Has Mr. Katz done Alberta democracy a favour?

Alberta has the laxest election funding rules in the country, rules designed to favour the rich. Toward the end of this spring's election campaign, billionaire Daryl Katz nicely illustrated this corruption of democracy when he provided a cheque for $430,000 to the Conservatives, almost a third of the party’s total fundraising, to cover the combined generosity of the Katz family and friends.

As it turns out, this is the same Mr. Katz who wanted the provincial government to cough up $100-million for a new arena for his hockey team, the Edmonton Oilers, as well as the OK for a casino license. Premier Redford has stated, to her considerable credit, that the money will not be forthcoming and furthermore she is opposed to "direct provincial government funding" for any professional sports arena. (Although note her use of the word "direct"—she has said she is not opposed to cities using their provincial infrastructure grants for that purpose.)

Nonetheless, democracy means the political equality of citizens and equality is mocked when the very rich are allowed to swamp the system with their largesse. Conservatives have in the past received as much as 70 per cent of their funding from corporations. That's plutocracy, not democracy. Elections, like courts, must not only exercise equality but they must appear to exercise equality.

Alberta's election funding rules—excessive limits on donations and no limits on spending—encourage anything but equality. Perhaps, just perhaps, the embarrassment caused by the Katz donation, combined with outrage from the opposition parties and the electorate, will push the Conservative government into enacting democratic rules.

At the very least, it ought to ban contributions from corporations and other institutions and limit contributions from individuals to an amount an average citizen can afford. Or, it could fund political parties' election expenses entirely out of the public purse. If we assume that half of Albertans pay income tax (a rough but reasonable assumption), then if every taxpayer added a mere two dollars per annum to his or her taxes, over four years this would amount to about $16-million—over fifty per cent more than the total spent by all parties in the 2012 election.

Would Albertans object? That depends on whether or not they believe democracy is worth two dollars a year, the price of a cup of coffee. I suspect most do. On their tax form, they would of course be allowed to specify which party or parties would get their two dollars.

The ball, as they say, is in your court, Premier Redford.

Americans and global warming—science bounces back

Earlier in this century, almost 80 per cent of Americans accepted that the Earth was warming and almost half believed we were causing it. Then skepticism increased and those believing in warming fell to 57 per cent and those believing we were causing it fell to a third. This increasing rejection of an inconvenient truth was no doubt aided by the massive disinformation campaign waged by vested interests and their political servants. But now there is some good news.

According to a Pew survey, over the last few years recognition of reality is returning. Two-thirds of Americans now agree there is solid evidence that the earth’s average temperature is increasing and 42 per cent say this is caused mostly by human activity.

Global warming is a vastly greater threat to Americans' security than their favourite fear, terrorism. Deniers have done grave mischief by undermining the science of climate change in order to sow confusion and doubt. Major figures in government and industry, men who are expected to show leadership, have acted with particular irresponsibility, one might even say, given the gravity of the threat, wickedness, in support of their own greed or political advantage or simple ignorance.

Perhaps the truth is now beginning to have its day. Americans still have a very long way to go before they come to terms with science which overwhelmingly declares that we, Homo sapiens, are causing global warming, but at least the trend is now in the right direction. A shred of hope remains.

Israelis endorse apartheid

For those supporters of Israel who gamely continue to insist that Israel is not an apartheid state, a recent poll published in the Haaretz newspaper should offer second thoughts.

The poll was relentless: If the West Bank were annexed by Israel, over two-thirds of Israeli Jews say that the 2.5 million Palestinians living there should be denied the right to vote. Furthermore, a third want Arab citizens within Israel to be banned from voting. Almost sixty per cent want Jews to have preference over Arabs in government jobs, and over 40 per cent do not want to live in the same building as Arabs and do not want their children going to school with Arabs.

As for apartheid, the clincher is that 58 per cent of Israelis believe their country already practices it. The headline in Haaretz read, "Apartheid without shame or guilt." If the Israelis believe apartheid is being practiced and are OK with it, who is anyone else to say it isn't so?

Mr. Kenny's arbitrary guidelines

As part of a new bill enhancing the powers of the immigration minister, Jason Kenney has revealed new guidelines he would apply to deny entry to foreign nationals. Currently, visitors can only be denied entry for criminal or national security reasons. Kenny's guidelines would allow the immigration minister to bar:

• People who promote terrorism, violence or criminal activity.
• Corrupt foreign officials.
• Foreign nationals from countries against which Canada has imposed sanctions. 

Consider the first of these: "People who promote terrorism, violence or criminal activity." Former U.S. President George W. Bush and former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair both promoted violence, probably illegally, against Iraq. Should we bar them from Canada? Or how about Barack Obama's assassination by drone—is that violent enough, or criminal enough, to make him persona non grata?

Then there's "Corrupt foreign officials." Russia's government is corrupt from top to bottom. Would we deny a visit by Russian President Vladimir Putin? Indeed, there might be quite a few heads of state on this list.

As for denying entry to "Foreign nationals from countries against which Canada has imposed sanctions," why would we not allow Canadians, particularly those who disagree with the sanctions, an opportunity to hear from the other side? This is simple censorship, and has more to do with protecting government than protecting Canadians.

The point here is that the proposed guidelines are highly arbitrary and obviously subject to political whim. Mr. Kenney referred to Florida preacher Terry Jones as an example of the kind of person who should be denied entry. Jones, with his anti-Muslim high jinks, is certainly an undesirable specimen, but why not let him in and if he engages in hate speech, charge him under the appropriate Canadian law. This would not only teach him a well-deserved lesson but effectively discourage other hate-mongers who entertain the idea of visiting our country. And it would be achieved by due process, not by the arbitrary powers of a government minister. Such arbitrariness is to be discouraged, not enhanced.

The swan song of the Round Table on the Environment

As part of its monstrous budget bill earlier this year, the federal government trashed the National Round Table on the Environment. The Round Table, established in 1988, brought together leaders from business, academia, environmental groups, labour and public policy, to bring “leadership in the new way we must think of the relationship between the environment and the economy and the new way we must act."

Considering that the members were appointed by the government of the day, the agency shouldn't have been perceived by that government as much of a threat. However, it developed the unfortunate habit of criticizing the government's lax environmental policies, for instance reporting that “Canada is currently on track to achieve just under half of the emissions reductions required to meet its 2020 target.”

This did not go over well with the government. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird went so far as to accuse the Round Table of recommending a carbon tax which in fact it never did. No matter, the government killed it.

It has now released its final report, a thorough 184-page effort entitled Framing the Future: Embracing the Low-Carbon Economy. The report emphasizes the economic imperative of moving toward a low-carbon economy and warns that we must act promptly to avoid "missed opportunities and growing economic risk." It points out that while "Canada’s actions today on climate, energy, trade, innovation, and skills will shape its economic prosperity for decades to come," the reality is that "Canada is unprepared to compete in a carbon-constrained world."

