Wildlife flourishes in human dead zones

We all know what the big problem with planet Earth is—people. Homo sapiens. The most destructive of species. Ever since we walked out of Africa 70,000 years ago, we have been an enemy of nature. Long before we invented agriculture, we were annihilating other species. The only big land animals left on Earth, live in Africa because they evolved with us and learned to survive our aggressive ways. Everywhere else, from Madagascar to Europe to the Americas to the Antipodes, we annihilated the megafauna as we encountered it. When we invented agriculture, we declared war on entire ecosystems, turning lush plains and forests into deserts wholesale.

It is no surprise then that when we are eliminated, nature flourishes. Such is the case in the demilitarized zone (DMZ) between North and South Korea. This 1,000 square kilometre area that wanders across the peninsula is a no-go zone for humans but has become a paradise for other animals.

From the Japanese occupation of 1905 to 1945, when radically increased exploitation of mineral and other resources brought dramatic environmental decline, to the Second World War to the Korean War, the natural world of the peninsula has been savaged by human violence. Continuing deforestation for fuel and clearing for agricultural land combined with unrestrained industrialization has further undermined the region's ecological health. Established in 1953, the DMZ has allowed nature to recover and the green strip now stands in stark contrast to the failing ecosystems that border it north and south.

It is home to thousands of plants and animals that are extinct or endangered elsewhere on the peninsula. One hundred species of fish, 45 types of amphibians and reptiles, over 1,000 insect species, 1,600 types of vascular plants and more than 300 species of mushrooms, fungi and lichen are believed to exist in the zone. Included are the rare Amur goral, Asiatic black bear, musk deer and even tigers, believed extinct in Korea since before the Japanese occupation, have been reported.

Similarly, wildlife in the area surrounding the infamous Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine appear to be doing very nicely despite the explosion and its aftermath, apparently surviving radiation better than they survive humanity. According to University of Portsmouth Professor Jim Smith, "The wildlife populations in the exclusion zone around Chernobyl have recovered and are actually doing well and even better than before because the human population has been removed." Local scientists have reported large increases in wildlife populations since the accident. Rare species such as lynx, Przewalski's horses and eagle owls are thriving.

The message is clear: For a healthy planet, exterminate its biggest pest. Such is the judgement on our stewardship of the Earth.

Co-operatives—the proven alternative to capitalism

In this, the International Year of Co-operatives, we cannot remind ourselves too often of the tried and true alternative to conventional capitalism. Co-operatives have for generations offered a more humane approach to economic activity than competitive enterprise, even while competing successfully in a capitalist marketplace. They have provided a full range of economic services at the local, national and international levels, combined with social benefits absent from capitalism.

The greatest benefit is that they are democratic institutions—one member/one vote—as opposed to capitalist corporations—one share/one vote, a classically plutocratic arrangement. By providing equitable investment in the economy and reducing the excessive influence of wealth in society, they answer the Occupy Movement's two concerns about corporate power. They help create community locally, nationally and internationally. They are amenable philosophically to both left and right—they are capitalist in the sense that ownership is private but socialist in the sense that ownership is equitable.

Their capacity for success is illustrated nicely by the Calgary Co-operative Association. Principally involved in supermarkets, the Co-op also provides service stations, home health care, pharmacies, travel agencies and liquor stores. It has 440,000 members—40 per cent of the city's population. All its employees are member-owners, sharing power equitably with the customer-owners.

Needless to say, I am a long-term member. I buy almost all my groceries there as well as my booze and gas for my car. I round out my co-operative experience by doing all my banking at First Calgary Financial, the city's major credit union. Going co-op to the max is my way of helping to build a more humane and democratic economy.

The co-operative is here, and it works at every level. Globally, one out of five people are already members of co-ops. We need look no further for an answer to capitalism with its inequities and its insults to democracy. By maximizing our own economic relationship with co-ops and pushing our governments to favour co-operative enterprise over competitive enterprise, we can replace the misguided mantra "we must compete in the global economy" with the more civilized "we must co-operate in the global society."

Albertans reject retreat

During her concession speech last night, Wildrose Party leader Danielle Smith stated that Albertans just needed more time to get to know her party. In fact, that was why Wild Rose lost so surprisingly—Albertans got to know her party.

Midway through the campaign, Wildrose was sailing. At 40 per cent in the polls, majority territory, it appeared Albertans were indeed in the mood for a change of party, the first in over 40 years. And then voters took a closer look at what kind of change Wildrose represented—and decided they did not want to go there. The fresh young face of Danielle Smith, a bright and vivacious woman, was hiding the reality of old-time fundamentalist Alberta—Social Credit freshly packaged. Albertans are an urban people now—two-thirds live in Calgary and Edmonton—and have no interest in returning to rural values. Indeed, as I have blogged previously, they are rapidly developing more progressive views on social issues.

Wildrose's roots were apparent in the election results. Out of the party's 17 seats, only three were urban—two in Calgary and one in Medicine Hat. Even the smaller, more conservative cities of Red Deer and Lethbridge went PC. As the campaign progressed, Smith had an increasingly difficult time concealing the party's fundamentalist core and spent the last week trying to whack-a-mole her reactionary candidates.

Premier Redford also promised change, and she is indeed a refreshing change from the Klein/Stelmach years. We are now about to see how Progressive her Conservatives are.

Dumbing down Canadians

It started, perhaps, with the Economic Council of Canada. The Council, a Crown Corporation whose role was to conduct a wide range of economic and policy research for the federal government, provided Canadians with an objective analysis of economic affairs. In 1992, Brian Mulroney, furious over a Council report that said Quebec separation might not have the dire consequences his government predicted, shut it down. Mr. Mulroney did not want certain inconvenient facts before the public.

Our current Prime Minister's distaste for facts goes well beyond Mr. Mulroney's. Demographic analysis increasingly shows that equitable societies are healthy societies, a fact antithetical to the Conservative fetishes for capitalism and privilege. So out went the mandatory long-form census.

Indeed, social inequality is not something Mr. Harper's government wants to hear a lot about, so the National Council of Welfare has now been scrapped. The Council in effect acted as the country's conscience, identifying areas of poverty, providing appropriate information to the government and bringing social policy thinkers together to develop solutions. It provided citizens, particularly low-income citizens, and NGOs the facts they needed to speak out effectively about poverty, facts that may no longer see the light of day.

Nor does the PM think too much knowledge about climate change is good for us. Facts in this area tend to conflict with the agenda of the Conservative/Oil Industry coalition. So the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Lab is closed (global warming is particularly pronounced in the north), the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy is shut down, environmental reviews of major projects will be "streamlined," and so on.

Indeed, science itself often produces too many inconvenient facts for the growth at all costs policies of this government, so its scientists are routinely muzzled. And National Research Council funding that once might have supported pure scientific research will now be handed over to private companies. One suspects that energy and mining companies will be high on the priority list.

And then there's the recent budget assault on the CBC, the only national mass medium in the country not owned and controlled by the corporate sector. The Harper administration prefers to have the dissemination of information safely in corporate hands.

Citizens of a democracy need sources of information independent of vested interests—governments, political parties, and corporate agents—in order to make informed decisions. Universities and other non-profit groups need objective information to participate effectively in analysis and policy formulation. Lacking the expertise and the funding to conduct their own independent research, and confronting an increasingly complex world, citizens rely heavily on institutions like those mentioned above. A fundamental responsibility of democratic government is to ensure that citizens have the information they need.

