Why is November 11th only for those who sacrifice in war?

Today, many Canadians will commemorate the sacrifice of men and women who died serving their country in battle. And why not? Sacrifice in a good cause is certainly honourable. Sacrifice in a bad cause, such as the First World War ... well, best save that for another day.

But why, on this day of memory, do we only honour those men and women who give their lives in war? We all serve our country, and people in various professions sacrifice their lives for the greater good. Fishermen, police officers, miners, firemen, loggers, journalists, and others take risks in their working lives serving the rest of us. When they too make the ultimate sacrifice, why are they not included in the wearing of poppies, the moment of silence, the memorial services of November 11th? Memorial services exist for groups other than the military but they are restricted to the periphery of our national consciousness.

Is dying in the act of killing others more honourable than simply dying in the service of others? Is a fisherman who dies at sea less worthy of commemoration than a soldier who dies in Afghanistan? Personally, I have a great deal more respect for a killer of fish than a killer of men.

I understand the primitive urge to defend the tribe. It is genetic and powerful, and has always made the defender of the tribe, the warrior, the first among men. But in an age when our weapons for that defence - nuclear, chemical and biological - can destroy us all, surely we must get beyond the primitive instincts and rituals of the warrior ethos. We should at least include equally in our rituals those who make the ultimate sacrifice in constructive endeavours rather than destructive ones.

The elusive truth about drugs

Earlier this month a great row erupted in the U.K. when the government fired Professor David Nutt, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, for claiming that evidence about drug harm was being distorted and the issue politicized. One of the things that intrigues me about the affair is Professor Nutt's findings about what he refers to as "a peculiar media imbalance in relation to drugs."

In reference to a comprehensive study in Scotland, he noted that over the decade of the 1990s, Scottish newspapers reported on 546 drug deaths out of the 2,255 that occurred. The reporting ratios were as follows:

• For aspirin, one out of every 256 deaths was reported
  
• For morphine, one in 72
• For heroin, one in five
• For methadone, one in 16
• For amphetamines, one in three
• For cocaine, one in eight
• For ecstasy, almost every death was reported
  

Certain facts jump out at the reader. For instance, the limited attention paid to legal drugs such as aspirin and morphine compared to the close attention paid to heroin, cocaine and even amphetamines even though amphetamine deaths were relatively rare. Ecstasy deaths were even rarer, yet the newspapers hardly missed a one, clearly creating the impression ecstasy is more dangerous than it is.

No alcohol deaths were reported on even though this would have added another 2,000-3,000 to the total, as many or more than all the other drugs combined. No cannabis deaths were reported either, but then you can't die of cannabis overdose.

Obviously, newspaper readers in Scotland get a distorted picture of the relative danger of various drugs. It would be interesting to see a similar study done in this country. If our newspapers are as biased as theirs, we may be basing our drug policies on misconceptions.

Is Obama abandoning the Palestinians?

The game has gone on for a long time. The Israelis steal more land in the West Bank, the U.S. dutifully chastises them, the Israeli prime minister visits Washington and the U.S. quietly submits to the new reality on the ground. Hope arose that the election of Barack Obama might finally put a stop to this charade and apply the necessary pressure to force Israel into ceasing its colonization and offering a just deal to the Palestinians.

The Palestinians themselves were skeptical. As it turns out they were right to be. In direct violation of what both Israel and the U.S. agreed to in 2003, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has supported Israel's position that it doesn't need to freeze settlement activity as a prelude to resuming peace talks with the Palestinians. According to Clinton, "This offer falls far short of what our preference would be, but if it is acted upon, it will be an unprecedented restriction on settlements and would have a significant and meaningful effect on restraining their growth." So, apparently the new American position is that growth of the settlements is OK as long as it's "restricted" and Israel defines what restricted means. As for the settlements that have been established to date, Clinton, not surprisingly, had nothing to say.

This is a severe slap in the face for Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. According to Alastair Crooke, a senior advisor to Obama's Middle East envoy George Mitchell, "This pulls the rug out from under everything [Abbas] has stood for." One wonders how many more humiliations he can endure.

The Israeli tail wags the American dog for a variety of reasons: guilt over the Holocaust, the similarity of cultures, the empathy of one people who stole their country from the natives for another people who stole their country from the natives, and so on. But shouldn't Obama, with his background, have been able to rise above this and do justice for an oppressed people?

Perhaps, but now he faces another reason. He desperately needs every vote in Congress to pass a health care bill, his most important piece of legislation, as well as an environment bill, his second most important piece of legislation. And who is the most powerful lobby in Washington, who has the most influence on Congress? Why, the Israeli lobby of course. Obama knows that if he offends Israel, the Israeli lobby could very well undermine his domestic priorities. Politics is all about tradeoffs, and it looks like the Palestinians are being traded off.

The dog continues to wag, under Obama just as it did under his predecessors, leading one to suspect that Israel's colonization of the West Bank will continue until there's no more land worth colonizing.

Will Canadians take up the challenge of global warming?

The response from our federal government to the Pembina Institute/Suzuki Foundation study "Climate Leadership, Economic Prosperity," is predictable. Outrage. "The conclusions it draws are irresponsible," says Environment Minister Jim Prentice, "The kind of economic consequences you see in this report are not necessary if this is done in an orderly way." Unfortunately, what that orderly way is our government has not yet revealed.

