Whoops! -- the day Bill Clinton lost the nuclear codes

What happens if the president of the United States loses the codes that authorize him to order a nuclear attack? Apparently not much. When one of Bill Clinton's aides lost track of the codes in 2000, no one (except the aide) noticed for months. Not until the codes were due to be replaced did the Pentagon learn of the oversight. This was recently revealed in a memoir published by Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Actually the codes cannot in themselves be used to launch an attack. They are required to open the briefcase holding yet another set of codes needed to launch nuclear missiles. The briefcase is always accompanied by a military officer and kept close to the president.

It's a relief to know that the aide's incompetence couldn't have resulted in nuclear war. In fact it would have made it more difficult to start one. One can imagine a darkly humorous, Strangelovian scene with the military officer and the president desperately trying to pick the lock on the briefcase so they can fire the missiles.

That just one set of codes can't plunge the world over the edge is reassuring, but one wonders nonetheless just how many mistakes we are from nuclear Armageddon. And if an efficient country like the U.S. can fumble the codes, just thinking about what goes on in an unstable, disorganized nuclear power like Pakistan is the stuff of nightmares.

Oh, Toronto, is Rob Ford really the best you've got?

I'm a Calgarian but I am definitely not one of those Westerners with a chip on his shoulder about Toronto. I lived in Toronto at one time, loved the place and have always had a soft spot in my heart for it. However, those folks out here who think Torontonians are a bunch of smug elitists have been smirking a lot this week.

While Calgary flaunted its cosmopolitan credentials by electing an articulate, progressive, well-educated Muslim as mayor, Toronto elected a redneck buffoon. Really, people, is that the best you can do? Rob Ford? Are you kidding me?

I'm one Westerner who's willing to concede Toronto is the major centre of Anglophone culture in this country, so please don't embarrass me. Next time, try a little harder. If you need help, look to Calgary.

Calgary needs Winnipeg's election rules

With the election now behind us, this is a good time for Calgarians to reflect on the rules that govern the choosing of their civic leaders. Democracy requires, indeed essentially is, political equality, and a key factor in determining political equality is money. Sound campaign rules will therefore ensure equitable funding for candidates.

Unfortunately, the rules governing Calgary elections fail miserably to do that. Crafted by the province—cities being creatures of the provinces—the rules echo those applying to provincial elections which are the most lenient in the country. The Conservative government, beneficiary of major corporate largesse, has no intention of killing its golden geese. The most prolific of those geese is the development industry, the largest donor to both the provincial conservatives and to amenable municipal candidates.

Big spending doesn't guarantee victory, of course. In the recent Calgary election, the winner, Naheed Nenshi, was heavily outspent by his major rival, the development industry-backed Ric McIvor. Nonetheless, it is a significant factor.

Calgary might look to Winnipeg to see how to minimize the corruption of local politics by vested interests. Actually, we have to look beyond Winnipeg to the Manitoba government which recently passed the Municipal Conflict of Interest and Campaign Financing Act. Article 93.6(1) of the Act states "No person or organization other than an individual normally resident in Manitoba shall make a contribution to a registered candidate," thus taking corporations out of the election picture. The Act also amended the City of Winnipeg Charter to limit contributions to $1,500 for candidates for mayor and $750 for candidates for councillor.

If candidates collect surplus funds, the Act requires those funds be paid to the municipality and held "in trust on behalf of the candidate for use by the candidate in the next general election." In Calgary, candidates are allowed to keep their surplus funds for any purpose they like, an unfortunate incentive to exploit elections in order to line their pockets.

In order to encourage election contributions from citizens, Article 93.17(1) of the Act allows city councils to pass a bylaw that entitles donors to a credit on their municipal taxes or a rebate of part of their donation. Winnipeg offers

a 75 per cent rebate on contributions under $300. Councils are also allowed to establish programs that reimburse candidates for a part of their campaign expenses.

As Manitoba's Municipal Conflict of Interest and Campaign Financing Act demonstrates, improving democracy is possible if the will is there. In Alberta, it doesn't seem to be. Calgarians who want fair election rules must wake up their provincial politicians and point them east.

Joel Francis puts Charles Koch on notice -- I like this kid

Charles Koch and his brother David have spent many millions attempting to undermine government, particularly any government effort to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The brothers own virtually all of Koch Industries, a Wichita, Kansas, based conglomerate with annual revenues estimated at a hundred billion dollars. Koch Industries is also

one of the top ten air polluters in the United States.