The Harper government clearly has no intention of fulfilling this responsibility. It prefers to leave Canadians dependent on corporate institutions such as the daily press, PR firms, and right-wing think tanks. Facts, and indeed entire issues, in which these agents have little interest or outright antipathy can be conveniently massaged or simply ignored. The result is a citizenry more indoctrinated than informed. And that, I fear, is the direction we are headed.

Will the Fraser Institute be audited?

Now that the federal government has allocated $8-million for the auditing of charitable groups ostensibly to ensure they stay within the Charities Act, one naturally wonders if this will include all charities or be limited to environmental groups, the bête noire of the Conservative/oil industry coalition.

The Fraser Institute is a case in point. Although having charitable status, it serves principally as a propaganda vehicle for right-wing views. It is funded by corporations and other business interests, including business-oriented charitable funds such as the Donner Canadian Foundation, a group controlled by the American Donner heirs. It has been referred to as the "lifeblood of conservative research" in Canada.

An audit of the Fraser Institute would be in order for a number of reasons. For instance, to ensure its work is primarily educational as it claims or primarily political propaganda which it more closely resembles. Also, the public should know just which corporations are insinuating themselves into our "democratic" process by funding the Institute, particularly if they are foreign corporations. This, at a time of increasing corporate influence in society, is almost as important to know as which corporations are contributing to political parties. And do contributions from American-controlled charitable funds such as the Donner Foundation meet the requirements of the Charities Act?

These are important questions. I await the audit.

The Monroe Doctrine is dead

A new age has dawned in the Americas. The Monroe Doctrine, a policy established by the United States ostensibly to keep European imperialists out of the Western Hemisphere but which eventually deteriorated into an instrument to maintain American dominance, is now effectively deceased. At the recent Summit of the Americas, the Latin nations couldn't have made it clearer that they intend to be treated as equals. On two key issues—Cuba and drugs—the United States was effectively isolated, except of course for Canada. The Americans insist on pursuing the drug war and precluding Cuba from summit meetings in the face of solid opposition from the other OAS members.

Particularly interesting was the prominent position played by Colombia, host of the summit, in emphasizing the two issues. It has been the Americans' chief supporter in Latin America in recent years, including on the drugs portfolio. When Colombia challenges the United States, something important is happening.

A number of developments have contributed to the American decline in commercial and political influence in the region: the rise of regional powers such as Brazil and Mexico, gains made by China as a leading trade partner, the successes of the South American left, and the rejection of the free trade agreement proposed by the U.S. in favour of agreements more suitable to the economic and social interests of the Latin nations.

At the last summit, President Obama spoke of "equal partnerships" and "a new chapter of engagement" with the region's countries. He promised the U.S. would "take aggressive action to reduce our demand for drugs, and to stop the flow of guns and bulk cash across our borders." Yet little has changed in American policy or practice. They continue to pursue an aggressive "free trade" agenda; they have escalated militarization in the "war on drugs"; and they persist with cold war policies of containing left-wing governments.

If the United States wants to maintain a credible role in the hemisphere, never mind a leadership role, it will have to be more accommodating to the views of the Latin nations. It might also offer its Secret Service agents a quick course on how to deal tactfully with booze and hookers when on international missions. And President Obama might say ten times before breakfast—it's the Malvinas, not the Maldives.

Albertans—more progressive than conservative

As Albertans face an election later this month and the Conservative Party is seriously challenged by an even more conservative party, the Wildrose Party, we might stop for a moment and ask just how conservative Albertans really are. If the question pertains to social conservatism, the answer is not very.

Last November, a survey taken in Lethbridge by the Citizen Society Research Lab at Lethbridge College, indicated Albertans are a lot more socially progressive than they are socially conservative, and rapidly becoming more so. For example, 82.7 per cent of respondents favoured abortion choice, up from 73.3 per cent just two years ago. Even a majority of the "very religious" supported abortion choice. Gay marriage was supported by 69.6 per cent, up from 58.3 per cent two years ago. Doctor-assisted suicide was supported by 70.2 per cent. Lethbridge seems to have progressed well beyond its one-time reputation as a Bible belt city. Surveys in Calgary and Edmonton show even higher numbers on the progressive scale.

Quite aside from all the stats, in the last municipal election Calgarians chose the very progressive Naheed Nenshi as mayor. (I will tactfully avoid mentioning who Toronto elected.) And, of no small significance, the leaders of the two leading political parties are both women, so regardless of the election outcome we will have a woman premier.

It would seem that socially at least, Alberta is a rather progressive place. Now if we could just get over that addiction to dirty oil.

I know more about American political parties than 92 per cent of Americans

Don't take my word for it. The Pew Research Center says so. All I did was take their quiz about the two major American political parties and answer all the questions correctly. And that put me ahead of 92 per cent of Americans surveyed by the Center.

Take the quiz yourself. It's at http://pewresearch.org/politicalquiz/?src=prc-newsletter. You, too, may be "more news-savvy than the average American."

The Mary Jane debt solution

The Spanish village of Rasquera is 1.3 million euros in debt, and with Spain's battered economy, not much relief in sight. Until now. This week, Rasquera held a referendum and the villagers voted 308 to 239 to rent land for growing marijuana.

Although trafficking remains illegal in Spain, growing cannabis for personal use isn't. Apparently the Barcelona Personal Use Cannabis Association (ABCDA) is prepared to pay the village 650,000 euros a year for the right to grow its annual supply there. At that rate, Rasquera could pay off its debt in a couple of years, a tempting offer indeed.

Considering that most pot smokers are youth, it may be unfair to ask them to pay off the village debt when they are already suffering from high unemployment. However, the ABCDA will no doubt get its dope somewhere, it may just as well be from Rasquera. And nothing like a joint or two to relieve the pain of unemployment.

The idea sounds win-win to me. The members of ABCDA get their high and the citizens of Rasquera get their debt paid off. Is there something here for Canada to ponder? It certainly beats building more prisons.

Baseball and that freedom of speech thing

Sports is a tribal business, and Miami Marlins manager Ozzie Guillen has upset his tribe. The outspoken Venezuelan had the audacity to express admiration for Fidel Castro in Time magazine. “I respect Fidel Castro,” he is reported to have said. “You know why? A lot of people have wanted to kill Fidel Castro for the last 60 years, but that motherfucker is still here.” The team and a number of the fans objected to his comments and the now contrite Guillen will apologize for his reckless exercise of freedom of speech. In the meantime, he has been suspended for five games.

In its statement, the Marlins declared there was nothing to respect about Fidel Castro. That of course isn't entirely true. Castro liberated Cuba from the criminal dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista and his Mafia partners who had plundered the country for years. And Cuba has built easily the best health and education systems in Latin America, better in some respects than those in the United States, no small accomplishment for a country heavily embargoed.

Nonetheless, the country remains a dictatorship and expressing  respect for Fidel is probably not the most prudent move in Miami-Dade County, the Marlins' home base, a jurisdiction 34 per cent Cuban-American. And yet, Guillen was right—despite the best efforts of the CIA to kill the old motherfucker, he's still there. That does deserve a little respect. As does freedom of speech.

