartment that was being fumigated and stealing some tools from an art studio. Williams was the eighth of 12 children and was raised by a binge-drinking mother who pimped him and his brothers out to pedophiles for money to buy wine. When he grew up he not surprisingly became addicted to cocaine and lived on the streets.

Both men eventually got a break, if that's the right word. With the help of a Stanford University legal clinic, both Taylor and Williams gained their freedom after serving 13 years.

Thirteen years in prison for petty theft is better than being stoned to death for adultery, but it is barbaric nonetheless. The real crime is that two men so desperately in need of help, and living in a country with more than ample resources and know-how to provide it, were instead cruelly punished for misdemeanors that were nothing more than symptoms of their distress.

Iran is a benighted theocracy; the United States is a modern democracy. Taking that into account, California's three strikes and your out doesn't look that much better than stoning.

Do we really expect refugees to queue up?

As the son of immigrants, I am intrigued by the current situation with the Tamil boat people. My parents arrived legally but, I ask myself, what if they hadn't. What if they had broken the rules? Would I hold it against them? Would I feel any less of a Canadian? The answer is no. I enjoy being a Canadian so much I would be glad they did it. Indeed I might very well feel that sneaking in added to the romance of their adventure. And indeed they may have had to sneak in if they came today. They immigrated in 1929 when anyone from the British Isles pretty well got a free pass. Today, Brits have to meet the same requirements as anyone else and my parents, not being well-educated, may not have had the skills to qualify. I am, therefore, tolerant on the subject of immigrant queue jumpers.

But the Tamils don't come as immigrants, they come as refugees, and that's quite another thing. Sensibly, one expects them to break the rules. If you were expecting a knock on the door in the middle of the night by the secret police, would you stand patiently in line waiting for a nod from the Canadian embassy? Would you take the time to apply for a passport from the state authorities? Or if you were living in a squalid refugee camp, watching your children suffer constantly from diarrhea and unable to offer them hope for the future, would you be willing to wait for years to get out if you had an alternative? I wouldn't. I'd get the hell out of there anyway I could and as quickly as I could. And I would head for any decent country that would take me in - Australia, the U.S., Canada, wherever, and I would be grateful for the sanctuary.  But queue up? Only as a last resort.

So if these Tamils are genuine refugees, I say welcome and good luck to them. If they aren't, then I expect they will be deported. In any case, I believe I'll withhold judgment until they have been duly processed.

Arabs support a nuclear-armed Iran

The Brookings Institution's annual Arab Public Opinion Poll has shown some remarkable changes in Arab views in the past year. The survey, conducted in late July in six Middle Eastern countries - Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Lebanon, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates - shows, for example, that a positive view of  U.S. President Obama has declined form 45 per cent to 20 per cent while a negative view has increased from 23 per cent to 62 per cent. This echoes the dramatic increase from last year's 15 per cent of Arabs who were "discouraged" by the U.S. administration's Middle East policy to the 63 per cent who are discouraged this year. The number who said they felt "hopeful" shrunk from 51 per cent to 16 per cent.

The survey indicated other shifting currents in the Middle East. For example, for the first time in recent years, more Arabs said they identified as Muslims rather than as citizens of their country. But most surprisingly, and most disturbingly, not only do an increasing majority believe Iran has the right to pursue a nuclear program even if it is seeking weapons, 57 per cent now say that Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would be positive for the Middle East.

As support for Obama has declined, support for Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has soared. The survey indicated he is now the most popular leader in the Arab world. Obama's fall and Erdogan's rise has no doubt been boosted by the Israeli raid on the aid flotilla. Indeed, Palestine remains the great sticking point for improved relations between the U.S. and the Arabs. Of the American policies with which the survey respondents were most disappointed, 61 per cent chose Palestine/Israel. Iraq was a distant second at 27 per cent.

An overwhelming majority of those surveyed said they were prepared for peace with Israel if it was willing to return all the territory it has occupied since the 1967 Six Day War, including East Jerusalem, but most don't believe that will happen for a long time.

It appears that until the United States leans on Israel sufficiently to push it into a fair deal with the Palestinians, American and Arab relations will either stagnate of get worse, an unhealthy situation both for the Middle East and the rest of the world.

Kenya's new constitution - a lesson for us?