True to form, the Koch boys have donated at least a million dollars to support Proposition 23, an initiative on the California ballot this November designed to stall California's landmark global warming legislation.

Now, Joel Francis, a senior at Cal State Los Angeles, has challenged Charles to a debate on his support for the Proposition. Francis has offered to take him on "anytime, anywhere in the state before election day" to give him the opportunity to explain why he is meddling with democracy in a state he doesn't live in. If Koch fails to respond by next Tuesday, Francis says he will show up at the door of Koch's office in Wichita, Kansas, to reissue the challenge in person.

 

So come on, Mr. Koch, stop hiding behind your corporate mask, put your mouth where your money is, and debate the kid.

Climate change and fundamentalist religion -- bridging the gap in Kansas

The New York Times reports on an innovative approach Kansas environmentalist have taken to get climate change deniers involved in reducing energy use. Kansans tend to be religiously and politically conservative, and suspicious of "big government," climate change scientists, and Al Gore. They have, therefore, been reluctant to respond to the challenge of global warming, many considering it just a natural cycle or even a hoax perpetrated by scientists.

Rather than give up on this benighted population, a small nonprofit group, the Climate and Energy Project, has developed an ingenious approach to gain their co-operation in reducing fossil fuel emissions. To begin with, as Nancy Jackson, chairwoman of the group, says, “ [we] don’t mention global warming, and don’t mention Al Gore.” Instead, they talk about reducing energy consumption for other reasons, such as thrift, patriotism, economic advantage or spiritual conviction, thus divorcing the issue from climate change politics.

The group initiated a competition among six Kansas towns to improve energy efficiency. They pointed out the value of keeping costs, thus taxes, down. They emphasized reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil and showed how green jobs can help support the economy and even prevent the decline of small towns. Ms. Jackson talked to local ministers about “creation care,” the obligation of Christians to act as stewards of the world that God gave them, and even provided sermons they could download from the Web.

The towns included in the competition reduced their energy use up to 5 per cent relative to other areas, a considerable success. One farmer, a climate change doubter, was so taken by the possibilities of wind power, he organized a group of local leaders who then convinced the Siemens energy company to build a wind turbine factory in the area. Siemens has promised to create up to 400 local jobs, farmers in the area will gain another source of income by leasing land for wind turbines, and land prices are rising.

What is most encouraging, even inspiring, about this breakthrough in Kansas, is not simply the benefit for the environment, although that is of great importance, but rather what appears to be two irreconcilable positions coming together by finding common ground and going on to achieve something of real value. We need a great deal more of this in all areas of public concern.

Unfortunately, it's much easier to self-righteously rant (as we bloggers tend to do) than sit down with people you generally disagree with and work out something that will work for everyone, albeit for different reasons. And unfortunately politics tends to increasingly focus more on division than compromise, with its exploitation of wedge issues, attack ads, and other instruments of hostility. Politicians and political junkies can learn from the Kansas example, both about turning people on to politics and about getting things done.

Election Calgary 2010 -- my choices confirmed

Thank you, my fellow Calgarians, for confirming my choices in yesterday's civic election. For the first time I can remember, everyone I voted for -- school trustee, alderman and mayor -- won. And what a turnout: 53.2 per cent compared to 32.9 per cent in 2007. Not the 100 per cent it should be, but a huge improvement, nonetheless.

I was particularly pleased to see the development industry's man for mayor, Ric McIvor, go down to defeat, despite the big bucks they threw in his direction (to say nothing about the support he had from Stephen Harper’s campaign team and that he's been running practically since the last election). The possibility of doing something about sprawl, Calgary's biggest challenge, is now greatly increased.

City Council should also function much more effectively with the departure of both parties to the feuding between McIvor and former mayor Dave Bronconnier.

Mayor Naheed Nenshi is truly a fresh face in the Calgary civic arena and his progress will be followed closely by his fellow citizens. So, welcome, sir, and the best of luck ... for you and us.