Marriage one man/one woman? Not in the Bible

Although gay marriage seems to have settled into acceptance in this country, it still meets with virulent opposition elsewhere, including in the United States. Certain of the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination serve as good examples. Strutting their Christian credentials, they loudly proclaim their mantra, "Marriage means one man and one woman."

Their credentials do not, however, seem to include knowledge of the Bible. Far from one man and one woman, the Biblical prophets were more inclined to one man and many women. For example, Abraham, father of the Hebrew nation, had three, a piker however compared to David, first king of Israel, who had at least eight, plus 10 concubines for those days when he was feeling exceptionally randy. Moses, bearer of the tablets, only had two, but Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Reputedly the world's wisest man, he may also have been its most libidinous. Jacob, father of the twelve patriarchs of the tribes of Israel, was clearly a man of more modest appetites, limiting himself to four wives. Marriage as one man, one woman? These lusty buggers would have laughed you out of the room.

The nuclear family—one man, one wife and children—adopted by Christianity probably came about because the religion was created within the Roman Empire which, drawing on European customs, had a tradition of monogamous marriage. The Muslim faith, truer to Middle Eastern custom and therefore to the Bible, still allows polygamy.

So when Christians fundamentalists trot out their marriage means one man and one woman mantra, we might tactfully suggest they read their Old Testament and refresh their fundamentalism.

Americans increasingly support interracial marriage

At a time when Americans agonize over the shooting of Trayvan Martin in Florida, and racial tensions simmer, a Pew Research Center survey reveals at least one encouraging development. According to the survey, 43 per cent of Americans believe the national rise in interracial marriage is a change for the better while only 11 per cent believe it is a change for the worse. Forty-four per cent think it makes no difference.

Not surprisingly, support for interracial marriage increases with youth. Sixty-five per cent of the 18-29 age group see it as a good thing while only five per cent do not. Among those over 65, only 28 per cent are positive about interracial marriage. However, considerably fewer—19 per cent—view it negatively.

The survey indicates the U.S. is a rather more racially tolerant country than the Trayvan Martin incident might indicate. Americans still have a ways to go to overcome their ancient nemesis, but they seem headed in the right direction.

My two cents on Calgary's Peace Bridge

It's finally done. Over budget and overdue, but it's done. One of the most controversial pieces of infrastructure in Calgary's history, the Peace Bridge, a pedestrian walkway over the Bow River, is finally open for traffic.

I am a strong supporter of the compact city as a more efficient city, both financially and economically, and that means I am a strong supporter of promoting pedestrian traffic and public transit use over cars. But that doesn't mean I support any and all pedestrian amenities, and the Peace Bridge I do not.

In the first place it is, as so many people have pointed out, a bridge from nowhere to nowhere. At the north end it launches itself from a bicycle path in the middle of a block. The local alderman is now desperately consulting with her constituents to figure out how to get pedestrians safely across the busy 4-lane street (Memorial Drive) that borders the path—an exercise rather late in the day. As for who will use the bridge, the Sunnyside embankment limits the source of commuters to a very small area.

And that brings me to my next point. Only two blocks west, there are three pedestrian bridges—one on either side of the Louise Bridge and one under the C-train overpass. In other words, the Peace Bridge is quite unnecessary. A number of locations in the city offer a much better opportunity for a bridge or crossover that would encourage pedestrian traffic and public transit use.

Aesthetically, the bridge is alien to its environment. It reflects none of the forms, colours or materials of the Bow River Valley in its design. It is a pretty, sparkly thing in its own right but it is out of context—a sort of magpie architecture. It manifests one of greatest sins of the architectural profession. Architects design structures that are handsome in themselves but don't fit into their neighbourhood. This bridge has been defended on the basis that it is a work of art that will help make Calgary a great city. Perhaps, but it tends more to make Calgary look like a city with insecurities, desperate to prove it is in the big leagues.

The bridge doesn't just sin against its environment, it sins against the citizens of Calgary. With cavalier disregard for the taxpayers' dollar, and in violation of city policy, the design was selected without a competition. Although Calgarians may not have the refined artistic sensibilities of transportation department officials, it is their bridge after all and they might have been offered an opportunity to express their views.

This sort of arbitrary process undermines peoples' faith in their government. Government-bashers have been offered a very big stick to beat City Hall with and they are taking full advantage. Almost every rant about big government and high taxes you hear in Calgary these days starts off with the Peace Bridge. I fear the bridge will make it more difficult to provide truly worthwhile pedestrian amenities in the future, doing a great disservice to our city.

Some of the points supporters of the bridge have made, I heartily agree with. For example, that the $25-million spent on this bridge would hardly have earned a whimper of protest if it had been spent on a freeway or an interchange. I agree also that public infrastructure should have aesthetic appeal. Of course it should. But these are general considerations—they don't justify an ill thought out piece of infrastructure.

In any case, it is done and we are stuck with it. Now we must consider what we can learn from it. A number of things actually. First, always, except in exceptional circumstances, subject projects to competition. Second, consult the public early, not after the fact. Third, design for the context. And finally, don't be governed by our insecurities—Calgary doesn't need baubles to make it a great city.

If we are to build the compact city, we must be jealous guardians of the public purse. The public will not be dissuaded from urban sprawl if they see amenities for pedestrians and public transit users linked to financial recklessness.

Co-op beats Spanish recession

As one of the PIGS, the four (or six) European countries whose dysfunctional economies are much in the news these days, Spain is perhaps not the place you would expect to find a thriving economic enterprise. But one such enterprise is in fact flourishing, weathering the financial storm quite nicely. I refer to the Mondragon Corporation, the world's largest co-operative. Although it suffered from the recession, it bounced back nicely in 2010 with a profit of $240-million, triple that of 2009. It also added jobs and new products and services.

Founded in 1956, Mondragon is now one of Spain's largest companies, employing over 80,000 people in 256 companies that have expanded into 18 countries. The co-op includes supermarkets, travel agencies, service stations, manufacturers of everything form refrigerators to industrial components, business consultancies, architecture and engineering services, language and graphic arts services, and many others. Mondragon has its own savings bank and university and technology park. The companies are owned by their worker-members and power is based on the principle of one person, one vote. Bosses are not allowed to make a wage more than nine times that of the lowest paid worker. (In the European Union's top 100 companies, the ratio is as high as 200 to one.)

In a world where corporations are increasing their power over democratically-elected governments and the disparity between rich and poor worsens, Mondragon offers a highly successful alternative to the conventional competitive enterprise. It offers a model that is competitive yet advances both democracy and equity. For a future that demands much more co-operation among people and among nations if we are to avoid economic and environmental collapse, there is no better model available.

Joseph Lister, climate change and the arrogance of ignorance

Reading about the assassination of U.S President James Garfield recently, I encountered yet another example of the power and persistence of ignorance in the face of facts. Garfield was infamously killed not by his assailant's bullets but by his doctors. He died not from his wounds but from the massive infection of those wounds caused by his doctors appalling lack of hygienic practices. Even as the president lay on the floor of the railway station where he was shot, the doctor who presumptuously took over his care was probing his wound with unwashed fingers and unsterilized probes. After 80 days of this benighted treatment, Garfield died horribly of massive infection.

The ignorance displayed by his doctors was of their choosing. The great British surgeon Joseph Lister, picking up on the discovery of germs by Louis Pasteur, had been preaching the process of antiseptic surgery for years. The results were dramatic. His methods reduced the incidence of death from gangrene in surgeries from the 50 to 80 per cent common in hospitals at that time to zero. The facts were overwhelming.