Once again one must wonder if we, humanity that is, Canadians specifically, are up to dealing with global warming. Seventy years ago our leaders called us to the challenge of dealing with Nazism and we responded. We were prepared to do whatever was necessary. This time the threat is vastly greater. The Nazis threatened Western civilization; global warming threatens all civilization and more.

Yet what is demanded of us is so much less. Then we were asked to make great economic sacrifice and even to give up our lives if necessary. The Pembina/Suzuki report only asks us to knock a few points of our GDP. Even with the sacrifice, we will still be richer in ten years than we are today, and Alberta, which is asked to make the biggest sacrifice, will still be much richer than the rest of Canada.

Nonetheless, our leaders may not ask it of us because they believe it will be too much. The last politician to ask, Stephane Dion, was not only rejected by the Canadian people, he was humiliated.

Nonetheless, I think we are as good now as we ever were. Dion simply wasn't the guy. If the right political leader stands up and challenges us to do the right thing, to make the effort necessary to realize the recommendations of the Pembina/Suzuki report, I think we would accept the challenge and elect that leader. Then again, maybe I'm playing Pollyanna.

Fox News and journalists lack of pride in their profession

U.S. President Obama's "war" with Fox News is a hot topic in American media circles these days. That there would be tension between a president and a news network that is out to destroy his administration isn't surprising. What is surprising is the lack of concern among American journalists about the way Fox demeans their profession.

I referred to Fox as a news agency out of generosity. It is in fact a propaganda agency in both news and opinion. Its news is biased and highly selective; if necessary it creates its own news for the purpose of Obama-bashing; and its pundits, "barking mad gasbags" according to John Doyle in the The Globe and Mail, routinely resort to bullying, distortion and outright lying. The network has brought journalism down not just into the gutter but into the sewer.

Yet few journalists in the U.S. seem concerned, although some, such as Jacob Weisberg in Newsweek, have spoken out. If a doctor behaved with the same irresponsibility toward his profession that Fox journalists do toward theirs, he would be struck off the register. A lawyer would be disbarred. Doctors and lawyers take pride in their profession. They set high standards and if any of their fellow practitioners can't meet those standards, they don't want them around.

I understand that journalists can't strike their malpracticing fellows off the register or disbar them, but they can defend high standards and excoriate those who fall to the level of Fox. Most, it seems can't be bothered. I'm not suggesting they don't strive for a high standard in their own work, but rather that, unlike doctors and lawyers, they seem to have no concern about the reputation of their profession as a whole.

It shouldn't be up to the president to do their job for them, but apparently it is. Even in response to Obama's lead, they seem more interested in circling the journalistic wagons than accepting journalistic responsibility.

Canada drifts, Harper struts

Our federal government seems to be marking time. It seems to have only a vague idea what our future should be. Other than putting lots more people in jail, of course. Checking the Conservative Party website, all I see under Plan is a discussion of their current economic action. Not a word on anything else. I'm not looking for anything as grand as a vision, but some sensible plans for key areas would be a good idea.

As far as the biggest challenge facing us is concerned -- global warming -- our government does little, content to see what the Americans are going to do. When the U.S. firms up plan, we might get around to doing something. In foreign policy generally, we seem to rely on our southern neighbours. Our biggest domestic challenge -- bringing the native people's living standards up to the level of the rest of us -- doesn't seem to stir the Conservatives either. As for an election, even though the polls are favourable, they seem to have lost interest.

This lackadaisical approach puts me in mind of the last of the Klein years here in Alberta. Klein had no idea where he wanted the province to go and admitted as much. In fact, according to former Tory aide-turned-journalist Rich Vivone in his new book Ralph Could Have Been a Super Star, the only reason he hung around as long as he did was because his wife didn't want him to quit.

I hardly believe that's the case with Stephen Harper. My guess is he doesn't want to jeopardize his various opportunities to strut on the world stage. First, of course, is the Olympics, two weeks of world leaders traipsing through Canada. Then there's his hosting of the G8 and G20 meetings in June. Later this year there are visits to China and the Asia-Pacific summit in Singapore, and the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Trinidad and Tobago. There will of course be nothing but embarrassment in Copenhagen in December but then you can't win them all and global warming bores Mr. Harper anyway.

This is our prime minister's moment to bask in the international sun, leaving the cosmopolitan Iggy in the shade, and I don't think he intends to miss it.

A match made in heaven

It seems disaffected Anglicans have found a home. Those members of the faith uncomfortable with the ordination of women and gays are to find solace in the welcoming arms of the Catholic church. Pope Benedict XVI has by decree created a new structure that will allow Anglicans to join the Catholic church while maintaining their own liturgy.

How perfectly fitting. Anglicans unaccepting of the equality of women and gays will now find fellowship. Home at last.

The Canadian government's soft spot for dirty oil

Our governments' love affair with the production of dirty oil is well known. Both the Alberta and the federal governments dote on the tar sands, infamous as the world's dirtiest oil. Not as well known is our federal government's support for burning dirty fuel.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) intends to ban Great Lakes' freighters from using bunker fuel. The agency claims the fuel's exhaust is likely a human carcinogen, and contributes to heart and lung disease, particularly in children and the old. Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, calls bunker fuel the "nastiest fuel known to man."

Our government is co-operating with the EPA's proposals for ocean-going ships but not for Great Lakes shipping. However, because freighters on the lakes cross back and forth between the U.S. and Canadian side, Canadian ships will have to comply with American regulations. Our government has, therefore, asked the Americans to weaken the new rules until ships can install smoke-stack scrubbers to deal with emissions. The problem is that the scrubber technology doesn't yet exist.