The need for a World Environmental Organization

An article in mondial, the newsletter of the Canadian branch of the World Federalists, makes an excellent case for a World Environment Organization (WEO) comparable to the World Trade Organization (WTO). The authors, Larry Kazdan and Fergus Watt, suggest a WEO could fulfill a number of functions including:

• monitor environmental agreements for compliance
• provide technical advice and support to help agreements
• establish a dispute settlement mechanism
• establish a world environmental court with powers to take legal action against offenders
• set international norms for environmental responsibility

Their argument is unassailable. Dealing with climate change and the myriad other assaults we make on the planet is our number one challenge. If our economy continues to exceed the capacity of our environment, our civilization will eventually collapse. That is the magnitude of the challenge. This means caring for the environment must precede caring for the economy. A WEO should therefore take precedence over the WTO. Yet, as Kazdan and Watt point out, while the WTO has powers to enforce trade rules on national governments, environmental standards are ignored with impunity.

International environmental governance is currently provided by the UN Environment Program (UNEP) and various treaties. Unfortunately, UNEP is a rather isolated body with a trivial budget. According to Kazdan and Watt, the result is a global environmental governance that is, by design, "weak and fragmented."

One of the major themes of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development in 2012 will be establishing an institutional framework for sustainable development. A WEO would seem a natural outcome. If our government wants to be perceived as a leader on the world stage, perhaps even be deemed worthy of a seat on the UN Security Council, here is the best possible arena in which to prove itself.

Old Commies promote free speech in China

The Chinese government has not distinguished itself with its furious reaction to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, imprisoned campaigner for human rights and democracy in his country. The reaction was expected of course from a government that remains afraid of its citizens freely speak their minds. It is encouraging therefore to see opposition to the government's approach coming from elders of the Communist Party.

Even as Liu's wife, Liu Xia, is placed under house arrest, presumably to prevent her from reporting her husband's thoughts or collecting the prize, a group of senior officials has written an open letter demanding freedom of expression in China.

The letter, addressed to "Dear members of the standing committee of the National People's Congress," begins by stating that Article 35 of China's constitution, which guarantees "freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration," has been "negated by detailed rules and regulations." This, say the authors, amounts to a "scandalous mark on the history of world democracy."

The letter concludes by making a series of demands including "the right of journalists to carry out reporting freely throughout the country;" ending "taboos concerning our party's history;" permitting "the free circulation within the mainland of books and periodicals from Hong Kong and Macao;" and transforming propaganda organs into "agencies that oppose power and protect media and journalists."

The distinguished signatories included Li Pu, former deputy director of Xinhua news agency: Wang Yongcheng, professor at Shanghai Jiaotong University; Du Guang, former professor at the Central Party School; Yu You, former editor-in-chief of China Daily; Sha Yexin, former head of the Shanghai People's Art and Drama Academy; and Li Rui, former vice-minister of the organization department of the CCP central committee and once secretary to Mao Zedong.

The letter can be read in full here -- a breath of fresh air from that oppressive nation.

Gender gap narrows

The World Economic Forum has released its latest report on the global gender gap and the news is encouraging. In the five years the Forum has been conducting the survey, 86 per cent of the countries covered have narrowed the gap. The survey measures equality between men and women in four areas: employment, education, health and politics.

The 134 countries included in the report, representing over 90% of the world’s population, have closed almost 96 per cent of the health gap and almost 93 per cent of the education gap. However, only 59 per cent of the economic gap has been closed and only 18 per cent of political inequality.

Needless to say, the Nordic countries do best, with Iceland ranked number one, followed by Norway, Finland and Sweden. Canada ranks 20th in equality, up from 25th last year but still well down from the 14th we placed in 2006. That we are outranked by the Scandinavians is not surprising; however that we are behind Third World countries such as the Philippines and South Africa is both surprising and disappointing. We do very well in health and education, scoring near 1.0 where 1.0 is equality, but only .59 in economic participation and opportunity, and a lamentable .18 in political empowerment. With women making up only 22 per cent of the House of Commons and 27 per cent of the Federal Cabinet, we have a long way to go to properly include women in our governance.

Iceland's superior performance is due in large part to its government's powerful commitment to equality. For instance, this year it introduced laws requiring companies with more than 50 employees to ensure their management consists of at least 40 per cent women by 2014. We could do with some of that kind of affirmative action in this country. It is doubtful patience and merit alone will ever overcome the ingrained macho nature of our business and politics, and the resulting prejudice against women.

Jon Stewart and liberalism's original sin

I have the greatest respect for Jon Stewart as a man and as a comic. And his Rally to Restore Sanity is brilliant — and long overdue. But Stewart is, nonetheless, a liberal guilty of that philosophy's original sin.