Lister's methods were well-known and had spread throughout Britain and the Continent. He had made a presentation to American doctors and surgeons at the Philadelphia World's fair in 1876, five years before Garfield's assassination. He was not well received. Most of those present dismissed his claims, some angrily, ridiculing the notion of "invisible germs." They refused to abandon their filthy practices and spoke fondly of the "good old surgical stink" that pervaded operating rooms and hospitals of the day. Lister's methods were methodical and time-consuming—simply too inconvenient for busy surgeons who could do many surgeries per day unencumbered by hygienic procedures.

This kind of arrogant ignorance in the face of scientific knowledge, even among intelligent and well-educated men when their cozy little world is threatened, led me to think of climate change. Here, too, science is threatening people's comfortable ideas about how the world works, just as heliocentricity did in the time of Galileo and evolution in the time of Darwin. And now as then, many people are reacting adversely, some angrily, to the news—the facts be damned.

Unfortunately, this time the stakes are much higher. U.S. surgeons tenacious ignorance killed many thousands of Americans. An equally tenacious ignorance of climate change may kill many thousands of entire species and bring down Homo sapiens' civilization as well.

And as the stakes are much higher, so is the resistance. Vested interests of great influence and wealth conspire with the ignorant to undermine the science. Lister's truth eventually won out, as did Galileo's and Darwin's—at least among the educated. Whether the truth of climate change will win out in time to avoid catastrophe is still very much in doubt.

Alberta universities make illegal donations to Conservatives

Oh my, even the universities are doing it. According to the CBC, a number of Alberta's post-secondary institutions, including Athabasca University and the University of Lethbridge, have been donating to the provincial Conservatives. They have joined those municipalities and counties that have been donating to the Tories for years. All of this is, of course, illegal. It is against the law in this province for publicly-funded institutions to make political donations.

The Conservatives appear to have been alone in enjoying this generous use of the taxpayers' money. The CBC investigation revealed that a variety of colleges and universities have maintained close ties exclusively with the ruling Tories, and that their governing boards and senior executives have actively supported this relationship. These same boards are, of course, appointed by the Conservative government.

The Conservatives were quite aware of what was going on. Tory fundraisers solicited university executives and boards directly. Carol Lund, as head of Athabasca University’s secretariat responsible for administration of its policies and procedures, personally signed off on several requisitions for Tory fundraisers and actively recruited university executives to attend these functions. Lund is also president of the Athabasca-Redwater Conservative riding association.

One obvious question is, why do they need to break the law? They receive more than twice as much legal funding as all the other political parties combined, so it can't be for campaigning. Can it be a subtle, or not so subtle, reminder to these institutions where the money comes from and who appoints the board members? Can it be that Conservative municipal counselors and post-secondary board members believe their party rules by divine right and therefore is owed fealty? Has the Conservative Party been in power for so long it is now synonymous with government? Or is it a simple matter of never enough?

Whatever it is, arrogance or greed, it suggests it's time for a change in Alberta. Or is that blasphemy?

Americans primed for Iran attack

According to recent surveys, Americans are in a dovish mood on Syria and Afghanistan, but that mood is tempered by a hawkish attitude toward Iran.

Two-thirds say the United States does not have a responsibility to interfere in the Syrian conflict. There is also strong opposition to bombing the Syrian military or providing arms to the opposition. A solid majority also want American troops out of Afghanistan as soon as possible.

However, their attitude toward Iran and its nuclear potential is quite different. Almost 60 per cent say it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action, than it is to avoid a military conflict. Fifty-four per cent are concerned that the U.S. will take too long to act while only 35 per cent are concerned it will act too quickly. About two-thirds believe sanctions won't work.

On the other hand, a majority believe the U.S. should remain neutral if Israel attacks. Furthermore, it isn't an issue to which a great deal of attention has been paid. Thirty-eight per cent of Americans say they have heard a lot about it, 39 per cent have heard a little and 23% nothing at all. Maybe the reluctance to support an Israeli attack and an increased knowledge of the risks would modify the belligerent mood. Maybe—but there is clearly a lot of fuel for a fire.

The new capitalism—reward without risk

Royal Dutch Shell chief executive Peter Voser earned more than $15-million in pay and bonuses in 2011, more than double his remuneration for 2010. Last year also saw Shell increase its oil spills to 207, substantially more than the previous year.

The two are not related of course, but the coincidence is interesting. Voser wasn't penalized for his company's oil spills, presumably because he wasn't considered responsible for them, however he was lavishly rewarded for something that he wasn't responsible for either. His extraordinary pay increase resulted from Shell's strong operating and share-price performance in 2011—annual earnings were up 54 per cent over 2010. The impressive financial success was not, however, Mr. Voser's doing, but rather because of high oil prices and surging demand for natural gas.

Being rewarded when things go right but avoiding consequences when things go wrong seems to be typical of the new capitalism. For example, when American banks were selling huge amounts of questionable securities at escalating prices, they made billions, but when their shady practices caused the market to crash and they were faced with massive losses, the government, i.e. the American taxpayer, bailed them out. Exhibiting the inflated sense of self-worth characteristic of modern CEOs, their executives continued to collect fat bonuses. Under the old capitalism, entrepreneurs reaped the rewards of doing things right and paid the consequences of doing things wrong. Reward was tempered by risk. Under the new capitalism, only the first half of that equation seems to apply.

The new capitalism is selective of course. It only applies to members of the "Too Big to Fail" club. Smaller companies still have to labour under the strict rules of the old capitalism: do well and you are rewarded, do badly and you are penalized. Life is not fair.

The Alberta Advantage—for men only?

It seems the famous Alberta Advantage doesn't apply to women. Alberta lags all other provinces except Newfoundland and Labrador in women's wage parity with men. According to a report issued by the Parkland Institute and the Alberta College of Social Workers, in Canada as a whole women's wages for full-year, full-time employment in 2009 were 78.4 per cent of men's. In Quebec—the parity leader—they were 85 per cent. In Alberta they were only 68.1 per cent.

Even more disappointing is that progress toward equality is also slower than in other provinces. In 1976, Alberta's wage gap was 62 per cent, on a par with the Canadian average. While other provinces have seen double-digit gains, Alberta has only closed the gap by six per cent.

Women make up the great majority of Alberta's low-wage workers. Almost half of working women earn less than $25,000 while only 30 per cent of men do. On the other hand, while almost 40 per cent of men earn over $60,000 per year, only 16 per cent of women are so blessed.

The most recent boom in Alberta was principally a boom for men while both men and women shared the ensuing bust. Median incomes for men increased 32 per cent from 2005 to 2008 but only 18 per cent for women, while in 2009 the median income for both fell 7 to 8 per cent. In the economic upswing of 2010, unemployment decreased for men but increased for women.

Alberta's women are disadvantaged in part at least because of the province's conservative nature. Alberta is the only jurisdiction in Canada without a minister or advisory council responsible for the status of women. It is not surprising, therefore, that men in Alberta are much more likely than men in other provinces to disproportionately share the fruits of economic wealth.