This is a familiar story. The Alberta and federal governments' answer to oil sands emissions is carbon capture and storage, another largely unproven technology.

From production to consumption, our benighted leaders are a pushover for dirty oil. No wonder dozens of countries walked out on Canada's address during the environmental conference in Thailand earlier this year. Our reputation as a weak sister on climate change is growing.

Conservatives and the politics of division

In 1987, Preston Manning created the conservative Reform Party despite the fact a conservative party, one quite friendly to Manning's home province of Alberta, was riding high at the time. Manning, it seemed, rather than join that party and apply his energies to nudging it in the direction he thought it should go, opted for a party of his very own. As a result, he divided the conservative movement and consigned it to a decade in the political wilderness.

Now another group of Alberta conservatives, the Wildrose Alliance, is setting out to break up the Conservative Party of Alberta, one of the most successful political parties in the history of the country. This makes even less sense than Manning's shenanigans since the leader of the Alliance, Danielle Smith, claims she wants to create a "big tent" party, which is just what the Alberta Conservatives claim to be and given their success, obviously are. One wonders how she is going to create this "big tent" in the future if the Alliance can't sit down with its Conservative brothers and sisters now. No matter, Smith, like Manning before her, must have a party of her own.

The irony of Manning's political adventure, of course, was that his new party eventually made up with the old Conservatives anyway. His entire effort was ultimately pointless. The current pursuit of ideological purity, or whatever it is, by the true believers of the Wildrose Alliance will probably follow the same path. They will not so much create a big tent as wander back into the one that's already there.

Unlocking the emissions impasse

Here's a good idea. Writing in the Guardian, Prasad Kasibhatla and Bill Chameides suggest a solution to the conflict between the developed and the developing nations over greenhouse gas emissions.

The developing nations argue, quite reasonably, that developed nations contributed most to the problem of global warming, and have enjoyed most of the benefits, so they should accept most of the responsibility for reducing the offending emissions. The developed nations claim this would subject them to politically and economically unacceptable restrictions and they demand binding targets from the developing nations. The result is an impasse.

Kasibhatla and Bill Chameides suggest an eminently reasonable compromise they call "progressive convergence." Developed countries would agree to make an early start on reductions, and developing countries would agree to never exceed the average per capita emissions of developed countries. Developing nations would be allowed to increase their per capita emissions until they equalled those of the developed nations; thereafter they would be required to match the declining per capita emissions of the developed nations. The result would be nations in sum converging to a declining per capita emission rate. India has already indicated it would be willing to commit to such a scheme.

This approach would still lay a heavy responsibility on the developed nations which some, Canada among them, have indicated little enthusiasm for. However, it is eminently fair and may, therefore, pique the consciences of the malingerers sufficiently to convince them to accept their responsibilities. Well ... we can always dream.

Crime and punishment, with emphasis on the punishment

How stupid, depressing and regressive. That was my reaction to the headline in today's Globe and Mail that read, "Ottawa will expand prisons to suit tough crime laws." The Federal government has doubled its budget for building facilities to incarcerate all those people who will be caught up in its new tough-on-crime approach. A very expensive way to keep Canadians safe.

And not effective. Criminologists seem to agree that longer sentences do little if anything to reduce crime. The real tragedy is that this money could be used effectively if it were applied to compassionate crime-fighting rather than retributive crime-fighting. Apparently about half the offenders in youth detention facilities suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome, and probably a similar number in adult facilities. If this money were used to ensure that all the pregnancies in this country were alcohol-free, crime could be reduced dramatically. Furthermore, considering that most criminals come from dysfunctional homes, if we invested in reducing dysfunctional family life another great slice could be taken out of crime.

If the Conservative government will not be swayed by compassionate arguments, they should at least be amenable to economic ones. Programs that help ensure healthy family life, that help create nourishing environments for infants and young children, have been shown to pay off many times over through reduced expenditures on crime and from the beneficiaries growing up to be working, tax-paying citizens rather than criminals. It costs over $90,000 a year to incarcerate a criminal in Canada. That would go a long way to fund approaches that ensure kids won't become criminals in the first place.

How I would love to see a headline in the morning paper along the lines of "Ottawa will expand programs to reduce fetal alcohol syndrome and family dysfunction." I suspect I will have to wait until Mr. Harper and his vengeful crew are long gone.

Collateral damage ... where does it end?

Doctors in Iraq have recorded a sharp rise in the number of cancer victims south of Baghdad. In the province of Babil, about 500 cases were diagnosed in 2004. Two years later, the figure was almost 1,000. By 2008, it was 7,000 and this year there have been 9,000 cases to date.

Iraqi researchers believe the cancers are caused by radiation. The source of the radiation is a substance first used on the battlefield in the first Gulf war - depleted uranium (DU). The Iraqi people, and American and other military personnel, have been the guinea pigs in an experiment with what was largely an unknown material.

DU is a byproduct of the manufacture of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. The heaviest metal in the world, bullets tipped with it are so tough they can easily slice through tank armour. Unfortunately, when they hit a target, they explode, sending millions of radioactive particles into the atmosphere. These particles can be inhaled, pollute water tables and enter the food chain. Exposure can cause genetic damage even unto the next generation because they easily cross the placenta to the fetus. The U.S. Department of Defense admits that at least 40 tons of DU were left on the battlefields of southern Iraq.