Last week, 67 per cent of Kenya's electors voted for a new constitution. By all accounts, voter turnout was large and enthusiastic. Any discussion of the constitution in Canada meets with something less than enthusiasm; nonetheless, there are aspects of Kenya's new constitution that we might think about adding to ours.

Specifically, the new Kenyan constitution contains a Bill of Rights which guarantees a long list of social and economic rights. It says every child has the right to free and compulsory pre-primary, primary and secondary education. It says every person has a right to a high standard of health care, to food of acceptable quality, to clean and safe water in adequate quantities, to accessible and adequate housing and to reasonable standards of sanitation.

It has always seemed odd to me that constitutions provide for certain human rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc., while failing to provide for rights to the most fundamental needs of all: food and shelter. To which we might add, in a modern society, the right to good health care and education appropriate to one's needs and abilities. Rights such as freedom of speech are wonderful but not of much use if you are starving. First things first.

Perhaps we feel that in a country as rich as ours we don't need to guarantee our people access to sufficient nourishment and shelter, or even health and education. But our wealth just makes it that much easier to ensure every one of us has these things, so why not do so? Why not establish the proper foundation of a constitution - basic human needs?

Pomegranates and U.S. foreign policy

The Left is often accused of being anti-American. It does indeed have an anti on its shoulder, but it's often more anti-American foreign policy than anti-American. Most Lefties, and I include myself, greatly admire much about our southern neighbour, particularly when it behaves in accordance with its founding principles.

And there is even much to admire about its foreign policy when it isn't in empire mode. A recent example of this was the trade deal signed between Afghanistan and Pakistan which will allows Afghans to ship their goods across Pakistani territory to India and its vast consumer market. The Americans pushed hard for this deal and were instrumental in its consummation. Appropriately, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attended the signing.

The Afghan economy, which produces a range of goods from carpets to fruit to fine marble, will receive a huge boost. Of particular importance is its pomegranate crop. An arid area fruit that needs little or no water, foreign development workers have long insisted that it is critical to creating a reasonable alternative for poppy growers. After poppies, pomegranates are Afghanistan's most famous crop, but to get top prices farmers need access to international markets. The opening of the Indian market will be a major step in this direction.

The U.S. deserves full marks for helping to bring this deal about. This is an America the Left can love.

Conservatives and the mistrust of science

The federal government's scrapping of the mandatory long form census has been ascribed to various reasons, from Stephen Harper's selective libertarian philosophy to a sop for the Conservative hard core. Possibly all of these reasons apply to some degree or other, but not to be overlooked is the Conservatives' awkward disconnect between their policies and what science tells us about those policies. Areas of interest that serve as examples include climate change, justice and social health.

That we live on a warming planet has now been firmly established by climate change science. Yet another massive study, this one by U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has established this fact. "Unmistakable" is the word used by Derek Arndt , co-editor of the NOAA report. Nonetheless, the federal government continues to drag its feet in responding to this, the greatest challenge humanity faces. Reports like this must be inconvenient indeed for the foot-draggers, particularly in light of their unequivocal support for tar sands production.

And then there's the justice portfolio. The Conservatives propose a tough law and order regime of longer sentences and bigger prisons. Yet experts in the area tell them this is only marginally useful in keeping the public safe from crime, that there are far more effective and cheaper ways. The data that supports the experts is not welcome in the federal cabinet room.

And then there's the long form census. This presents conservatives with a particularly sticky problem. Analysis of the demographics of  a host of countries increasingly tells us that a more equitable society is a healthier society. Extensive research shows that not only do more equal societies have lower rates of heart disease, crime, drug abuse, obesity, mental illness and other social ills than less equal societies, but the rates are lower for all classes in society, the rich as well as the poor. This is graphically illustrated in the book The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better by epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. Furthermore, Wilkinson and Pickett show that the rates aren't determined by absolute levels of poverty but by relative levels within a society. These statistical relationships are not good news for conservatives. Privilege is, after all, a fundamental tenet of conservative philosophy.

That the Harper government would sabotage the integrity of the long form census is therefore hardly surprising. What political party would want government paying for knowledge that not only undermines its policies but undermines its basic philosophy into the bargain?