Rare earth metals—the plot thickens

In my post of March 12th about peak everything, I mentioned that China, which produces 97 per cent of the rare earth metals, elements critical to the production of many hi-tech products, is becoming increasingly skittish about exporting these valuable commodities. Yesterday the CBC reported that the United States, the European Union and Japan have filed complaints with the World Trade Organization about China's limiting of these exports, charging it with unfair trade practices. The U.S. claims the export restrictions give Chinese companies a competitive advantage by providing access at a cheaper price while forcing American companies to manage with a smaller, more costly supply.

The Chinese defend their quota system on the basis of conserving scarce resources and limiting environmental damage. Mining, refining, and recycling of rare earths have serious environmental consequences if not properly managed and have caused major environmental damage in parts of China.

The rare earths occur in many parts of the world (China only has 30 per cent of the known deposits) but are often too dispersed to justify economic mining. Nonetheless, we can expect to see a scramble to discover new deposits and open old mines elsewhere. As is the case with new oil sources, such as the tar sands, these new rare earth sources will quite likely be more expensive to exploit and more environmentally destructive. Such is the race to the bottom of resource supply.

In this case, the battle for scarce resources may be resolved peacefully through the World Trade Organization, but ultimately, as resources deplete ever further and nations become ever more desperate, we may begin to see less civilized ways of settling such disputes.

Peak oil? How about peak everything?

We are all familiar with the concept of peak oil. Oil is a non-renewable resource therefore at some point global production will reach its maximum capacity and then decline, creating an urgent need for alternate energy sources. Peak oil has already occurred in the United States, in 1970 in fact, as the accompanying graph shows.

What is discussed much less is that all non-renewable resources will eventually reach peak production. In the Untied States this has occurred for many commodities, including bauxite in 1943, copper in 1998, iron ore in 1951, magnesium in 1966, phosphate rock in 1980, potash in 1967, rare earth metals in 1984, tin in 1945, titanium in 1964 and zinc in 1969.

The United States is the most richly endowed nation that ever existed and only a few short centuries ago its resources were virgin, yet it is now seeing one resource after another decline and the country become increasingly dependent on other nations. The global supplies of these resources have not yet peaked, but with the U.S., the world's largest economy, requiring ever more of other people's resources, and with nations such as China and India increasing their vast economies at eight or nine per cent per year, we can expect to see what is happening to the Americans happen internationally.

For example, China produces 97 per cent of the rare earth metals,  elements critical to such hi-tech products as catalytic converters, color TVs, flat panel displays, batteries, petroleum refining, missiles, jet engines and satellite components. But China can't keep up with demand and it is getting skittish about exporting what it increasingly needs itself.

Even what we tend to think of as renewable resources are depleting. For example, every year significant areas of agricultural land are lost to desertification, salinization, erosion and development.

As resources deplete we might expect substitution and efficiencies to make up for some of the losses, but they can hardly make up for all of them. Unless we want a future where humanity is like a pack of dogs fighting over the last bone, we are going to have to change our ways, and change them dramatically. We must start planning for a steady-state global economy where renewable resources are exploited at a rate lower than the Earth's ability to replace them; where non-renewable resources are used at declining rates and extensively recycled; and where human population is constrained to a level consistent with the above. We must start thinking of growth in ways that increase human happiness without increasing consumption, ways that are far more cooperative and far less competitive. And we must start now.

We can transition peacefully into a new economy or we can allow chaos to precipitate us into a new economy. The choice is ours.

Happy birthday, Douglas Adams

Today is Douglas Adams' 60th birthday. Or it would be if he hadn't been thoughtless enough to die in May of 2001, thereby depriving us of yet more of his insanely eccentric humour. I owe Doug a quite considerable debt. For his TV series "The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy," a delightfully lunatic romp through the universe which I enjoyed many years ago, and for his equally delightful and equally lunatic detective stories "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" and "The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul" which I just recently read. I haven't yet ventured into "The Meaning of Liff" and some of his other brilliant stuff and won't until my funny bone has healed.

I would wish him well wherever he now is, but he was an atheist so would have known he wouldn't be anywhere, just his molecules returning to the universe that so fascinated him and out of which he made such great sport. I can only agree with his friend and fellow atheist, Richard Dawkins, who dedicated his book "The God Delusion" to Douglas and lamented on his death that science had lost a friend and literature a luminary. Indeed.

So thanks for the laughs, Doug, and now I will get back to contemplating 42—The Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything.

Iran under siege ... for 2,500 years

David Cameron hoisted himself onto the world stage once again, as he is wont to do, and declared Iran an international threat. This is rich coming from a British PM. The Brits have been harassing Iran since the days of the Great Game. They invaded the country in the 1940s and were instrumental in destroying Iranian democracy in the 1950s. And while Iran hasn't invaded another country in centuries, the British, like their anti-Iranian allies the Israelis and the Americans, haven't seemed able to keep their troops within their own borders in living memory. And Cameron says Iran is the threat?

If any country is justifiably paranoid, it is Iran, not the U.K. The Iranian people have been able to maintain their national integrity for 2,500 years but not easily. They have been invaded by the Romans, the Arabs, the Mongols (who slaughtered three-quarters of their population), the Russians, the British and the Iraqis.

And threats continue. The U.S. has largely replaced Britain as Iran's imperial nemesis, denying it the right to be an equal player in its home region. The Americans surround Iran with at least 15 military bases, and three U.S. allies in the region—India, Pakistan and Israel—possess nuclear weapons. As of course does the U.S. itself. And the Americans provide massive military aid to hostile Sunni neighbours of Shia Iran, such as Saudi Arabia. The U.S. has also had great success in rallying other nations to impose sanctions on the beleaguered Iranians. And if all this isn't enough, Iran is subjected to interminable threats from Israeli and American hardliners such as Benjamin Netanyahu and the contenders for the U.S. Republican presidential nomination.

Iran could escape the current peril by submitting to American hegemony, but it is apparently unwilling to do that. Another alternative of course would be to develop a nuclear weapon thereby achieving military parity with its antagonists, but it claims it doesn't intend to do that either. The siege, it seems, will continue.

Women win one, lose one ... and so it goes

The good news is that the European Union is considering mandatory quotas to get more women on corporate boards. They have tried the voluntary approach and, as is so often the case, it hasn't worked. Currently only one in seven board members at Europe's biggest companies are women despite the fact that 60 per cent of university graduates are now women. The percentage of women chairing major companies has even fallen slightly in recent years, to barely three per cent.

More—many more—women are needed in corporate management for at least three reasons: to provide equal opportunity for women; to bring a more collegial, sympathetic approach to decision-making in organizations that now hold disproportionate power over people and the environment; and to create more successful companies (studies show that gender balance contributes to better business performance).

Despite the advantages of a healthy gender balance, women have trouble making inroads into the old-boys' clubs of business, just as they do in government. The macho atmospheres of these institutions create an often unspoken bias against women. If the EU takes affirmative action to reduce the bias, everyone, except perhaps a few undeserving men, will benefit.

Such progress is not to be made in Afghanistan, at least not if the mullahs have their way. The country's top clerics have declared in a statement that women are subordinate to men, should not mix in work or education and must always have a male guardian when they travel. The clerics denounced the equality of men and women enshrined in the Afghan constitution, saying "Men are fundamental and women are secondary."

An ominous note was that the statement associated the restrictions on women's rights with peace talks. MP Fawzia Koofi claims the two are being linked "all over the country" and warns the new rules are a "green light for Talibanization." Particularly disturbing is that the rules, while not legally binding, have been endorsed by President Karzai.