According to nuclear physicist Marion Fulk, because uranium has a natural attraction to phosphorus, it is drawn to the phosphate in the DNA. As it decays, it releases alpha and beta particles with millions of electron volts. When a particle makes this transformation in the human body it releases "huge amounts of energy in the same location doing lots of damage very quickly." The body's master code is altered.

We tend to think of wars ending with negotiations or surrenders. And maybe they do, but the death and suffering can go on for generations.

The Nobel president and Israel's "secret" nukes

U.S. President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples." One certainly cannot dispute that Obama has strengthened international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples relative to his predecessor. But some things he has not changed from the previous administration. He still vigorously wages war in central Asia, for example. And he has agreed, like his predecessors going back to Richard Nixon, to collaborate in suppressing the fact Israel has nuclear weapons. Everyone knows they do, of course, the trick is to act as if they don't.

Obama has done much toward nuclear disarmament. In particular, he has established a new dialogue with Russia toward serious reductions in their arsenals. He and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev have pledged to deliver a major new strategic arms reduction treaty by the end of the year. And of course he has agreed to shelve the plan to station antimissile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic. This is significant in itself and sends a strong signal to other nuclear powers.

So one can appreciate the Nobel Committee's decision. Yet there is the unfortunate fact of his agreement earlier this year with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to not pressure Israel to disclose its nuclear weapons or to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The understanding was once described by former U.S. national security adviser Henry Kissinger in a memo that read, "While we might ideally like to halt actual Israeli possession, what we really want at a minimum may be just to keep Israeli possession from becoming an established international fact." The appropriate expression I believe is, "Don't ask, don't tell."

Palestine remains the most dangerous problem in international relations. The United States opposes Iran's nuclear research on the grounds it is attempting to produce a nuclear weapon and that will ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. But Israel has already precipitated a nuclear arms race in the region and that race is likely to continue as long as Israel maintains its arsenal. Yet the United States has promised to not even talk about it. This, unfortunately, is in keeping with the Americans' servile compliance with Israel's perceived interests.

Peace will not come to the Middle East until the U.S. muscles Israel into seriously committing to a fair settlement for the Palestinians. If Obama ever does that, no one will doubt he deserves a Nobel.

Italy opts for the rule of law

The rule of law simply means the law applies to everyone equally. It includes both governor and governed, but in its application it is most important when applied to the governors, to the people at the top. We at the bottom can be assured the law will be applied to us. We lack the power to avoid it. It is only when it is equally applied to the influential and the powerful that it has real meaning. The very intention of the rule of law is to safeguard against arbitrary governance.

We have seen a number of examples recently where attempts have been made to justify exceptions to the rule. Some conservatives have suggested the Bush Administration should be exempted as it was leading the country through perilous times. Some artists and politicians have suggested Roman Polanski should be exempted apparently because of his artistic stature. And then there was the legislation passed by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's government last year that gave him immunity from prosecution for as long as he remained prime minister.

The latter attempt to negate the rule of law has been struck down by Italy's constitutional court. Berlusconi may now have to face the music on charges of embezzlement, tax evasion and bribery. We shall wait with interest the fates of the Bush administration and Polanski.

Schadenfreude and the Aspers

The word is schadenfreude, and yes I'm guilty of it today. A German word, it means pleasure derived from the misfortune of others. The others in this case are the Aspers, the owners of the CanWest media empire. I doubt I'm alone in enjoying the dismantling of this debt-riddled monster.

Is part of my glee due to the right-wing bent of CanWest? Of course. But it's also due to the failure of its organs, the National Post first among them, to present a balanced view of the political world. With so few mass media owners in the country, they have a responsibility to report news objectively and offer a thorough range of opinion. Unfortunately, with the exception of the CBC, the only independent and only democratic mass medium we have, all the mass media belong to the corporate sector and therefore promote a corporate agenda. Nonetheless, some make a far better effort at balance than the National Post.

Of course, the empire could be sold off to another narrow-minded, right-wing outfit. Certainly nobody on the left can afford to buy a media giant. As the famous American journalist A.J. Liebling once said, "Freedom of the press belongs to those rich enough to own one." But at least a chance now exists for a more moderate, responsible ownership.

As for my schadenfreude, it may be petty and sinful, but sometimes it's just plain irresistible.

Chemically changing the species: Making violent girls with BPA

According to Health Canada, manufacturers and importers apply to introduce approximately 1,000 new chemicals and polymers into the marketplace every year. We live in a sea of man-made chemicals. What, many of us sensibly wonder, are they doing to us. Are they changing us in harmful or dangerous ways we are not aware of? Are they changing us into something we don't want to become?

That question was answered recently while answering yet another question about modern society, and the answer was yes. Many commentators have remarked on the apparent increase in violent behaviour among girls. Are the females among us becoming as inclined to violence as the males? And if so, why? Apparently part of the answer at least is bisphenol A (BPA).

A recent study measured BPA levels in the urine of 249 pregnant women at 16 and 26 weeks into pregnancy and at birth. Two years later, investigators assessed the children's behaviour and found an association between the degree of exposure and aggressive and acting out-type behaviour in the daughters. Boys did not appear to be affected.

BPA is commonly used in the manufacture of such products as plastic bottles, canned food linings, water supply pipes and medical tubing. Over 90 per cent of Americans have detectible levels of BPA in their urine. In Canada, BPA is banned from products that infants are exposed to but that, it appears, may not be nearly good enough.