Of course Pakistan entertains the Taliban

WikiLeaks has, you might say, put the cat among the pigeons. One of the more disturbing elements to the powers involved in the Afghan war is the suggestion of a cozy relationship between the Pakistan military and the Taliban. This suggestion is not new of course, but it is a confirmation that is doing a pretty good job of cranking up tensions between the U.S., Afghanistan and Pakistan.

What surprises me is not that Pakistan is maintaining a rapport with the Taliban but that anybody would expect them not to. After all, back when the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were supporting the Mujaheddin in their insurgency against the Soviet Union, extremist elements were favoured because of their virulent anti-communism. And among these extremists were the future Taliban. That ties were maintained is hardly surprising.

But more to the point, Pakistan has to consider its own interests. We can wreak our havoc in Afghanistan and then go home, like the U.S. did in Vietnam. But Pakistan is at home, it has nowhere else to go. It is stuck with a rather large neighbour along a highly contentious border, and it's going to be stuck with that neighbour for a very long time. If it doesn't want to be facing a hostile government across that border, it has to prepare itself for any winner of the current civil war. And the Taliban might win. Of course, entertaining the Taliban will in turn offend Afghan President Karzai, who might also win, but the odds for the "Mayor of Kabul" don't look too good at the moment.

The rest of us are not amused. Our motives in Afghanistan are so pure, how can Pakistan not surrender itself unequivocally to our goals? Furthermore we, particularly the United States, have given billions to Pakistan and we expect loyalty in return. Haven't we paid full measure for it? Unfortunately, our expectations are simply unrealistic.

The Pakistanis have a lot of balls to juggle. Dealing with the various forces in Afghanistan, managing their own rebellious tribesmen, countering the influence of India in the region, and placating the Americans while keeping in mind the rampant hostility toward the United States among their people. They will juggle these balls to satisfy their own interests, not the Afghans', and certainly not ours. If we don't recognize this, we will set ourselves up for ever more grief.

Bull-y for Catalonia

We Calgarians have a long history of tormenting animals for entertainment. Once a year we endure the ritual of rodeo at the Calgary Stampede. Progress toward ending this primitive "sport" is glacial. I was greatly pleased therefore to read that Catalonia, a semi-autonomous region of Spain, has banned bullfighting. The Catalonia parliament voted 68 to 55 to become the first region of mainland Spain to outlaw the spectacle.

The popularity of bullfighting in Catalonia has been in decline for years. Only one bull ring remains - in the capital, Barcelona. It stages only 15 fights a year and they rarely sell out. Nonetheless, the ban is a signal victory for both animal rights and human decency.

Like rodeo, bullfighting is often defended on the basis of tradition. But tradition should never justify cruelty. According to centre-right politician Josep Rull, most Catalans agree. "The suffering and death of a living being," he said, "cannot be turned into a public spectacle."

If only we could convince Calgarians of that.

China rates the world

In yet another sign of China's emergence as an economic powerhouse, the top China-based credit rating agency, Dagong International Credit Rating Company, is challenging the dominance of the big three - Fitch, Moody's and Standard and Poor's. According to Dagong CEO Guan Jianzhong, “Intrinsically, the reason [for] the global financial crisis and debt crisis in Europe is that the current international credit rating system does not correctly reveal the debtor's repayment ability and provides the wrong credit rating information to the world." Chinese president Hu Jintao has expressed similar concerns.

Reflecting this criticism, Dagong has concluded that certain leading Western nations are no longer worthy of AAA ratings and has brought them down a peg. In its rating of 50 countries that make up 90 per cent of the world's economy, Germany has been downgraded to AA+, The United States to AA, and Britain and France to AA-. Dagong limits the top rating of AAA to Norway, Denmark, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand. Canada rates AA+, along with the Netherlands, China and Germany.

Given the failures of Western agencies in the run-up to the recent financial collapse, the Chinese seem justified in their concerns. Time will tell whether Dagong will do any better. In any case, the odds are good that it and other China-based agencies will be increasingly influential.

Whoa, Mr. Prentice, I'm not oblliged to shill for the tar sands

Recently the American organization Corporate Ethics International admitted to an embarrassing error in an anti-tar sands video they had made. The video claimed that tar sands development in Alberta was destroying an area twice the size of England. That, to put it mildly, was an exaggeration. They insisted they had meant to say just the size of England, not twice the size, although that too may be a bit of a stretch.