The report is prescriptive as well as descriptive and lays out a "foundation for a low-carbon growth plan" for the country. The fact that the report emphasizes economic benefit rather than environmental necessity should make it easier for our environmentally-challenged leaders to act appropriately and safeguard our country's future.

Americans increasingly belligerent as foreign policy debate looms

On Monday, Obama and Romney will debate foreign policy. Recent surveys indicate that Americans, on at least two important issues, are feeling increasingly hard-nosed which probably means advantage Romney.

Regarding Iran's nuclear program, early in the year more Americans felt it was more important to take a firm stand (50 per cent) than to avoid war (41 per cent). That view has now hardened to 56/35. In dealing with China, last March more Americans felt that building a stronger relationship (53 per cent) was more important than getting tougher (40 per cent). That has now sharply reversed with 49 per cent wanting to get tougher and only 42 per cent wanting to build a stronger relationship.

As to who is best qualified to handle foreign policy, Obama still has an edge of 47 per cent to 43 per cent but Romney is gaining fast, up 11 points since September. Furthermore, he has a nine-point lead on dealing with China on trade issues.

Perhaps also favourable to Romney is the view of 54 per cent of Americans that it is more important to have stable governments in the Middle East even if it means less democracy while only 30 per cent say it is more important to have democratic governments. Hardly a vote of confidence in democracy.

Obama has persisted with a number of conservative, Bush-era policies—reauthorizing the Patriot Act, maintaining Guantanamo, using military tribunals, expanding drone attacks, etc.—but this may not be enough to win him favour with an increasingly belligerent America. We shall see, I suppose, Monday night, and of course on November 6th.

U.S. and Russia vie for Iraq arms business

Much has changed in Iraq since the Americans invaded in 2003. Saddam Hussein is gone, replaced by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki who appears to want to replace Saddam's one-party Sunni-dominated state with a one-party Shia-dominated state.

And Russia has been replaced by the United States as the chief arms supplier to Iraq. Not that Russia is out of the picture—it is Iraq's second largest arms supplier.

Despite concerns that al-Maliki is increasingly consolidating Shia power at the expense of the Sunnis, with the risk of civil war, the Americans proceeded late last year with a $11-billion sale of arms and training for the Iraqi military. As national security issues expert Kenneth M. Pollack observed, if the United States won't deal, Mr. Maliki “would simply get his weapons elsewhere.”

That he is doing anyway. This week, Iraq announced it has concluded a $4.2-billion arms deal with Russia, making it Russia's biggest customer after India. Russia is already doing well in the Middle East—it is the largest supplier of arms to both Syria and Iran. After the U.S., it is the world's largest arms exporter.

With its complexity of hostile relations between well-armed groups, the Middle East is the world's most dangerous region. The U.S. and Russia seem to be doing their best to keep it that way.

Kenny's power play should be opposed

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is proposing legislation which will give the minister the power to deny visitors entry to Canada even if they don't have a serious criminal record. Now limited to denying entry only for criminal or national security reasons, the new power would allow the immigration minister to deny entry to someone who might promote hatred or violence.

The opposition parties should vigorously oppose this legislation. Hate speech laws in this country include provisions in the Criminal Code, the Human Rights Act and other federal legislation, as well as statutory provisions in all ten provinces and territories. This is the way Canadians should be protected against the promotion of hatred and violence—by due process, not by the arbitrary decisions of ministers. Mr. Kenney has promised a list of criteria to help prevent abuse of the power, which is good and I commend him for it, but free speech is too important to be left in the hands of one man acting in the absence of due process.

In 2009, this government denied entry to British MP George Galloway who was a promoter of neither hatred nor violence. On the contrary, he has long been an outspoken (if somewhat intemperate) opponent of violence. The government barred him on the grounds that he was a supporter of Hamas, a terrorist organization, because he had been involved in providing aid to Gaza. In fact, as he correctly pointed out, he was involved in providing aid to the people of Gaza via the democratically elected government of Palestine.

Perhaps Mr. Kenney's criteria will protect us from arbitrary decisions such as he himself made in the case of Mr. Galloway. But I wouldn't count on it. Mr. Kenny, and immigration ministers who will follow him, are politicians, not judges, and will always be influenced by political considerations. Canadians are mature enough to hear the views of foreign nationals—allow them in, let them have their say and let the law deal with them if they abuse the privileges they have received. When it comes to freedom of speech, we should be advocating less discretionary power for government officials, not more.

A paean to the Elbow River

Last Friday I attended a ceremony that involved giving thanks that fit nicely with the Thanksgiving weekend. It was, in fact, an offering ceremony, conducted by a Blackfoot elder and his assistant.

In 2008, our community association petitioned The City of Calgary to name a picturesque little park in our neighbourhood "Mok’nstsis." The word is Blackfoot meaning “elbow,” considered appropriate as the park is on the Elbow River just downstream from a natural bend. City Council subsequently approved the name.

The idea behind the naming was to honour our area’s first inhabitants, the Blackfoot people. In order to properly dedicate the park, the association contacted Lorna Crowshoe, Aboriginal Issues Strategist with the City, herself a Blackfoot, who advised us the site should be blessed by a Blackfoot elder and put us in touch with elder Leonard Bastien to further consult. Leonard felt the name was acceptable and agreed to facilitate an Offering Ceremony to appropriately give thanks for the river, its waters and the surrounding life the waters nourish.

The association agreed and Leonard, assisted by Grant Little Mustache, conducted the hour-long ceremony. Sweetgrass was burned, the director of the community association's Heritage Committee was daubed with red ochre to consecrate the offering, and appropriate words were spoken in English and Blackfoot. The offering was a calfskin dressed with eagle feathers, sage and tobacco. After the ceremony, it was left along the riverbank at a secluded spot for Nature to do with what She will. The community association will erect a cairn and bronze plaque to tell the park's story in the coming year.

As an atheist, the ritual of the ceremony meant little to me. However I respected the sincerity with which it was performed and I particularly respected the appreciation expressed for the river and all it offers. I live by the river, walk its banks several times a week, and appreciate it deeply. I enjoy and photograph it in its various moods: ominous in the spring flood, sparkling and joyful in the summer sunshine, warmly welcoming yet melancholy in its autumn colours, and patient and serene during the long winter. For me, having grown up in a prairie river valley, it offers a wisp of nostalgia for someone who really isn't very nostalgic, a spiritual connection for someone who isn't religious. A river to which I give thanks.

Malala Yousafzai—heroine

This week the Taliban committed yet another atrocity in the name of religion when they shot 14-year old Malala Yousafzai in the head and neck while she sat with her classmates on a school bus. Still in critical condition this morning, she has been flown to the country's top military hospital for specialist treatment.

Malala has for some time been on a Taliban hit list because of her support for "the imposition of secular government" in the Swat area of Pakistan. She has exhibited extraordinary courage in speaking out against religious militants and advocating for girls' education, recently expressing her desire to set up her own political party and a vocational institute for marginalized girls in her area. A quite exceptional young lady.