More work will be necessary to firmly establish cause and effect, but the indications are frightening. And insidious. The harm occurs not in the people who ingested the chemical but in their children. And of course we must wonder what else the substance is doing to girls' nervous systems.

The importance of the question "What are chemicals doing to us?" is ratcheted up another notch.

Blackburn's revenge

Elizabeth Blackburn, an Australian-American biochemist at the University of California in San Francisco, was once fired by George W. Bush. A member of his council on bioethics, she was axed for criticizing his opposition to embryonic stem cell research. She later observed that his administration seemed to have the "strange impression that science was the enemy of morality."

Blackburn, who is included on Time Magazine's list of the world's 100 most influential people, was informed early Monday morning that she had won a Nobel Prize in Medicine for her contribution to the discovery of a biological gatekeeper that prevents genetic code from fraying with age. She shared the award with two geneticists: Carol Greider, of Johns Hopkins University, and Jack Szostak, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

One wonders which is the biggest honour, winning a Nobel or being fired by George W. Bush.

Marijuana, football and brain damage

Young people are frequently warned to avoid marijuana because of the damage it may do to their brains. Whether or not these warnings are justified, I'll leave to another day. My question at the moment is, what if something highly recommended to young people was found to cause brain damage? Say, for example, sports. Or more specifically, a particularly popular sport such as football.

As it turns out, it does. A study of retired National Football League players reports they are diagnosed with Alzheimer’s or related diseases vastly more often than the national average for men. For middle-aged men (30 through 49) the rate is 19 times normal. The study is consistent with papers published by the University of North Carolina that found a correlation between N.F.L. football and depression, dementia and other cognitive impairment. That getting hit in the head a lot might scramble your brain is hardly a surprise.

Although these studies cover professional players, we might expect damage is occurring among high school and college players as well. The Brain Injury Association of Arizona estimates there are about 41,000 concussions suffered every year among high school players alone, many undiagnosed and untreated.

So, one is inclined to ask, does this mean the American government will now campaign against young people getting involved with football in the same way it warns against involvement with drugs? Will we see ads of former football players staring vacantly into space and mumbling incoherently while a voice-over ominously intones "he thought quarterbacking in high school was just harmless fun"?

Not bloody likely. Football is the United States' national sport, akin to religion in some parts of the country. The brain-rattling will go on, perhaps with better helmets and more attention to treatment, but it will undoubtedly go on, brain damage be damned.

And the war against marijuana will also go on, no matter how slim the evidence against it. Football is big in American culture and marijuana is bad, at least as far as the reigning powers are concerned, and American culture, like everyone else's, has little regard for consistency.

Equality is good for everyone

I normally don't recommend books. Other people's tastes are just too easy to misinterpret. You think you know what they'd like but you're just a bit off and that bit is critical. However, there is one book I will recommend, not to specific readers but to everyone who is concerned about dealing with the social ills that plague our society. The book is The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better by epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett.

The book, based on thirty years of research, discusses two profoundly important discoveries about human societies:

• More equal societies have lower rates of heart disease, crime, drug abuse, obesity, mental illness and other social ills than less equal societies, and
  
• The rates are lower not only for the poor but for the rich as well, i.e. everyone benefits from equality.

The authors graphically illustrate that in those societies with the most unequal incomes, health and crime rates are much higher than in more equal societies. Furthermore, they show that the rates aren't determined by absolute levels of poverty but by relative levels within a society. The reason, they argue, is that in more unequal societies, there is less social cohesion, less trust. There is increased insecurity, more stress and a greater obsession with status.

The authors determined that if the United States, the most unequal of the rich countries, reduced its income inequality to the average of the four most equal of the rich countries (Japan, Norway, Sweden and Finland), the proportion of Americans who felt they could trust others might rise by 75 per cent, rates of mental illness and obesity drop by two-thirds, teenage birth rates by half, the prison population by 75 per cent, and people could live longer while working less.

The most mind-expanding book I have ever read is Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene, which astonished me by revealing the purpose of life. This book isn't that astonishing but it is a groundbreaking work that challenges governments to seriously rethink their social policies based on a paradigm of equality. Apparently the authors had considered calling it Evidence-based Politics. They certainly provide the evidence.

The elephant will dance

This one's too good to miss. Concerned Christians Canada has complained to the Calgary Zoo that a statue of a dancing elephant in front of the Asian elephant compound was showing "selective religious partiality," and should be removed. The statue is apparently modeled after the Hindu god Ganesh.

The zoo, however, says the statue contains no religious symbols and simply illustrates the connection between Asian culture and elephants. The statue is a popular background for picture-taking. Angie Thomshaw, visiting the zoo with her children, commented, "We like it. We think it's cute. And I'm Christian."

A spokesman for Concerned Christians Canada insists the Zoo should not be "a place of religious expression," but in fact it is. It features carols and a light display at Christmas, as well as events at Easter. Apparently, there have been no complaints from Hindus.

So dance on, Ganesh.

Today is Earth Overshoot Day

It is well-known that we are using up the Earth's resources faster than they can be replenished. In order to remind us of that fact, the Global Footprint Network has created the concept of Earth Overshoot Day, "the day when humanity begins living beyond its ecological means."

This year, Earth Overshoot Day occurs today, Friday, September 25th. Tomorrow, according to the Network, "we move into the ecological equivalent of deficit spending, utilizing resources at a rate faster than what the planet can regenerate in a calendar year."