So while European women look forward to progress, Afghan women face a return to the status of chattel. Thus the world turns.

Conservative war on truth escalates

The Conservative government made another assault on the gathering of facts with its announcement that it is closing the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Lab (PEARL) in Canada's High Arctic.

Its timing was impeccable. A climate scientist, Dr. Richard Peltier, has just been announced this year's winner of the Gerhard Herzberg Canada Gold Medal, our country's highest scientific award. PEARL is one of the sources Dr. Peltier relies on for his data and one of only three stations in the world that keep track of activities in the atmosphere around the Pole, that part of the world where changes are happening more quickly than anywhere else on the planet. Now one-third of the data from the High Arctic will be gone and models of climate change built by scientists such as Dr. Peltier will be less precise, a development that will make climate change denial a little easier.

The Conservatives have done well in their war on the truth, perhaps their greatest victory being the termination of the mandatory long form census, but opposition is growing. A few weeks ago, the Canadian Science Writers' Association, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada and the World Federation of Science Journalists and several other groups sent Prime Minister Harper an open letter calling on him to unmuzzle federal scientists. Now Nature, one of the world's leading scientific journals, has stated in an editorial that it's time for the Canadian government to set its scientists free. It pointed out the role reversal that has taken place between this country and the United States—as scientists in the U.S. free themselves from the repressive regime of George W. Bush, Canadian scientists are gagged by the Harper regime.

PEARL and Dr. Peltier, working as they do with climate science, are perhaps particularly dangerous in Harper's view. Canadian scientists were, after all, part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change team that shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore in 2007.

It is sad indeed, in this day and age and at time when climate change makes science more important than ever, that scientists in the free world have to beg a government to allow their colleagues to speak freely.

Baroness Tonge, Israel and the pain of political correctness

Of all the various catalysts of political correctness, perhaps Israel is the most powerful. Anyone who seriously criticizes Israel or seriously supports the Palestinians is seriously in danger of being accused of such wickedness he or she must be dismissed from public discourse. Such was the fate of Jenny Tonge, Baronesss of Kew, recently a Liberal Democratic member of the House of Lords. Lady Tonge, during a heated debate at Middlesex University made the following remarks:

Israel is not going to be there forever in its present form. One day, the United States of America will get sick of giving £70-billion a year to Israel to support what I call America's aircraft carrier in the Middle East—that is Israel. One day, the American people are going to say to the Israel lobby in the USA: enough is enough.

The "not going to be there for ever" phrase miffed a host of Britons, including the chief rabbi, Lord Sacks, who called the remarks "dangerous, inflammatory and unacceptable," and Liberal Democrat Party leader Nick Clegg who demanded she apologize. She refused, resigned as party whip, and Clegg then ejected her from the party, an act neither liberal nor democratic.

The irony of course is that Israel itself has no intention of being there forever in its present form. It continually accretes more land—taken illegally from the Palestinians—and Israelis have stated they are willing to swap land for peace in a two-state solution to the hostilites. Indeed many people, including according to recent polls a third of Palestinians and a quarter of Israelis, increasingly believe in a single, secular state covering modern-day Israel and the occupied territories. In short, Lady Tonge's expression was a reasonable, indeed factual, contribution to the debate.

And are these British critics forgetting their own recent history. The UK is itself in a different form from what it was a mere century ago. Most of Ireland has departed and the rest will surely follow, and Scotland is getting very itchy feet. Or perhaps they could take a look across the Atlantic. Three hundred years ago, the most powerful country in the world today didn't exist, and the nations that had occupied the western half of North American for millennia are now entirely gone except for scattered remnants. Change in the form of nations is an immutable law of history.

In Canada, things are not much different than in the UK. If a Canadian politician suggested that Canada wouldn't be around forever in its present form, no one would blink an eye, simply because we live with that possibility every day. But if the same politician suggested, as Lady Tonge did, that Israel wouldn't be around forever in its present form, he or she would be enveloped in a storm of protest similar to that suffered by the Baroness. And they would quite likely be tossed from whatever political party they were a member of. Our political and media elites are immersed in the same fog of political correctness on this issue as the Brits.

The insidious nature of this censoring was illustrated by Britain's Labour Party leader, Ed Milliband, who said there is "no place in politics for those who question the existence of the state of Israel." Chief Rabbi Sacks went further, saying, "Views such as those expressed by Baroness Tonge have no place in civil public discourse." In other words, if you contradict the politically correct view of Palestine, you are to be dismissed not only from the political arena but from public discourse. You are to be silenced.

Israel is a nation based on race and religion, a foundation inimical to the principles of Canadians. Questioning the justification of such a state does not make one a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or an Adolf Hitler, yet this is what the defenders of Israeli policies would have us believe. Questioning Israel's form is part and parcel of thinking seriously about the Middle East's, and possibly the world's, most toxic political problem. The last thing we need is for the discussion of this most dangerous of issues to be restricted by the biased boundaries of political correctness.

Americans prefer small government ... or do they?

It is a practically a cliche that Americans prefer small government. A recent survey by the Pew Research Center would seem to confirm this. When asked if government regulation did more harm than good, 52 per cent of Americans agreed while only 40 per cent felt regulation was necessary for the public good. Cliche proved.

But wait a minute. When Pew when on to ask about specific regulatory bodies, the response was often quite different. For example, 53 per cent said regulations on food production and packaging should be increased and 36 per cent said they should remain as they are. Only seven per cent said they should be reduced. Fifty per cent said environmental regulations should be strengthened, 29 per cent said they should remain the same, and only 17 per cent said they should be reduced. Furthermore they felt some groups, including large corporations and banks and financial institutions should be regulated more. While Americans may view federal regulations negatively in the abstract, solid majorities want to maintain or even strengthen them in certain specific areas. Clearly, sometimes they want more government, not less.

Nonetheless, one thing is not in doubt. They are unhappy with government. When it came to the effect various institutions were having on the country, they ranked government at the bottom—only 20 per cent felt their federal government was having a positive effect.

So what does this mean? Do Americans really support smaller government, or are they just very unhappy with the government they currently have, or is government just a convenient scapegoat for a deeply troubled country? The answer is obviously a lot more complex than size alone.

Are political donations and Alberta's persistent condo problems related?

Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. — Lord Hewart, Seventh Lord Chief Justice of England

The same might be said about governing. Governing parties should not only govern justly but should be seen to be governing justly. That is difficult when they receive large political donations from vested interests. To the impartial eye, they might understandably be seen to favour those interests. 

Such is the case in Alberta and the government's action, or lack of it, regarding problems with condominium construction. As more condos were built during the heated economy of the last decade, their construction has often left a lot to be desired. Hundreds of Albertans have been forced out of their condominiums because they were too unsafe to inhabit. Thousands of others have had to spend millions of dollars to repair crumbling buildings, many less than a decade old.

Last year, 300 residents of the Penhorwood complex in Fort McMurray were hastily evacuated in the middle of the night because officials feared the nearly new building would collapse. The owners voted to borrow $35-million to rebuild the entire project.

Owners in Bella Vista condo in Calgary, a building less than 10 years old, face bills between $77,000 and $189,000 each for repairs to the roof, eaves, balcony and parkade in a building where some of the condos are only worth $200,000.The owners are pursuing legal action against the developer.