Rana Jawad, Islamabad bureau chief of the country's biggest news channel, said the incident could "help the nation gel together in dismissing this mindset which attacked an innocent, harmless girl." Let us hope he is right about Pakistan rallying behind Malala to oppose religious extremism, but he is wrong about her being a "harmless girl." She is a greater threat to the Taliban than any military force.

May she recover completely and continue to serve as an inspiration to all of us.

The U.S. squeezes the Palestinians

The Palestinian Authority has announced that before the end of the year (but after the U.S. presidential election) it will press for a vote by the General Assembly for upgraded status at the UN. On cue, the United States has gone into bullying mode, warning European nations that if they support the Palestinians there will be "significant negative consequences," including financial sanctions, for the Palestinians. Last year the U.S. used its veto in the Security Council to block an application for full statehood.

At first glance, U.S. opposition to the Palestinians moving closer to statehood seems to contradict its own policies. Does it not consistently claim that it supports a two-state solution in Palestine? The Israelis have their state, should the Palestinians not now have theirs? The current process—whatever it is—has been going on for decades and is going nowhere. (Or at least it has gained nothing for the Palestinians—the Israelis gain more land and further segregate the Palestinians every day.) Taking another approach to statehood, a peaceful one step at a time process in co-operation with the world's nations via the UN, would seem eminently sensible. We might expect the Americans to be applauding and yet they are instead threatening dire consequences. They would apparently deny the Palestinians any progress at all.

The answer to this seeming contradiction lies in the U.S. declaration that Palestinian statehood "can only be achieved via direct negotiations with the Israelis." The U.S. pushes negotiations between the two parties because the Israelis have all the leverage. They have the most powerful military in the region, complete with nuclear arms, backed up by the most powerful military in the world. And they occupy most of the land. The Palestinians have virtually no leverage at all. The U.S. is in effect telling the Palestinians to submit, to accept whatever crumbs the Israelis care to offer. And they are determined to coerce the Palestinians into accepting this submission by cutting off any other alternatives that might lead to a Palestinian state.

The U.S. approach is rather like what we did with the North American Indians. We forced them, by virtue of our ever-increasing numbers and our superior technology, to negotiate with us when we had all the leverage. And we know how that worked out.

The analogy with the Palestinians is not complete however. History was on our side with the Indians. As Europeans poured into North America in their millions, the Indians were utterly overwhelmed and either negotiated for very little or got nothing at all. In the case of the Palestinians, however,  history is on their side. They make up 20 per cent of Israel itself, half of all Palestine, and then there are the millions in the immediate diaspora in Jordan, Syrian, etc. and beyond that hundreds of millions of fellow Arabs.

Of course the Palestinians do face losses as Israel changes the facts on the ground by stealing ever more land. Nonetheless, with the overwhelming numerical superiority of the Palestinians and their kin and the support of the Arab peoples brought increasingly to the fore with the Arab spring, in the long term the Palestinian position is strong.

Naturally, the Israelis are keen to take advantage of the current power imbalance while the Palestinians gain by taking other approaches than negotiation which, with time on their side, they can afford to do. Thus their bid to the UN for upgraded status. One European diplomat observed "if we are to persuade Abbas not to pull the trigger, a serious alternative needs to be put on the table, and fast." That alternative is obvious: propose a settlement that is fair to the Palestinians and then the U.S. must pressure Israel into accepting it.

But they refuse to do that. They insist instead on coercing the Palestinians into negotiations in which they will be victimized yet again. The American behaviour strongly suggests the United States supports not a two state solution but rather a state/bantustan solution.

The enemy of my enemy is not a terrorist

It's a truism: The other guy's terrorist is my freedom fighter. A recent example of this arbitrary logic in action is the removal of the militant Iranian group the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq or MEK from the U.S. list of terrorist organizations.

The MEK was originally involved in the Iranian revolution that overthrew the Shah but then parted company with the government of Ayatollah Khomeini. It has cut a long and bloody swath of bombings and assassinations that have killed thousands of civilians, Iranian politicians and at least half a dozen Americans. It was befriended by Saddam Hussein who allowed it to set up armed camps in Iraq and who used its fighters against the Kurds and the group's fellow Iranians in the Iran/Iraq war.

It now claims to have abandoned violence, but this may be a bit disingenuous. The MEK was on the U.S. terrorist list so when the Americans invaded Iraq, they disarmed its camps. This has not however dissuaded them from terrorism. They are, for example, suspected of collaborating with the Israelis in the murder of Iranian scientists.

And then there's the terrorism of their own members. The organization is run by the husband and wife team of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi (although Massoud has not been seen for years and although Maryam insists he's alive won't say where he is). The couple has been accused by Human Rights Watch of brutal treatment of dissenters and MEK is frequently described as a cult.

Nonetheless, after lavishing largesse on American politicians, holding rallies that featured prominent U.S. politicians and officials (often well reimbursed) and extensive lobbying, the group has been removed from the U.S. terror list by the State Department. Ted Poe, a member of Congress who has received political donations from wealthy MEK supporters, has dutifully described the group as "freedom fighters."

Some members of Congress have gone so far as to agree with the MEK that it should be considered the official opposition to the Iranian government—a ludicrous idea considering its support for Saddam Hussein and its own autocratic nature. John Limbert, former deputy assistant secretary of state for Iran, is more realistic, calling the delisting a "strange and disappointing decision," adding the group has "a very dubious history and a similarly dubious present."

Nonetheless, the MEK will no doubt prove useful to the U.S. (and Israel) in its quarrel with Iran, so it is, almost by definition, no longer a terrorist organization. In 1939, President Franklin Roosevelt said about Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza that "he may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch." Apparently not much has changed except the sons of bitches.

Weaselling out of the Convention on Cluster Munitions

Cluster bombs are one of the nastier instruments of war. Each bomb can contain hundreds of bomblets, many of which fail to explode on impact and lie unexploded for years until disturbed. Because of their wide coverage, they pose risks to civilians both during attacks and afterwards. Sometimes they are brightly coloured in order to warn civilians, but this unfortunately makes them more attractive to children. Human rights activists claim that one in four victims of bomblets are children who play with the explosives well after hostilities have ended.

In 2008, a group of nations adopted the Convention on Cluster Munitions, an international treaty that will ban the use, production, stockpiling, and transfer of these weapons as well as any assistance with such activities. Canada intends to ratify the treaty, but its proposed legislation contains provisions that will undermine it. Bill S-10, currently before the Senate, will allow Canadian forces, when undertaking joint operations with the armed forces of non-party states, to authorize use of cluster munitions, to transport cluster munitions belonging to non-party states, and to counsel non-party state forces to commit acts prohibited to Canada.