By the Network's calculations, we first went into overshoot in 1986. Until then we were consuming resources and producing waste consistent with what the planet could produce and reabsorb. By 1996, we were using 15 percent more resources per year than the planet could supply. Now, we use up resources 40 percent faster than the planet can produce them. We are devouring the Earth.

Today is a good day to pause and reflect on our dissolute ways. Those of us fortunate enough to live in the First World live a life of great indulgence. None of us, I think, would want our young people to be the last, or perhaps the second last, generation to enjoy this life. But that's the direction we are headed. The reminder from the Global Footprint Network is timely indeed.

The important voices weigh in on climate change

We live in a democracy the theory goes. How nice if it were true. But it isn't. When the mass media is owned by a few media barons and the economy dominated by corporations, the voice of the people is only part, and possibly the least part, of the political dialogue. The plutocracy is at least as important. And now a select group of plutocrats has weighed in on climate change. The prospect of the politicians doing something suddenly looks much brighter.

The Prince of Wales's Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change has issued a Copenhagen Communique. It states, "Economic development will not be sustained in the longer term unless the climate is stabilized. It is critical that we exit this recession in a way that lays the foundation for low-carbon growth." The high-powered group includes over 500 leading global companies including Bombardier, Scotiabank, Sun Microsystems, British Petroleum and Shell. Note particularly the presence of oil companies.

The communique insists that, "These targets will need to be guided by science," and goes on to reference the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It emphasizes that, "Developed countries need to take on immediate and deep emission reduction commitments that are much higher than the global average."

The big dogs have barked. Will the politicians listen now?

U.S. Medicare battle -- remember Saskatchewan

As Americans wage a verbal war over President Obama's medical care proposals, we Canadians should not be too critical of the unseemly behaviour of some of the participants. We might recall the battle over medicare we waged in this country. As a son of Saskatchewan, where the fighting took place, I remember well the descent into name-calling and fear-mongering.

I don't remember anyone referring to Tommy Douglas as Hitler, or anyone bringing guns to the many demonstrations, but I do remember a prominent Catholic priest removing his collar and loudly proclaiming that Communism was descending upon Saskatchewan. The Medical Care Insurance Act was passed in November, 1961, and came into effect in July, 1962. The same day it came into effect, 90 per cent of the province's doctors went on strike. Keep Our Doctors Committees, supported by the media, launched well-organized and well-funded campaigns against the government. Rallies and petitions fired the political climate to a white heat. The government responded by bringing in doctors from Britain and encouraging others from the U.S. and other parts of Canada to help meet the emergency. Local citizens established medical clinics and hired doctors to staff them.

The struggle in the U.S. is, like the struggle in the early 1960s in Saskatchewan, about much more than medical care. As David Shribman recently pointed out in an article in The Globe and Mail, it is about power, about the relationship between the people and their government.

There is a similarity in the times. The paranoia and economic uncertainty of today reflect the red scare of that earlier period. American individualism and greater distrust of government will give an even greater intensity to their fight than was experienced in ours.

The good news, of course, is that in this country it had a happy ending. Within months of the Saskatchewan legislation coming into effect, the Keep Our Doctors support had dissipated, doctors were returning to work, and the government had amended the Act, including giving doctors the right to practice outside the plan. Mistrust lingered, but by 1965 most doctors supported the plan and within ten years every province had one of their own. Today it is an integral part of Canadian culture.

It will be much more difficult for the Americans to come to terms with the patchwork efforts they are being offered. We can only wish them the same happy ending.

Bill C-435 suggests a route to fair trade

On Wednesday, New Democrat International Trade Critic Peter Julian tabled a Private Member’s bill in the House of Commons which suggests a way "free" trade agreements might be turned into fair trade agreements. The bill, the Made in Canada Procurement Act (C-435), intended to ensure Canadian companies and industries are given top priority on all government procurements and services, calls on Ottawa to purchase goods and services from countries and companies that adhere to the International Labour Organization (ILO)'s core labour standards.

The bill's requirement of preferential treatment for Canadian companies and industries could be argued as interfering in free trade, but the requirement that countries and companies meet ILO labour standards could not. On the contrary, it would ensure freedom for workers and could, therefore, be argued more sensibly as contributing to free trade as well as fair trade.

The core labour standards of the ILO are contained in the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. The section on freedom of association states, "The right of workers and employers to form and join organizations of their choice is an integral part of a free and open society. It is a basic civil liberty that serves as a building block for social and economic progress. Linked to this is the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining. Voice and representation are an important part of decent work."

Not that trade agreements ignore worker rights entirely. NAFTA, for example, has a side agreement on worker rights; unfortunately, it is toothless. For the most part it simply insists that countries enforce their own labour laws, whatever those might be, and only three out of 11 principles can be enforced by sanctions. Freedom of association and the right to organize can only be enforced by discussion which pretty well reduces them to nothing more than talking points.

Including ILO standards in trade agreements, along with rigid enforcement mechanisms including sanctions, would be a good start to ensuring the agreements serve workers as well as corporations.

Tire tariff tiff

So the United States and China are going to war. Well, a trade war ... a little one. President Obama ticked the Chinese off rather severely it seems by imposing a 35 per cent tariff, on top of an existing four per cent duty, on tires from China. The tariff was in response to a surge in Chinese tire imports and pressure from the United Steelworkers Union.