I refer of course to the obsession with balance. In the pursuit of tolerance, liberals have a tendency to insist that each side in an argument is equally worthy, or equally unworthy, as the case may be. Listening fairly to all sides is important, of course, but that doesn't mean all sides have an argument of equal merit. Often they don't, and it may be both unfair and dangerous to act as if they did.

For example, when Stewart talks about the toxic atmosphere in American politics today, he suggests that both sides, liberals and conservatives, are equally to blame. But this is not true. The great part of the toxicity in American politics comes from the hard right.

When that icon of the hard right, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, has guests on his show with which he disagrees, he has been known to bully them, shout them down, even threaten to throw them off the show. By contrast that icon of liberalism, Jon Stewart, consistently treats his guests with respect, whether he agrees with them or not. And he invites many guests he disagrees with. It is not only unfair to say progressives are equally responsible for the toxicity, it is dangerous. Dealing with a problem is difficult if you refuse to recognize the cause.

Another example is Stewart's approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict. He seems to take the position there are two equal sides — Arabs and Jews — equally responsible for the disagreement over land. But there aren't two equal sides. There is a conqueror and a conquered, victors and victims, and the victims are the Palestinian people. To blame the victims equally with the victimizers is grossly unjust and makes it almost impossible to bring justice to those victims.

Jon Stewart is a wise, thoroughly decent, and very funny man. His intrinsically liberal desire to take a balanced approach is admirable, even noble. But pretending there is balance where there isn't is wrong. Even sinful.

Clinton admits Israel-Palestine conflict is major cause of terror

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton, speaking in Cairo, made a remark on the Israel-Palestine conflict that his fellow Americans should pay close attention to. He said that settling the conflict would "take about half the impetus in the whole world — not just the region, the whole world — for terror away." It is remarkable to hear a former president of the United States admit that this issue is the major cause of Islamic terrorism. I use the word "admit" advisedly — he is in effect saying that those responsible for the failure to resolve the conflict are also responsible for 9/11, and his country holds a great deal of responsibility for that failure.

Clinton blames the Israelis and the Palestinians for not settling the issue, specifically along the lines of the version of the Oslo accords that he authored in 2000. But he overlooks a few simple facts. The U.S. unequivocally supports Israel, and while Israel has little reason to negotiate, the Palestinians have no leverage to negotiate. The Israelis steal more land every day and more effectively sequester the Palestinians every day with no more than token opposition from the U.S. Meanwhile, the Americans continue to supply Israel with more aid than they provide any other country in the world, much of it in the form of weapons. Until they exploit this largesse to do some serious arm-twisting with Israel, the chances of an equitable settlement are slim indeed.

Meanwhile, the conflict continues to generate hostility to the United States throughout the Middle East and, as Clinton admits, acts as a major recruiting tool for organizations such as al-Qaeda. And the United States responds by spending more on arms than it can afford, waging foreign wars that generate even more hostility, and living in a state of paranoia. Yes, indeed, the Americans would do well to seriously reflect on the ex-president's remarks.

The Aftican National Congress raises the media issue: should we?

The ruling party of South Africa, the African National Congress (AFC), is alarming many South Africans by proposing legislation that would restrict the media. The alarm is justified. It's justified when any government starts talking about restricting the media and perhaps even more so with African governments. They have not been known for their commitment to the basic freedoms.

Nonetheless, a debate about the mass media is overdue in this country as well, at the very least to consider the question "Is ownership of the daily press, the major public forum in a modern society, by a small group of corporations and oligarchs compatible with a healthy democracy?" These owners have their own agenda which often subverts the public interest, an agenda that leads to many critical questions lacking full and proper discussion. The corporate press either isn't interested or would rather not have the discussion at all.

The first question that springs to mine is, "Who should own the public forums in a democracy?" In the democracy of ancient Athens, there were two public forums, the Assembly and the marketplace. Every citizen could go to either, and hear and debate the news of the day. These forums were owned and controlled by the citizens. In our society, the major public forum, the daily press, is owned by one tiny special interest group. This group quite naturally has little interest in a debate about its control of public discourse.

Another critical question is "What is the appropriate level of taxes for the kind of society Canadians want?" The daily press, faithfully following the agenda of their corporate colleagues, want taxes to go only down. They persistently indoctrinate us in this policy and appear to be having considerable success. A proper debate is long overdue, but again this is a debate the corporate sector would rather not have.