As Senator Romeo Dallaire has stated, "It does not make sense to comprehensively ban an immoral, indiscriminate weapon, and then turn around and say it's still okay to use them in combined operations." The World Federalist Movement is hosting a petition to have the loopholes removed from Bill S-10. You can find it here.

What would Martin Luther say?

I was surprised to discover recently that governments in Europe collect taxes for churches and other religions. In Germany, for example, taxpayers pay between 8 and 9 per cent of their income tax to the religious community to which they belong. Religions may choose to collect the tax themselves, in which case they may demand that the government reveal the tax data of their members so they can calculate the contributions owed.

A taxpayer may opt out of the tax by signing an official declaration that he or she is leaving the faith. Apparently, with the recent revelations of child abuse by priests, Catholics are increasingly doing just that. This does not please the Church—the tax provides about 70 per cent of its revenues.

In order to teach these slackers a lesson, it has issued a decree denying them the sacraments and religious burials.This would seem reasonable; after all, they are declaring they are leaving the Church (even though apparently some of them are attempting to remain active in their parish). Nonetheless, the Church has been accused of "selling the sacraments" with the decree going "beyond the sale of indulgences that Luther denounced."

My question is why European governments are still holding out the collection plate for religions in the 21st century. Didn't we separate the two generations ago?

Harper's subversion of co-ops

One of the Harper government's assaults on progress that I missed at the time, perhaps because the mass media made little of it, was its undermining of co-ops, one of my favourite institutions. Last April it terminated the federal Co-operative Development Initiative and cut funding for the Rural and Co-operatives Secretariat.

The Co-operative Development Initiative was designed to help people develop co-ops and to research and test innovative ways of using the co-operative model. The Secretariat advises the government on policies affecting co-operatives, co-ordinates the implementation of such policies and encourages use of the co-operative model. The cuts are a blow to the development of new co-operative businesses in Canada, to say nothing of an insult to the co-operative movement in this the year the UN has declared the International Year of Co-operatives.

Government provides assistance to both co-operative and competitive enterprises in various ways. Some evidence indicates that the investment in co-ops has a better payoff. According to an article in the CCPA Monitor, a Quebec study found that after five years, 62 per cent of new co-ops were still operating compared to 35 per cent for other new businesses. After 10 years, the comparison was 44 per cent and 20 per cent respectively.

But co-ops are much more than business instruments for creating jobs and providing services, although they do that very well indeed. Perhaps even more importantly, they are a major contributor to a more democratic economy. They operate on democratic principles while bringing economic control to the local level. In a world desperate for more co-operation and less competition, the Harper government is once again moving in the wrong direction.

Romney really does represent Republicans

Mitt Romney's dismissal of almost half of the American people as parasites even offended some members of his own party. Nonetheless, the now famous 47 per cent video not only revealed the real Romney, it revealed the real Republican.

In response to a recent survey, only 40 per cent of Republicans agreed with the statement, "It is the responsibility of the government to take care of people who can't take care of themselves." By comparison, 75 per cent of Democrats and 59 per cent of independents agreed. Republican support for taking care of the less fortunate has declined from 62 per cent 25 years ago while support by Democrats has remained relatively constant. This is no surprise considering the shift of the Republican Party to the hard right.

The Republicans have done a great job of convincing Americans that somehow they represent the average Joe and Jane even though they have always been the agent of the rich. The video offered a glimpse into the reality behind the claim. It showed the American people what most Republicans really think about at least 47 per cent of them. They now have a chance in November to return the sentiment.

I'm happy Canadians are happy

According to the Centre for the Study of Living Standards, Canadians are a happy bunch. A report by the Centre claims that over 90 per cent of us say we are satisfied or very satisfied with our lives. It says further that according to a Gallup World Poll, we are the second happiest country in the world, trailing only Denmark. That's up from fifth place five years ago. Apparently we are happy and getting happier.

Speaking for myself, I wasn't asked but if I was I would certainly answer "very satisfied." I am concerned about the very big problems we all face, such as global warming and the encroachment of corporate power on democracy, but at a personal level I am also aware that for ordinary people no time or place in history has offered more opportunity for satisfaction with life.

Interestingly, young Canadians are more satisfied than older Canadians, an increasing gap. The young are becoming happier with their lives while seniors are actually becoming less happy. An interesting area for speculation which I will leave up to my readers.

There may be a message for political parties here. A party that approaches the electorate attempting to feed off dissatisfaction may not do as well as a party that keeps firmly in mind voters are generally happy with their lot. Attack ads notwithstanding, the optimistic approach should outdo the pessimistic approach.

Anyway, to quote Bobby McFerrin, "Don't worry, be happy." You're a Canadian.

The drug war—cui bono?

The drug war is a most curious war indeed. It is a war which creates its own enemy. If there was no war, i.e. if drugs were legal, the massive profits in drug-dealing would fade away as would the drug dealers and the crime they bring with them. So inasmuch as crime is the problem, it would seem that the real enemy isn't the drugs but the war itself.

The drug dealers depend on the war to keep the money machine running. But they are not the only ones who profit of course. The prison industry is booming—from the U.S., where half the inmates in federal prisons are there for drug offenses, to little Latvia, where half the women in prison are there for non-violent drug offences.

The arms industry has done well, too. American defence contractors have sold billions in weapons for the drug wars in Colombia and elsewhere. The banks have also profited. Wachovia bank recently admitted to transferring $100-million of drug money into the U.S. and failing to monitor $376-billion brought into the bank through small exchange houses in Mexico over a four-year period. And there are other beneficiaries: lawyers and accountants who serve the drug barons, architects who build their mansions, police and military personnel who take their bribes ... the list is long.

Unfortunately, however, wars do more than make some people rich, they also cost lives. In Mexico, 56,000 people have died from drug-related violence since the country launched its latest version of the war in 2006. The Mexican city of Juárez exemplifies who the real enemy is. In the period 2008-10, 54 people died from drug overdoses, over 7,000 died from the drug war. In Juárez, people might be excused for stating the modest exaggeration that drugs don't kill people, drug wars do.

Why the Wall Street gang aren't in jail

Many Canadians (and many more Americans) ask the eminently reasonable question, Why aren't the bankers who precipitated the financial collapse of 2008 in jail? The damage they inflicted on the U.S. alone was immense: a loss of $11-trillion of personal wealth and 5.5 million jobs, and the foreclosure of over 10 million homes.

And there certainly seemed to be criminal behaviour. Two government bodies investigated the meltdown—the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the U.S. Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations—and both made criminal referrals to the Department of Justice. When the FBI issued a warning in 2004 that there was an epidemic of mortgage fraud in the country that could lead to economic calamity, the bankers bundling up high-risk loans and peddling them on Wall Street paid no attention.

Following the Savings and Loan scandal of the late 1980s and 1990s, 800 people went to jail. The collapse of 2008 has been described as "roughly 70 times larger." So why aren't the perpetrators being prosecuted, a failure that Byron Georgiou, who served on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, calls "a lack of accountability that is really quite unique in American history"?