The union's concern is understandable. From 2004 to 2008, U.S. imports of Chinese tires more than tripled and China's market share in the U.S. increased from 4.7 percent to 16.7 percent. Four American tire plants closed in 2006 and 2007 and three more are closing this year with just one new plant opening. The Steelworkers claim 5,000 American jobs have been lost as a result.

The U.S. tire companies, on the other hand, are not complaining and don't support the tariff. And why would they? They have been busy shifting their production from the U.S. to countries such as China to save on labour costs. Their factories in China will be subject to the tariff if they export products to the U.S.

Meanwhile, the Chinese are retaliating with a complaint to the World Trade Organization and an "anti-dumping and anti-subsidy" investigation into imports of U.S. vehicles and chicken products. China claims to be "consistently and resolutely" opposed to protectionism, yet its market advantage depends heavily on a workforce denied the basic freedoms of association and speech, a work force that cannot organize itself to protect and promote its interests. This coerced labour, which reduces Chinese workers to little better than serfs, certainly serves to protect Chinese export advantage, but is not precluded under trade rules.

The contrast in views between American workers and their companies illustrates what global trade agreements are all about. Touted as mechanisms for free trade, they are really mechanisms for cheap labour for corporations. Global trade is in no small way a continuation of the old struggle between capital and labour brought to the world stage.

The world frets that the dispute will slow economic recovery from the recession. The world should instead fret about "free" trade agreements that insist on freedom for corporations but not for workers. It is a perverse system that punishes a country for a tariff but has nothing to say to a country that ruthlessly exploits it work force, even though both are clearly protective measures as well as hindrances to any meaningful concept of free trade.

This time workers are fighting back and, surprisingly, their country's leader has supported them. I wish them and their president the best of luck.

Patriotism, political loyalties, and citizenship

At this point in the Canadian story we have the strange situation where the leaders of the two major parties are suspected of being less than committed to the country. Conservative attack ads portray Michael Ignatieff as a political dilettante who has just dropped by to be prime minister for a while before he goes on to other adventures abroad. Stephen Harper, who famously refused to say he loved this country, at one time wanted to firewall his home province of Alberta from the insidious feds.

This perceived lack of patriotism raises some intriguing questions about political loyalties. For example, how important is love of country to political responsibility? Traditionally, political loyalties are exercised primarily within the nation-state. We may be conservatives, liberals or socialists but we are first and foremost Canadians. We emphasize that mightily with flag-waving, anthem-singing and other exercises in patriotism. Indeed we fight wars on that basis.

Patriotism is simply tribalism in modern guise, the last refuge of a scoundrel according to Samuel Johnson. Tribes needed ceremony and tradition to ensure collective security in a dangerous world, but today, in a modern, globalizing world, the biggest danger is often tribalism itself. Patriotism may not only be unnecessary for the good of the state but a threat to the good to the state, or at least to its people. The globalizing world, with communications now instantaneous, has at the same time allowed political loyalties to break out of the nation-state. And so they should. After all, conservatives in Canada may well have more in common with conservatives in the U.S., or indeed anywhere else, than they have with Canadian socialists or liberals. Political loyalties now have the opportunity to form natural alliances rather than alliances constrained by geography.

What then should our political relationships with the nation-state be based on if not love of country? I would suggest citizenship -- the idea that we owe a responsibility to any community we are a member of to be good citizens, whether that community be local, provincial, national or global. Treating our fellow citizens with respect and participating in the governance of our communities at all levels can be the basis of a fine relationship.

So perhaps neither Ignatieff's nor Harper's seeming lack of patriotism is of any particular relevance. If they are committed to serving the community of Canada well, what difference does it make if Harper doesn't adore the place or if Ignatieff has spent much of his life elsewhere? Affection for the people they serve is, on the other hand, of very great importance ... but that's a different story entirely.

A harem for the shoe-thrower?

"This is your farewell kiss, you dog. This is for the widows and orphans of Iraq." With those immortal words, Muntazer al-Zaidi hurled his shoes at then-president George W. Bush and claimed his place in history. And quite a place it is. Al-Zaidi, who will be released from prison on Monday, is a hero to millions of Arabs who believe he stood up for them with the courage their leaders lack.

On his release he has been promised a new house, cars, money and the hands of many lovely maidens in marriage. Ahmed Jouda, a Palestinian farmer who convinced his relatives to contribute tens of thousands of dollars to al-Zaidi's defense, said, "We are willing to present him with a bride loaded with gold." He added, "We are people who have tasted the bitterness, sorrow and agony of occupation, too. What he did, he did for all the Arabs, not just the Iraqis."

Al-Zaidi's fame in the Middle East not only illustrates Arab animosity toward the United States but also the need for leaders that truly represent the sensibilities of the Arab street. At least, for the moment anyway, they have the shoe-thrower.

Vote? Don't think I'll bother

Such a lot of talk about elections these days. Politicians posturing left and right. Michael Ignatieff suddenly getting all antsy. I should, I suppose, be gearing up to exercise my sacred right to cast a vote. And I would if it would make any difference, but it won't, so I'm not.

I vote in Calgary Centre. Lee Richardson, the Conservative candidate, will win this constituency. He will win with 15-20,000 votes over his nearest opponent. My vote will make absolutely no difference, not in my constituency, not in the overall result of the election. Not one whit. My vote simply won't count. It would if we had a proportional representation voting system. Then it would help elect an MP for the party I support. It would count the same as each and every other voter's. But we don't, and it won't.