Earlier this month, about 150 residents of the high-end Bellavera Green Condos in Leduc were given an eviction order because of serious fire-code issues. Fire chief Ernie Polsom reported that the one-year old complex contained “serious Alberta Fire and Building Code violations."

The provincial government has been promising action for some time. Last year, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs said the government is implementing changes such as a new home warranty program, better training for safety codes officers and increased fines for building-code violations. “It’s been a long process," she said, "but we’re getting to the end.”

The question is why the end hasn't been reached. A government committee, led by Conservative MLA Thomas Lukaszuk, issued a report in December 2008 which found Alberta’s system of construction and inspection was inadequate to protect home or condominium owners. Over three years later, nothing has been done and the woes continue.

Perhaps this is just a case of the mills of the gods grinding slowly, but an observer might be excused for wondering if he wasn't seeing an indebted political party hesitant to offend a major benefactor. Indeed, in the case of the Alberta Conservative Party, its major benefactor. The biggest donor to the Conservatives is not, as most would guess, the oil industry, but the construction/real estate industry. In 2009, for example, the Conservatives received 69 per cent of their funding from corporations and 26 per cent of that came from the construction/real estate industry. Does the government's caution, at the expense of homeowners, result from an obligation to a very generous friend, or does it only look that way? In any case, this is a circumstance that fails to meet the standard of integrity laid down by Lord Hewart.

How Wall Street buys Washington

Oh, those fickle Wall Street bankers. In 2008, Barack Obama was their man for president. They lavished $71-million on the Democratic candidate, $10-million more than on his Republican rival. Goldman Sachs was Obama's major contributor. In the current campaign, they are laying out the largesse again, outspending all other special interest groups. So far, however, they have switched horses, investing twice as much in Mitt Romney's campaign as Obama's.

Romney holds a certain attraction for the bankers, of course. He is from their ranks, and he has promised to return Wall Street to the good old days of untrammeled greed. But, not to worry, Obama will get his share. That's how the bankers play it. They really aren't that concerned with who wins; their goal is to control the agenda and frame the debates. This means that, while they have their favourites, they are generous to both sides. No matter who wins, the winner is obligated to the bankers.

After all, they have little reason to be unhappy with Obama. Oh yes, he spoke out disapprovingly about the "fat cat" bankers and promised legislation to rein them in, but that was rhetoric for the rabble, designed to allay the righteous anger of the masses. The bankers understand that politicians have to display their populist side from time to time. All the while Obama was railing about fat cats, he was bailing out the banks with bundles of boodle and hiring the guys who had caused the problem as his economic advisers and chiefs of staff. Legislatively, all his administration has produced to control the excesses of Wall Street is the anemic Dodd-Frank Act (which Mitt Romney has pledged to repeal).

And then there's the tax issue. Back in the 50s and early 60s, The top marginal tax rate in the U.S. was 91 per cent. Today it's 35 per cent. Yet unemployment today is much higher and economic growth slower—pandering to the "job creators" clearly isn't an economically productive strategy. Nonetheless, seriously raising taxes is off the table, just where the bankers want it, even though the country is running massive deficits. Americans are, it seems, getting the government Wall Street pays for.

Al Jazeera's Bahrain doc wins another award

For a definitive record of the 2011 protests against the kleptocratic Al Khalifa family, rulers of Bahrain, one cannot do better than the Al Jazeera documentary "Bahrain: Shouting in the Dark." The courage and spirit of the uprising is well laid out as is the grim and sickening detail of its repression.

The film has now won the 63rd annual George Polk Award in Journalism. One of America’s most coveted journalistic honours, the award memorializes George Polk, a CBS radio correspondent slain in 1949 after writing critically about the fascist government while covering the Greek Civil War. Other winners, who are chosen from newspapers, magazines, television, radio and online news organizations, include Edward R. Murrow, Carl Bernstein, David Halberstam, I.F. Stone, Morley Safer and Walter Cronkite. The film was also awarded the U.K. Foreign Press Association Award for Best Documentary in November 2011.

The title is fitting as indeed the protesters were "shouting in the dark." Little attention was paid by the Western press compared to the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and now Syria. Nor did Arab countries who supported opposition to other Arab regimes such as Ghaddafi's or Assad's, show support for the Bahrainis. Indeed, quite the contrary. Saudi Arabia, with the support of other Gulf states, aided in the brutal repression of the protesters.

The documentary is of special importance to Western audiences, not only because Saudi Arabia, good friend of the U.K. and the U.S., helped in the oppression, but because the U.K. and the U.S. continue to supply arms to both the Sauds and the Khalifas.

Al Jazeera was in a unique position to bring this story to the world, as they often are in the Middle East. As the crackdown in Bahrain deepened, it was the only international news provider to remain in the country. The documentary can be viewed here.

Rick Santorum—an Antichrist?

Rick Santorum is a disturbing man. The candidate for Republican nominee for president has said things that if I were an American, I would find offensive if not frightening. For instance, he has suggested that people who don't live according to what he refers to as "God's law," have no claim to equality, making it clear he is referring to the "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob," i.e. the Jewish and Christian God. He has further insisted that "our founders said so."

Santorum would apparently deny fellow Americans equality because they don't think like him, because they don't accept his religious beliefs. This is more than devout, this is zealotry, this is creeping into Osama bin Laden territory.

He is wrong, of course, about the founders of his country saying so. Rather, they said, in the Declaration of Independence, that "all men are created equal"—all men, no caveats. Nor is he right about the concept of equality somehow emerging from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. To my knowledge, the first group to explicitly state that all human beings are equal by nature were the Sophists of Ancient Greece, a pre-Christian group of atheists and agnostics.

Santorum ought to have a sound knowledge of the Christian God. He is a devout Catholic, was once listed as one of the 25 most influential evangelists in America by Time magazine, and he and his wife were conferred with the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, an award accorded to Catholics who have displayed exemplary chivalry, nobleness or service to the faith. But how does one actually know the laws of the Christian God? Unless Santorum has a direct line, he must rely on the Holy Bible, specifically the New Testament, the testament of Jesus Christ. And there he goes off the rails.

Santorum supports capital punishment, is a firm advocate of a citizen’s right to bear arms, supports the assassination of scientists working on Iran's nuclear program, supports the torture of prisoners, and believes the U.S. should pursue the Afghan war to a successful conclusion. In summary, he supports torture, murder and war against one's enemies—a very bloody-minded philosophy indeed.

This is all in violation of the laws of the Christian God, at least as expressed by Jesus Christ. It is more Antichrist than Christ. The prophet Himself had a lot to say on the matter. In Mathew 5:38-39, He advises, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." In Mathew 5:43-44, He adds, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Many passages in the Bible are ambiguous, but these are abundantly clear. Christ considered the point so important, He expressed it in two different ways. Nonetheless, not enough ways, apparently, to convince Santorum.

And Santorum is not alone. His competitor New Gingrich said he would do with America’s enemies what former President Andrew Jackson advised: "Kill them.” Even Barack Obama, who also claims Christian credentials, said that anybody who disagreed with the murder of Osama bin-Laden should "have their head examined." How odd that a Christian should in effect say that Jesus Christ should have his head examined.