Some possible reasons, loosely extracted from a recent article in Al Jazeera, include the following:

• According to Chris Swecker, a former assistant FBI director, the agencies responsible for investigating the excesses aren't adequately funded.
•  Swecker also believes that the Justice Department is reluctant to pursue a criminal prosecution unless it is a "slam-dunk" after losing a case in which two Bear Stearns hedge fund managers were acquitted of charges that they misled investors.
• The bankers' lawyers are the top graduates of the top law schools in the U.S. and completely outgun the government prosecutors. In short, they intimidate the regulators. Furthermore, the top lawyers with the government may be hoping to get a job with the very banking firms they regulate and start making a multi-million dollar salary, many times what they make with the government.
• U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Criminal Division Chief Lanny Breuer were once white-collar defence attorneys and as a result may have a "defence mindset" that discourages prosecution.
•  William Black, an expert in white collar crime who was involved in prosecuting bank executives during the Savings and Loan crisis, says prosecutors don't understand the connection between the 2008 collapse and a crime called "accounting control fraud" in which executives who control a company loot it and become rich.
• The revolving door of bankers moving into government agencies and regulators moving into banking firms creates close relationships in which nobody wants to call a friend a crook.
• The immense lobbying clout of Wall Street overwhelms politicians and regulators alike.
• The financial industry is a major contributor to election campaigns. Goldman Sachs was a top donor to Barack Obama in 2008.
• The banking industry is so critical to the health of the American economy the government may be afraid that tough regulation could be "bad for business."

Summing it all up, one might say the banks are just too damn rich and powerful. Meanwhile, time is ticking away on the statute of limitations. The bastards may walk.

What ails Canada?

I pilfered the heading of this post from a recent editorial in the Guardian: "Maple leaf ragged: what ails Canada?" The article suggests that our country's "hardline stances" on a number of issues has triggered "an undercurrent of anxiety" in our public discourse.

A long list of examples is provided: the toughening of immigration rules and the reduction to health care for refugees; the Quebec election of separatists triggering political violence; controversy over tar sands production; marginalization of First Nations people; our increasingly U.S. line on foreign policy; and allegations of complicity in the torture of Afghan detainees. The article tends to overstatement but its claim that many Canadians are asking "whether their country's reputation as a tolerant, environmentally conscious, international peacemaker is suddenly in doubt" is accurate.

The dichotomy between what we had established a reputation for being and what we now appear to be stems in large part from having a government that doesn't represent us. It does formally, of course, but not factually. It was elected by a mere 40 per cent of the voters and its popularity has declined since then. Some governments elected by a minority attempt to represent the views and attitudes of most of their citizens, but this isn't one of them. Indeed, this may be the most ideologically committed federal government we've ever had.

The result is a government whose policies and practices often fail to reflect what most of us believe. Not surprising then that there is an undercurrent of anxiety in our public discourse, not only about how these policies affect us, but how they affect our reputation abroad. Certainly, when our malaise becomes a topic of conversation in other countries, we are something less in their eyes.

Harper plays Mulcair ... at our expense

If Stephen Harper is anything, he is a shrewd politician—always strategizing. He illustrated this yesterday starting off the new session of Parliament by accusing the NDP of supporting a carbon tax. Thomas Mulcair fell into the trap by immediately denying the NDP was considering any such thing. This accomplishes two goals for the Conservatives. First, it put Mulcair on the defensive, exactly where the Conservatives want him, and second, it is now extremely difficult for the NDP to propose a carbon tax in the future. Nicely done, Stephen.

Not so nice for the rest of us, however. A carbon tax is an eminently fair and morally responsible way to ensure we stand accountable for our actions while contributing to our salvation from global warming.

As we drive our cars we litter the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and we do it with with impunity. This litter is rather more of a problem than candy wrappers or cigarette packages, however; this litter contributes to global warming, the greatest threat to civilization we currently face. We ought to be held responsible for our sins.

But how? We won't quit driving and we have no convenient way of disposing of our carbon waste. The obvious answer is a carbon tax. It is moral—we accept responsibility for our actions; and it is fair—the more you pollute, the more you pay. And although we pay in the short term, in the long term we profit from a healthier environment. We might expect any political party to support a measure that was moral, fair and an excellent investment in the future.

But in fact, we cannot. We can't expect a carbon tax from the Conservatives, a party in coalition with the oil industry and in love with the tar sands. The Liberals may not be willing to make another attempt after Stéphane Dion floundered on it. And now the Conservatives have maneuvered the NDP into a position where they hardly dare.

We won't, it appears, be seeing a carbon tax at the federal level any time soon. We will all be the losers.

The U.S.—India's favourite major power

With the unwitting collaboration of an idiot "film-maker" in Los Angeles, irresponsible imams in the Middle East and Islamic extremists leading to the besieging of American embassies, the United States does not appear to be winning the hearts and minds of Islam these days. Not that it was doing much of that before.

Americans may be consoled however by their popularity in the Hindu world. The United States is India's favourite major power. According to a Pew Research Center survey, far more Indians hold favourable views of the U.S. than of China or Russia. Needless to say, very few have a favourable opinion of their neighbour Pakistan, although a solid majority do want to improve relations.

Not only do they hold favourable views of the U.S., they support the Americans on key issues. For example, they strongly support a free market economy, place freedom to pursue life’s goals above the state playing an active role in guaranteeing that nobody is in need, oppose Iran developing nuclear weapons, and approve of the U.S. fight against terrorism including drone strikes. Indians much prefer Obama over Putin or Hu Jintao, and a solid majority want to see him re-elected.

When it comes to culture, the results are rather different. A majority of urban Indians dislike American music, movies and television and most think the spread of American customs in India is a bad thing. I would have suspected the opposite, that they would like the culture but not the foreign policies, but it is not so. It isn't surprising though, considering that 80 per cent say they want to shield their traditional culture from globalization. 

In any case, while the Islamic world besieges American embassies, the Hindu world maintains a friendly face.

Social justice in the OECD

Unfortunately, when nations are compared, the yardstick of comparison is usually GDP, a crude measure of a people's well-being even by economic standards. I am, therefore, always seeking rankings by more meaningful measures. My attention was recently caught by a publication entitled Social Justice in the OECD—How Do the Member States Compare? issued by the Bertelsmann Stiftung Foundation. The report applies six criteria—poverty prevention, access to education, labour market inclusion, social cohesion and non-discrimination, health and intergenerational justice—to determine the relative standards of social justice for the 31 members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

As might be expected, the Scandinavian countries topped the combined index with Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland ranking one to five. According to the report, "The north European states comprise a league of their own."

The U.S. did poorly as also might be expected, ranking 27th overall with its "alarming poverty levels." Only three countries—Turkey, Mexico and Chile—had greater income disparities.

Canada did rather well, "top performer among the non-European OECD states" with "strong results in the areas of education, labor market justice and social cohesion." We ranked ninth overall. So, a decent performance for us, but we can do better. This is a competition in which we should definitely shoot for number one.