Then there's the question of environmental responsibility, particularly in regard to energy and climate change. The daily press took a long time to open a discussion and then only with reluctance. When 97 per cent of climate scientists agree that global warming is occurring and we are causing it, the shape of the discussion should be clear, but you'd never know that from reading the daily press. Science deniers have a far greater say than the three per cent they deserve, but we can hardly be surprised when massive corporate interests oppose dealing sensibly with climate change.

So the African National Congress is right at least in insisting that governments should concern themselves with the media. Indeed, I would go so far as to say governments have a responsibility to ensure that citizens are well-informed and discussions of issues are thorough. What could be more important in a democracy? But the AFC is very wrong if it believes the answer to media bias or excess is to restrict speech. The answer is to ensure that the media include a full complement of news and a full range of opinion that emphasizes the reality of issues not the promotion of special interests.

In Canada, this would require a left-wing press to counter the current corporate dominance. Unfortunately, nobody on the left has the kind of money it takes to own daily newspapers. We could perhaps complement the CBC, our only independent mass medium, with a national, daily newspaper owned by all of us. It would be a start. No doubt there are other worthy ideas out there.

But first we need the debate. With the owners of our major public forum uninterested or even adverse to the idea, it would be useful for one of our national parties to follow the lead of the African National Congress and get it started.

I will watch closely to see where the current debate within the AFC leads South Africa.

Buying democracy - in Alberta and the U.S.A.

We really do deceive ourselves when we think we live in a democracy. At least we do in Alberta, rather like our cousins to the south.

Alberta has the least restrictions on electoral spending of any province in the country. The result is something resembling a plutocracy more than a democracy. In 2009, corporations contributed almost as much to the Progressive Conservatives as the other parties combined raised from all contributions. Donors contributed $2,337,252 to the Conservatives, over 60 per cent from corporations. The Liberals came second with a mere $666,983 in contributions, 17 per cent from corporations.

The major corporate benefactor of the Conservatives was the development industry, followed by energy and finance. The energy industry alone donated more than ten times as much to the Conservatives as it did to the Liberals.

That's about the same ratio of money pouring into Republican and Democratic coffers in the upcoming elections in the U.S. With corporate spending unleashed by Supreme Court rulings, the Republicans are expected to be receiving up to ten times as much in campaign donations as the Democrats by election day. The Court gutted regulations designed to protect American democracy with rulings that banned restrictions on contributions from corporations, other special interests and billionaires, while allowing them to contribute anonymously. The result is massive slush funds called Super PACs (political action committees) dedicated to smearing Democratic candidates with attack ads.

Saddled with a Supreme Court that seems incapable of distinguishing money from speech, the Americans face a considerable challenge in restoring democracy to their nation. Alberta has no such excuse. Our Supreme Court has ruled that restrictions on corporate election spending are quite within the Charter, and the federal government and two provinces have instituted strict regulations accordingly. If we want more democracy and less plutocracy in Alberta, i.e. less buying of elections, we need to take note.

The new look Globe helps break my daily paper addiction

I have little to say about the new design of The Globe and Mail except that it’s ... well, colourful.

My concern is the eviction of my two favourite columnists. The two issues I always looked forward to the most were Friday’s, because of Rick Salutin, and Saturday’s, because of Tabatha Southey. With both gone, I now find it difficult to look forward to reading the Globe at all.

I have been addicted to reading a daily newspaper for more years than I can remember. For a social democrat in Calgary, this presents a challenge. We have four daily papers: two national, two local, all conservative. That’s the choice the vaunted free market offers me, something like the choice Henry Ford offered buyers of his Model-T -- any colour you like as long as it’s black. I can buy any philosophy of newspaper I like as long as it’s conservative. I have long chosen the Globe because it’s the least conservative. However, with the dismissal of their only left-wing writer with a regular column, I feel I’ve been squeezed out of the market entirely.

The Globe got a new editor-in-chief last year and I suppose a new boy always feels he has to put his stamp on the paper. Mark his territory, lift his leg on it, so to speak. In a rather presumptuous tone, John Stackhouse announces the new look Globe will launch a discussion that will "strike at the heart of how Canadians define ourselves, and our nation. It is meant to go beyond words. We hope it will become a turning point."

Well, sacking my two favourite columnists is a turning point for me. I am turning entirely to the Web. Not a difficult decision really. The Web has lots of choice, most of it free, and unlike the Calgary market it even offers some progressive dailies. I'll miss the rustle of newsprint and the ink on my fingers, but I'll adapt.

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.