Naturally, and quite reasonably, federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice took umbrage. "I think they're unfair," he said, "They're disappointing, and as all other Albertans and Canadians, I'm angry about them."

Fair enough to a point but he really shouldn't presume to speak for "all other Albertans and Canadians." He then went on to say, "All Canadians really have an obligation to speak up about this and point out that we are an environmentally responsible producer of the resource." Now there he went too far. All Canadians are not obliged to defend tar sands production and a great many don't. In fact, I suspect a great many are more favourably disposed to Corporate Ethics International, despite its faux pas, than they are to tar sands producers. As an Albertan and a Canadian, that's where my sympathies lie.

I shouldn't be too harsh on Mr. Prentice. Politicians generally are all to fond of the editorial "we," but on matters affecting the future of our planet, I would prefer to speak for myself.

U.S. military spending: ensuring security or threatening it?

The U.S. defence budget for 2010 is $680-billion, an amount almost equal to the rest of the world's military spending combined. And this doesn't include such items as nuclear weapons research, pensions for military retirees and their families, interest on debt incurred in past wars, or financing of foreign arms sales. But does lavishing all these billions on armaments help to ensure Americans' security or does it undermine it?

It is hard to believe that any other nation is so threatening to the United States that this kind of muscle is justified. The only country that might be considered a great power competitor is China, and its military budget is one-ninth as large. Indeed, the major threats to the U.S. don't come from other nations, but rather from extremists groups and dealing with them doesn't require massive armaments. 9/11 didn't happen because the Americans were insufficiently armed, it happened because of a lack of intelligence. The best weapon against terrorism is good intelligence - and good police work. In fact, most of the terrorist threat against the U.S. would fade away if the Americans minded their own business a little more and interfered in other peoples' affairs a little less. There is clearly room for dramatic cuts in U.S. military spending without compromising American security.

A more important concern is the threat this excessive spending poses to the country domestically, particularly the threat to Americans' security when ill, or aging, or unemployed, or when poverty strikes. Congressman Barney Frank nicely expressed this concern when he recently said, "If we do not make reductions approximating 25 percent of the military budget ... it will be impossible to continue to fund an adequate level of domestic activity ... [American] well-being is far more endangered by a proposal for substantial reductions in Medicare, Social Security or other important domestic areas than it would be by canceling weapons systems that have no justification from any threat we are likely to face."

This threat to American well-being is already showing up in various areas. For example, maternal mortality in the U.S. is higher than in 40 other countries, and has been increasing for 20 years. The U.S. also has the highest infant mortality rate among Western nations.

Cash-strapped states such as California, threatened with mass layoffs of police, teachers and other public workers, could be greatly assisted by federal funding but enabling legislation is held up by a Senate reluctant to inflate federal debt. A bill to extend unemployment benefits is also stalled, even though the number of American workers who have gone without a job for six months or more is the highest since WWII. Defence spending rarely encounters such thrift.

Despite the deteriorating domestic scene, military spending increased this year to its highest level in 50 years. Meanwhile, from women seeking secure childbirth to people seeking a secure job, the situation worsens. If a large chunk of that defence budget were switched to domestic programs, Americans' security just might be considerably enhanced.

The clothing issue - bikini or burka?

With the French National Assembly voting 335 to 1 to deny people the right to cover their faces in public, and rumours of something similar in Quebec, the issue of appropriate dress for public appearance arises.

Personally, I don't really care what anyone wears - or doesn't wear. If someone wants to walk naked down the high street, I have no objection. The law does, however. Section 174 (1) (a) of the Criminal Code reads, "Every one who, without lawful excuse, is nude in a public place ... is guilty of an offence." Apparently the courts are tolerant in interpreting this section, however, excluding for example sunbathing at nude beaches.

One might reasonably say that Canada is quite tolerant at this end, the naked end, of the spectrum. You can't wear nothing at all, but you can wear very little. At the other end, we are even more tolerant. You can cover everything up. So is it reasonable to forbid covering everything up? Once again, I don't much care. If someone wants to walk down the high street covered in a black tent on a sweltering hot day, that's her (I must assume it's a her) burden, not mine. I just hope for her sake she's taking vitamin D supplements.

However, I don't think it's unreasonable to ban the burka. After all, if it were disallowed in Canada, we would still have an impressive range of tolerance, from almost everything uncovered to almost everything covered.