Water—a matter of security

When we think about security in the global sense we tend to focus on terrorism although, according to Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, Iran is now the most significant threat to security in the world. Of course it isn't, and terrorism is actually a trivial threat on the world stage. A number of other phenomena are vastly more threatening to people's security, including oppression by dictatorial regimes such as Syria's, diseases such as malaria, and of course the most ominous of all, global warming. And then there's the increasing scarcity of that basic necessity of life—water.

Not that we should need it, but we have received yet another warning about the looming global water crisis, this time in the form of a book entitled The Global Water Crisis: Addressing an Urgent Security Issue, released by The InterAction Council, a group consisting of former heads of state or government. The authors of the book are experts in a broad range of water issues.

They discuss how increasing water scarcity can affect our security in various ways including effects on human health, food and energy reliability, the sustainability of ecosystems, political stability, economic development, and of course the potential for migration and conflict. They also, on the hopeful side, discuss opportunities available in addressing the crisis.

They point out that in 2010, the UN General Assembly formally recognized the “right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights.” This is of course a statement of the obvious, but is important nonetheless as formally establishing this basic need as a human right.

The book mentions some chilling facts including that lack of clean water and proper sanitation kills about 4,500 children every day. Compared to such facts, and the potential for future conflicts over water, the terrorist threat pales into insignificance. Sensibly, our efforts to achieve security for the world's people should focus on those areas that pose the greatest threat, and water scarcity is very high on the list.

The folly of shunning Iran

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer," said the oft-quoted ancient military strategist Sun-tzu. Our government, as militarist as it is, has decided to ignore this advice and cut all ties with its enemy of the day. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird announced last week that we are suspending diplomatic relations with Iran, expelling its diplomats and closing our embassy in Tehran.

Baird declared that, "Canada views the government of Iran as the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today." Iran may be a bit of a bad boy on the world stage (at least in the eyes of the West), but accusing it of being "the most significant threat to global peace" is a little over the top for a country that hasn't attacked another nation in centuries and indicates no intention of doing so now. By comparison, I could name a couple of countries that practically make a habit of it, and they're friends of ours.

This action, added to our government's abandonment of any balance on the Palestine issue, underlines our loss of credibility as an honest broker and peacemaker in the Middle East—appropriate, I suppose, to our new militarism. Nonetheless it is sad to see this country, once a real force for peace in the region, decline into impotence.

So why did they do it? Why did they decide to cut off communication with the very country that, according to their own rhetoric, we most need to talk to? To please our favourite nation in the region, Israel? If so, it worked. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu congratulated Mr. Harper, saying "The determination which Canada demonstrates is extremely important so that the Iranians understand that they cannot continue in their race to achieve nuclear weapons. This practical step must serve as an example to the international community [as regards to] moral standards and international responsibility." The bit about nuclear weapons was a bit rich coming from Israel, as was the bit about international responsibility, but the message was pleasing I'm sure to the ears of Messrs. Baird and Harper.


Or did they do it out of pique because a country they like to think of as a pariah state managed to attract 120 nations to a conference last month? Or were they taking advantage of being in Russia at the time of the announcement to give the Russians a slap on the wrist for their attitude toward Iran? Or have they been tipped off about an attack on Iran by Israel and the United States and our getting our people out while the getting is good? Or are we being psyched up to participate in the attack?

Whatever the reason, the move is counterproductive. I will leave the last word to Iranian-Canadian Mohamad Tavakoli, a history professor in the Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations at the University of Toronto: "I view the decision as irrational ... If Canada is interested in resolving key crises in the Middle East, such as in Syria, then the timing is also bad ... [To deal with geopolitical situations] you don't shut down dialogue and communication—you actually intensify dialogue and communication."

Obama's twin challenges

An interesting article in an Al Jazeera blog poses the question, Who is Obama really running against? The answer isn't Mitt Romney. It's Obama himself, or at least the 2008 version. The author suggests that the 2012 Obama, revealed after four years in office, is so different—as in disappointing—from the earlier version, that he may have trouble getting his supporters out to vote and voter turnout, the author insists, will be critical in this election.

I tend to agree. The turnout in the 2008 presidential election was the highest in 40 years, probably because of the enthusiasm for the young man from Chicago. The polls say the election this November will be close, so if very many of those enthusiasts don't bother to vote this time, Obama will be in trouble.

Obama's second big challenge is dealing with the billionaires. He has been a good boy for the corporations, extraordinarily so for the bankers, but Romney is their main man and they are inundating him with cash. His top super PACs are out-fund raising Obama's by four to one. So far, 32 billionaires have donated to a super PAC backing Romney. Sheldon Adelson, the richest man in Las Vegas, has spent $41-million to date and has pledged up to a hundred million. The infamous Koch brothers plan to raise $400-million. As one wit asked: Is this an election or an auction?

Obama is getting some big money as well. He has a few billionaire sponsors of his own, corporations like to hedge their bets, and organized labour will back him, but he'll never garner the kind of largesse that's flowing to Romney. He will have to squeeze every penny out of his supporters.

He has two mountains to climb—getting out the money, then getting out the vote. I wish him luck.

News flash—U.S. corn growers oppose subsidy

American farm policy has been described as "a bi-partisan pork-barrel boondoggle." Critics claim that massive subsidies reward mainly corporate farms (through 1995 to 2010, the top 10 per cent of farmers collected 74 per cent of all subsidies) while undermining farmers in the Third World. For example, NAFTA allowed cheap, subsidized corn to pour into Mexico from the U.S., undercutting Mexican farmers and costing millions of farm workers their livelihoods.

Now, surprisingly, the National Corn Growers Association, one of the country's largest agricultural lobby groups, is calling for an end to direct farm subsidies. A spokesman for the group said this is not the time for the government to be spending $5-billion per year directly subsiding corn farmers regardless of prices or yields.

They are not calling for an end to all subsidies, just direct subsidies. They continue to support others, such as price supports and crop insurance. These will cost nearly $10-billion per year, roughly the same as direct subsidies.

Nonetheless, it is refreshing to see at least one group within the industry itself calling for an end to policies that have proven unwise both domestically and internationally. Whether or not politicians will agree and unwind one of their favourite means of funneling federal dollars to their states and districts is quite another matter. Mitt Romney, for instance, a great proponent of the free market, has referred to farm subsidies as a matter of "national security."

We might also ask if Europe, an even greater subsidizer than the U.S., will pay attention. After all, agricultural subsidies consume 40 per cent of the European Union's total annual expenditures (including $683,000 per year for Queen Elizabeth).

Ending agricultural subsidies in the West would probably do more to help the Third World's economies than foreign aid. The Western taxpayer would doubly benefit—by ending subsidies and reducing aid. And we could end the current hypocrisy of benefiting the West with free trade for our manufactured goods while disadvantaging the Third World by protecting our agriculture. The Corn Growers deserve praise for a small step in the right direction.