Being a Christian is hard, at least in the sense of following Christ's (God's) teachings, and I have chosen a particularly tough command to obey, one I certainly couldn't. But then I'm not a Christian and therefore I'm not obliged. Those who claim to be Christians are obliged to at least try. Santorum, Gingrich, et al. don't seem to even be aware of these inconvenient commands, almost as if Christianity were unrelated to Jesus Christ. They are Old Testament believers—an eye for an eye. I know atheists who are better Christians than these guys. Mahatma Gandhi was an infinitely better Christian, and he was a Hindu.

What would Jesus do, indeed.

Syria and the reluctant alliance between al-Qaeda and the West

Al-Qaeda and Western nations agreeing on a policy of critical importance may seem strange, yet such is the case with Syria. Ayman al-Zawahiri, head of al-Qaeda, has publicly thrown his organization’s support behind the Syrian opposition. Al-Zawahiri called on Muslim fighters from Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey to go to Syria and join a jihad against Bashar al-Assad’s “pernicious, cancerous regime.” “Continue your revolt and anger, don't accept anything else apart from independent, respectful government,” was the al-Qaeda leader's message to the Syrians.

Neither the West nor the Syrian opposition welcomed the message. After all, Assad has long smeared the opposition by claiming they were tools of terrorist and foreign influences, while the protesters have insisted their goal is a secular democracy, quite antithetical to the goals of al-Qaeda.

Nonetheless, the call is being answered. According to Iraq's deputy interior minister, Adnan al-Assadi, jihadists are moving from Iraq to Syria and arms are also being sent across the border. "In the past, Syrians were fighting in Iraq," he said, "and now they are fighting in Syria." A pair of recent suicide car bombings that killed 28 people in Aleppo had the mark of al-Qaeda. So, the Syrian rebels, and the West, have an ally in al-Qaeda whether they want it or not.

Other Islamic groups have also voiced their support for the opposition, including Jordan’s increasingly powerful Muslim Brotherhood, who said it was an Islamic duty to support Syria’s rebel army.

The West has had strange allies in the past, most notably perhaps the collaboration with the Soviet Union to defeat the Nazis. An alliance with al-Zawahiri is hardly more unsavory than an alliance with Joseph Stalin. Not that there will be comradely meetings between the parties as there were during WWII. Al-Zawahiri has made that clear, warning the Syrians against dependence on the West.

The co-operation with the Soviets worked out well for the allies in WWII—the Soviets inflicted almost ninety per cent of the casualties suffered by the Germans. However, the East Europeans, who suffered for decades under Communism, may have been less grateful for the Soviet presence. We might expect the same result here. The Islamists will be fierce allies in the fight to overthrow Assad, but when the job is done Syrian democrats will still wish they hadn't come.

News flash—country rejects Olympic Games!!!

Hard to believe, but true—a country has rejected the possibility of hosting the Olympics. Rome had intended to bid for the 2020 Summer Games, but the Italian government has nixed the application. Italian Premier Mario Monti said it would be irresponsible to use taxpayer money to fund the Olympics with a guarantee that the government would cover any deficit, as required by the International Olympic Committee. How refreshing. If the Greek government had exercised the same sense of responsibility toward the 2004 Games, a project we now know it couldn't afford, the country might not have dug itself into such a deep economic hole.

Greece had estimated the cost of the 2004 Games at $6-billion and wound up paying $15-billion. And this is the drift into financial never-never land the Olympics tend to experience, cost overruns being a major part of the Olympic legacy. Canadians have some experience with this—the 1976 Montreal Games cost 12 times the original budget and weren't fully paid off until 2006. The 2010 Vancouver Games only cost four times the original budget.

With Rome out, five cities are left in the race: Madrid, Tokyo, Istanbul, Doha (Qatar) and Baku (Azerbaijan). Can their governments afford it? Spain is in a more fragile economic state than Italy and Japan's economy has been stagnant for years, so there's certainly doubts there. Turkey, on the other hand, is booming, while Qatar is petro-rich and rapidly getting richer, as is Azerbaijan. So some of these countries can afford the lavish demands of the International Olympic Committee; others—and, yes, I'm pointing a finger at Spain here—would be well-advised to adopt a little of Premier Monti's sense of responsibility.

2012—International Year of Co-operatives

 "Cooperatives are a reminder to the international community that it is possible to pursue both economic viability and social responsibility." — United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

I heartily agree with the Secretary-General. Indeed, I believe that if we are to develop the culture of international co-operation that will be necessary to deal with climate change, to say nothing of other global problems, building more of our local, national and global economies with co-operative enterprises must play a major role. 

In seeming agreement, the United Nations has declared 2012 as the International Year of Co-operatives. In the UN's own words, "The International Year of Co-operatives is intended to raise public awareness of the invaluable contributions of co-operative enterprises to poverty reduction, employment generation and social integration. The Year will also highlight the strengths of the co-operative business model as an alternative means of doing business and furthering socioeconomic development." Information on events planned throughout the year, as well as suggestions on how to get involved and participate, can be found here. More than billion co-op members around the world will celebrate the Year.

Competition has its place, but co-operation is a higher human value and therefore a more moral basis for economic enterprise. And in the competitive world order we find ourselves in, as the UN has said, co-ops offers a real alternative. We are relentlessly subjected to the mantra, "we must compete in the global marketplace." It is time for a new and more civilized mantra. I suggest, "We must co-operate in the global society." May the International Year of Co-operatives help bring such a change about.

Stephen Harper and the triumph of ideology over reason

Why did he do it? Why did Stephen Harper suggest we had a public pension funding problem when we don't? And why did he proclaim his concern at an international conference of all places?

Let's all repeat slowly: there ... is ... no ... funding ... problem ... with ... our ... public ... pension ... plans. Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, has made very clear that the Old Age Security (OAS) program is sustainable and affordable given the federal government's projected revenues and economic growth. And a recent OECD study found that "Canada does not face major challenges of financial sustainability with its public pension schemes." Page predicts that the OAS will rise from its current 2.2 per cent of GDP to 3.2 per cent in 2036, the baby boom peak, and decline thereafter. In other words, it will remain a minor part of the GDP for the foreseeable future. The other instrument of public pensions, the Canada Pension Plan, is fully-funded and actuarially sound.

And yet Human Resources Minister Diane Finley hysterically insists that, "We know there's a coming crisis, that's in Old Age Security, that's why we're taking steps now before it's too late because we do not want to burden future generations with massive, massive tax increases," and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty called Page "unbelievable, unreliable, incredible." It's true that Page indicated concern about sustainability last year but that was before the government reduced its projected health care funding.

So why is Mr. Harper's government making an issue out of something that has no business being an issue? I see two possible reasons. One, they don't speak to their Parliamentary Budget Officer or, two, they are manifesting yet again one of their defining characteristics—not allowing facts to get in the way of ideology.

We see this time and again: the building of prisons when the crime rate is falling; promoting dirty oil production in the face of climate change; spending billions on a technically suspect fighter plane to face a nonexistent threat; and of course abandoning the mandatory long form census to make sure facts don't clutter up policy-making.

Nonetheless, sometimes the facts will have their way. On the pension issue, for example, Finance Minister Flaherty seems to be backing off, reassuring the country on Friday that any changes to Old Age Security won’t take effect until at least 2020. And while Mr. Harper, the most ideological prime minister we've ever had in this country, once refused to attend the opening and closing ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics on a point of principle, he is now schmoozing the Chinese like a reincarnated Jean Chrétien. Even he is not immune to realpolitik.