The argument of course gets all philosophical, one side saying veiled faces may be a religious imperative, the other side saying they are a symbol of the oppression of women. The latter is a strong argument, the former not so much - I suspect that, like female genital mutilation, wearing the veil is more tribal than religious. But so few women wear it that, as long as it is genuinely their choice, then what the hell, live and let live. Making a law to target a few harmless women seems like bullying to me. So although banning the burka isn't entirely unreasonable, I say let the ladies in black do their thing. And if somebody wants to stroll naked down the high street ... well, them too.

Why do we need a veterans affairs department at all?

Apparently the federal government is considering downsizing the Department of Veterans Affairs as more veterans die off and their numbers shrink. One wonders why we need such a department at all.

The usual justification is well presented by Brian Lee Cowley of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute for Public Policy, who says, "If there is one group to whom the country owes an undeniable debt of gratitude that should be manifested in solicitous attention to their needs, it would be those who risked their lives on behalf of the country." Interesting point, but the "one group" that risk their lives on behalf of the country includes more than soldiers, sailors and airmen. Many others risk their lives in the service of Canada. For example, dozens of construction workers die on the job every year, and they are literally building the future of our country. Are their lives worth less? If they are disabled on the job, as many are, do they deserve less care?

If we are a compassionate society, we should take good care of all those in need. If someone is handicapped, it shouldn't matter whether they were injured in war or when hit by a bus, the degree of support they receive should be generous and it should be equal. If an old person needs assistance, that assistance should be the same whether the recipient served in war or simply spent her entire adult life as a housewife.

Favouring war veterans over other Canadians is yet another salute to militarism, to the macho culture of warrior-worship. In an age when military toys include nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, it's time to get beyond the warrior ethos and treat all citizens equally.

A new noise bylaw for Calgary ... finally!

Finally, Calgary City Council is considering a new noise bylaw. As an inner-city resident, living on the very busy 25th Avenue SW, I am very familiar with urban noise. I accept almost all of it as part of the hustle and bustle of inner city life, the life I enjoy. Trucks can be noisy but they are engaged in the commerce of the city and, therefore, are generally tolerable. Construction can be annoying, but it too is an essential part of city life and, in any case, is generally limited to working hours. My only beef is with motorcycles.

The noise generated by motorcycles is uniquely offensive. It is exceptionally loud, particularly harsh and threatening, and often explodes with heart-stopping suddenness. And, as if all this wasn’t enough, it is completely unnecessary. Motorcycles can be effectively muffled, just as cars and trucks can. Unmuffled motorcycle noise constitutes nothing less than an assault - and should be treated as such.

I go out almost every day for lunch or coffee, most often to the cafes and pubs along 17th Avenue SW. I particularly enjoy the patios in the summer. Or at least I do until the motorcycles show up. Their ear-shattering noise ruins the patio atmosphere for everyone and almost has an older person like me worrying about a heart attack.

When Edmonton brought in a new noise bylaw, bikers complained of discrimination because it specifically mentioned motorcycles. And so it should have. If bikers don’t want to be singled out, they simply have to muffle their machines. Don't want to pay the fine, don't do the crime. Indeed I wonder if Calgary wouldn’t do better to enact a muffler bylaw rather than a new noise bylaw. Any vehicle without an appropriate muffler would be ticketed and severely fined. This would, I expect, be easier to enforce.

Many men love big, noisy machines but most seem to retain some respect for the rest of society. Those that don't make up one of society's most obnoxious minorities, a minority that deserves to be discriminated against for gratuitously inflicting their obnoxious racket on others: motorcycle racket on urbanites trying to enjoy the street life, power boat racket on cottagers trying to enjoy their lake, and snowmobile racket on hikers trying to walk peacefully in the woods. When confronted about their behaviour, as they were with the Edmonton noise bylaw, they whine that they have a right to enjoy the street, or the lake, or the woods, as much as anyone else. And of course they do, but the right to wreck everyone else's pleasure at the same time isn't necessarily included.

But I'm digressing - back to motorcycles in Calgary. I strongly support Council's initiative and encourage them to develop an effective bylaw with punitive measures sufficient to maintain 17th Avenue as the enjoyable people place it ought to be.