Carleton makes amends ... sort of

Carleton University has finally attempted to atone for accepting what was little better than a bribe and then trying to cover it up. In 2010, the university made a secret deal with Calgary businessman Clayton Riddell which, in return for a $15-million donation for a graduate program in political management, would allow the Riddell Foundation to appoint three of five people on a steering committee that would have power over the program's budget, academic hiring, executive director and curriculum. The deal was fronted by former Reform Party head Preston Manning who would also head the steering committee.

Having made the deal, the university fought tenaciously to keep the details hidden, an effort that ultimately failed. Carleton faculty and the Canadian Association of University Teachers understandably called the arrangement a major infringement on academic freedom. Now Carleton president Roseann Runte, responding to the criticism, has revealed a revised deal. It will require the steering committee to operate in accordance with the university's policies and procedures, and it will no longer approve key hiring and curriculum decisions. It will, however, provide "timely and strategic advice."

Obvious questions remain. For example, will the university be able to say no to "timely and strategic advice" from the $15-million man? The only way academic independence will be assured is if this funding is divorced from any "advice" from the donor. Until then, skeptics will quite rightly have their doubts.

Attempts by big business to infiltrate academia have not been limited to Carleton. The University of Toronto established the Munk School of Global Affairs partially funded by Barrick Gold Corp. chairman Peter Munk. This deal gives Munk or his heirs sole discretion to pull $15-million of his donation if the school doesn't meet their expectations. (A petition to have this arrangement annulled and renegotiated can be found at http://www.petitiononline.com/munkoff/petition.html.)

Earlier this year, 200 professors at York University signed a letter requesting the university stop a proposed agreement with former BlackBerry magnate Jim Balsillie's Centre for International Governance Innovation to fund 10 research chairs until academic safeguards could be negotiated, stating that it allowed "unprecedented influence over the university's academic affairs." The Canadian Association of University Teachers has warned it will launch a boycott this fall if Wilfrid Laurier and the University of Waterloo don't "amend the governance structure for the Balsillie School of International Affairs so that academic integrity is ensured."

Last September, documents obtained after a three-year freedom-of-information fight with the University of Calgary revealed that Talisman energy gave the university $175,000 for a public relations and lobbying campaign against government programs to restrict fossil fuel consumption and lower greenhouse gas emissions. The university subsequently acknowledged "that there was insufficient management and governance oversight" and announced new internal controls.

These insidious attempts by business to influence our political dialogue by infiltrating our universities demand close attention. Quite aside from the very business-like practice of doing deals privately in back rooms, an offense to the open nature of a university, the deals themselves threaten to corrupt our democratic process with plutocratic influence. And Carleton's solution is hardly the answer.

Morsi's brave initiative

Egypt and Iran have barely been on speaking terms for some time. An Egyptian leader hasn't visited Tehran since the Islamic revolution in 1979. But new president Mohamed Morsi intends to change that. This week he is attending the Non-Aligned Movement summit hosted by Iran.

Apparently, Morsi's visit will be short and largely symbolic but he intends, nonetheless, to lay the foundation for a new regional effort to deal with the increasing violence in Syria. His idea is to create a Syria contact group made up of the four major powers in the region: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran. He also intends to discuss the issue with China and Russia, both having opposed punitive measures against the Assad regime in the UN security council.

The United States has opposed including Tehran in the discussions, and has even opposed UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon attending the summit, but given Iran's vital interests in Syria and its ability to affect the future of any solution, that is folly.

As for our government, no comment so far on Morsi's initiative, but Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird has written to Ban Ki-moon supporting the U.S. position that he not attend the summit. Given our abandonment of balanced policy in the Middle East, I suspect the Secretary General will pay about as much attention to Baird's letter as Mr. Baird would pay to a letter from me.

Nothing else has worked in ending the violence in Syria. Morsi should be wished all the luck in the world.

Muslim clerics rally to protect Christian girl

Pakistan is so saturated with Muslim fanaticism that hearing about a host of clerics joining hands with leaders of other faiths to strike a blow for justice is refreshing indeed.

News from Pakistan is replete with stories of religious barbarism, including the appalling law that provides the death penalty for blasphemy, the assassination of politicians who counsel toleration, the murder of Christians by zealous mobs, and so on—a depressing litany. The latest incident of religious mischief to grab the news is the tragic case of Rimsha Masih, a Christian girl accused of burning pages of the Koran. Apparently she is a minor and of diminished mental capacity. In any case, she is being held in prison, and the Christian community in her village has fled in fear.

But there is light in the darkness. The All Pakistan Ulema Council, an umbrella group of Muslim clerics and scholars, which includes representatives from fundamentalist groups, has joined with the Pakistan Interfaith League, which includes Christians, Sikhs and other religions, to call for justice for Rimsha. The chairman of the council, Tahir Ashrafi, declared, "We see this as a test case for Pakistan's Muslims, Pakistan's minorities and for the government. We don't want to see injustice done with anyone. We will work to end this climate of fear." Strong words, long overdue.

Giving the initiative special significance is the presence among its supporters of fundamentalist and militant groups. Sajid Ishaq, chairman of the Pakistan Interfaith League, pointed out, "This is the first time in the history of Pakistan that the Muslim community and scholars have stood up for non-Muslims."

Pakistan has a long way to go to achieve religious tolerance, but it seems the clerics are at least beginning to recognize that religion should have some connection to justice.

What would Huck Finn have said?

My favourite book in childhood, and I was an avid reader, was Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Rafting down the mighty Mississippi from adventure to adventure was as romantic a vision as a boy could have. Sadly, it appears that old Miss isn't so mighty these days.

Due to the massive drought affecting the U.S., water levels in the river have dropped to one-quarter what they were last year, seriously hampering barge traffic along this major transportation route. Vessels can't be fully loaded and in some cases have gotten stuck, forcing their cargos to be moved by road. At Greenville, Mississippi, 100 barges were hung up, at a cost of $3-million a day.

Although global warming may not have caused the drought, it has surely aggravated it and it contributes to the costs. The price of ignoring climate change escalates.

At the end of Twain's great book, Huck decided to escape the woes of civilization and "light out for the territory." Unfortunately, no such option is available to us.

Dying for your country in anonymity

According to Wikipedia, 158 Canadian Forces personnel have been killed in the Afghan war since 2002. Their ultimate sacrifice has been widely recognized, honoured and commemorated—individually and collectively—and will continue to be, at least every November 11th, for generations.

I thought about this while reading about how the Alberta government has decided to no longer publish statistics on the deaths of farm workers in the province. These people also make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, yet there is no recognizing, honouring or commemorating. They may perform a service far more valuable than whatever our troops were doing in Afghanistan, yet they are no longer even counted.

We do, however, have a good idea of their number. In 2010, the last year the government published the figure, 22 workers lost their lives on Alberta farms. At that rate, every seven years the death toll matches that of the total sacrifice in Afghanistan.

Put on a uniform, pick up a gun, die for your country, and become a hero. Put on your overalls, rev up your tractor, die for your country, and you don't even become a statistic.

Is our federal government anti-worker?

Among other unwarranted assaults, the 2012 federal budget took a shot at working people. It introduced rules which will require most EI claimants to accept jobs at much lower wages and will allow employers of temporary foreign workers to pay less than the prevailing Canadian wage.

The budget followed a pattern of behaviour by this government. Last year, following a lockout by Canada Post, it legislated postal workers back to work at a lower wage increase than even the employer had offered.

Also last year, U.S.-based Caterpillar Inc. humiliated its workforce by locking them out and demanding a 50 per cent pay cut or else. When it didn't get what it wanted, it closed its plant and cashiered its workers. The Conservative government was content to stand by and watch this abuse of its citizens without apparent concern.

Now the U.S. giant Target has bought out Zellers and up to 13,500 employees will lose their jobs. Many will be re-hired to work for Target but with no guarantee they will be offered more than starting conditions. So far, not a word from their government defending their interests.

We might expect a Conservative government to be employer-friendly, particularly a Harper-led government, but the Labour Minister at least ought to be a voice for workers in the Cabinet. After all, it isn't unheard of for a Conservative Labour Minister to be a spokesperson for the interests of workers. Michael Starr, member of John Diefenbaker's Conservative cabinet, is considered to be one of the most worker-friendly labour ministers we ever had. However, Mr. Harper's Minister of Labour, Lisa Raitt, clearly has no interest in emulating the Honourable Michael Starr.

Mr. Harper and his cabinet colleagues talk a great deal about jobs, but one wonders if their concern is about providing rewarding opportunities for working people or just providing warm bodies for employers. Considering Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's infamous comment, "There is no bad job," I get the distinct impression it's the latter.

Funny picture of the day—Julian Assange's personal patrol

Below is a Sang Tan/Associated Press photo of policemen hanging out at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. The occasion is Julian Assange's presence within. As the whole world knows, Ecuador has granted Assange political asylum from the pursuit of British and Swedish authorities.

But look at the cops! I count 13 of them twiddling their thumbs. What could they possibly think is going to happen that will require a baker's dozen of officers?

It seems to illustrate just how desperate the British are to transport this guy to Sweden. First they were determined to extradite him, now they are threatening to invade the Ecuadoran embassy in order to carry out the extradition—in gross violation of international law. Might one be considered a cynic if he should suspect there's something more at issue here than Julian Assange's sexual peccadilloes?

Europe's shrinking economy—bad news or good?

Once again the news of a shrinking economy leaves me with mixed feelings. According to the CBC, the economy of the European Union shrank by 0.2 per cent in the second quarter of 2012 after a flat first quarter.

Surely this is bad news. The EU is heavily in debt and suffers from record unemployment—grim statistics indeed. And all of this leads to increasing social dysfunction.

Yet we know that economic growth cannot continue forever—we live on a finite planet and are using up its resources at an unsustainable pace. Sooner or later the growth must stop and we can either manage its end or have it imposed on us haphazardly by increasingly exhausted resources. The latter, combined with climate change, promises a dystopian future that would challenge the imagination of a pessimistic science fiction writer.

So, if financial mismanagement forces us into a no-growth mode before the realities of resource depletion and environmental abuse overwhelm us, is that a bad thing? The answer of course is no, but only if we adapt to the situation and restore economic health in a sustainable way. Unfortunately, there is little indication our political and business leaders are taking up that challenge. Their only answer seems to be ever more growth and damn the consequences.

As long as we refuse to confront the need to end growth, I will be unable to resist some small measure of satisfaction when I hear that circumstances are imposing on us willy-nilly what we ought to be doing by design.

Good news on climate change ... I think

A new survey indicates that Canadians are increasingly acknowledging the reality of climate change while recognizing that we are the culprit. An Insightrix Research, Inc. poll reported that 98 per cent of us believe climate change is occurring with 86 per cent believing that human activity is at least partly responsible. Only nine per cent believe it isn't happening at all.

This is good news. The first step in dealing with a problem is recognizing you've got it, and with climate change that recognition hasn't been easy to achieve what with major vested interests attempting to deny the reality or at least confuse the issue. Canadians seem to be increasingly realizing that scientists are the wise men on this issue—the people who know what they are talking about—not the political or business leaders. This is critical if we are to muscle our political and business leaders into doing what is necessary to meet the challenge, the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced.

I do have some reservations about the poll. Of the 98 per cent who believe climate change is occurring, only 32 per cent believe it is entirely due to human agency, with 54 per cent believing it's due to a combination of human and natural causes. The latter is not unreasonable, yet suggests a certain softness in the recognition of human responsibility.

Furthermore, the poll was conducted online and wasn't random, although an effort was made to account for age, gender, region and education in order to match the general population, and a CBC online poll yielded roughly similar results (77 per cent believing human activity is at least partly responsible).

Despite some misgivings, the poll does indicate an awareness of the problem if not yet an awareness of its seriousness. It allows for hope at least.

Are the feds backing off Northern Gateway?

The federal government has, up until very recently, been a major cheerleader for the Northern Gateway pipeline project. After all, the pipeline is intended to carry Mr. Harper's favourite energy source—Alberta bitumen—to offshore markets.

The government has proclaimed the economic benefits of the pipeline, castigated its critics as foreign-funded radicals undermining the Canadian economy and eased environmental regulations to expedite pipeline approvals.

Then B.C. Premier Christie Clark, philosophical bedmate and friend of Stephen Harper (now former friend?), got testy about the project, insisting that B.C. get a share of the profits as well as guaranteed compensation against environmental damage. Clark was generally considered to be responding to the anti-pipeline sentiment rampant in her province across which the pipeline must venture.

Mr. Harper's main man in B.C., Heritage Minister James Moore, started picking up on the provincial vibes as well and came very close to echoing Premier Clark's sentiments. "Just because British Columbia is physically the Asia-Pacific gateway, it doesn’t mean that we’re the doormat for companies like Enbridge to think that they can go ahead and do business without having due diligence and taking care of the public’s interest," Moore said.

Even Federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, who has been doing a Joe McCarthy on environmentalists, is hedging a bit, stating in a CBC interview, "I personally have not said that this pipeline should go through."

For his part, Prime Minister Harper has been taking pains to insist the evaluation of the pipeline will be based on independent, scientific assessment, something of a change in emphasis from his usual obsession with economics. But more importantly, why has the man who exercises iron control over his party allowed Minister Moore to make statements that border on heresy?

If the pipeline fails to gain all necessary approvals, it will be a massive political blow to the Conservatives. Are they now starting to reposition themselves to minimize the damage? Harper is a politician who thinks strategically every waking moment—as opposition to the Northern Gateway mounts, thoughts along those lines must be crossing his mind.