I have debated this with a good friend of mine who has seen no point in this futile exercise for some time. I have insisted, with decreasing conviction, that he should vote because after all we are lucky to live in a democracy. I'm afraid this time the conviction has faded away, not enough left to even convince myself to vote.

Democracy is political equality manifested in one citizen/one vote. But when your one vote doesn't count, where's the democracy for you? You've been hustled. I accept my democratic responsibility to attempt to change the system if I don't agree with it. I support Fair Vote Canada, and I pressure my elected representatives to support proportional representation, but progress is glacial. So I've decided not on a protest vote, but on a protest non-vote. Perhaps if enough of those electors whose votes are rendered irrelevant by our corrupt first-past-the-post system stop co-operating with the system, our legislators will take notice and fit democracy into their agendas.

I will continue to vote municipally and provincially. My ward and provincial constituencies are sufficiently competitive that my vote matters. But the idea of voting in the next federal election increasingly makes me feel like I'm participating in a charade, a democratic fraud. So I will not waste my time.

Is the war on drugs winding down?

Prohibition made criminals rich. Prior to 1920, the year the United States decided to cure Americans of the drinking habit the hard way, crime wasn't a particularly lucrative business. Prohibition didn't stop Americans drinking, of course, but it did make large sums of money available to the criminal element. They could sell a product to millions of normally law-abiding citizens at prices made artificially high by the product's illegality, and crime became a very big business indeed. The newly created crime syndicates protected their turfs diligently and violently -- the murder rate increased tenfold.

Prohibition in the U.S. was repealed in 1933, but the damage had been done. The syndicates had branched out, using their immense profits to move into legitimate businesses and invest in gambling, loan sharking, labour racketeering and other criminal enterprises.

History now repeats itself. Prohibition on drugs has created a similar bonanza for criminals. The Mexican drug trade alone offers profits of an estimated $35-billion US a year. Head of the Sinaloa cartel, Joaquin Guzman, is on the Forbes List of Billionaires (ranked 701). Guzman makes Al Capone look like a pickpocket and his hired killers, including military deserters professionally trained in counterinsurgency warfare by the United States, would send shivers up Mafia spines. Drug authorities estimate the Mexican cartels now operate in 230 American cities. And, as with Prohibition, the bloodshed follows the money. Last year Mexico's drug wars cost 6,000 lives.

The "war on drugs" was declared by U.S. President Richard Nixon in 1969, and the Americans have prosecuted it vigorously ever since, nationally and internationally, bribing and cajoling allies as necessary. Now it appears some of those allies, and perhaps even the U.S. itself, are beginning to recognize the futility and destructiveness of the war and are considering alternatives. The final report issued by the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy, evaluating current drug policy and its affect on Latin America, concludes, "The orientation of battling drugs with prohibition, repression, sanctions and punishment not only does not resolve the problem, but generates new and more serious ones."

Three former Latin American presidents -- Fernando Cardoso of Brazil, Cesar Gavira of Colombia and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico -- declared in a Wall Street Journal article that the war on drugs is a failure and are demanding that U.S.-inspired drug policies be reexamined.

Argentina's supreme court has ruled that punishing people for using marijuana for personal consumption is unconstitutional, freeing the Argentine government, which favours decriminalization, to amend its drug laws. Mexico has decided to stop prosecuting people for possession of small quantities of marijuana, cocaine and other drugs, instead referring them to clinics. Brazil and Ecuador are considering partial decriminalization

So far, the U.S. response to all to this has been mild. Indeed, glimpses of a changed attitude are appearing there as well. Some states have decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana while the Obama administration has emphasized public health solutions to drug abuse. The US. Attorney General has announced the federal government will no longer pursue groups that supply medical marijuana. In California, this amounts to legalization. A federal government led by a confessed former toker might be expected to open a new era in drug policy.

The sum of these changes is modest, but a clear shift nonetheless toward more enlightened drug policies. Ending prohibition of drugs won't end problems of abuse, but it will cut the financial feet out from under drug barons like Joaquin Guzman.

Doing better for Canadian children

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has released its first-ever report on child well-being in the 30 countries that make up its membership. Canada receives solid marks, but there are areas which need attention.

The report compares child well-being using six yardsticks, chosen to cover the major aspects of children's lives: material well-being, housing and environment, education, health and safety, risk behaviours, and quality of school life. Canada does particularly well in education, ranking third out of 30. The performance of Canadian 15-year olds is high and the gap between good and poorly performing students is small. Only Finland and South Korea showed better outcomes.

Our child poverty rates are less impressive, however. Fifteen per cent of Canadian children live in poor households compared to the OECD average of 12 per cent. Two other weak areas are immunizations and suicides. We immunize less than many other countries and our suicide rates for 15-19 year olds are 50 per cent higher than the OECD average.

Risk behaviour is a mixed bag. While the smoking rate of Canadian teenagers is half the OECD average, only Britain, Denmark and Finland have higher rates of drunkenness.

Indeed our overall performance is a mixed bag. We do well by our children in some respects, not in others. Obviously we can do much better.

Odious blogger exposed

Anonymity is the bane of blogging. Nothing undermines the quality of discourse in the blogosphere more than the ability of anyone with a computer to spew toxic verbiage into the web world without any accountability whatsoever. It is as surprising as it is depressing to observe what mischief even normally responsible people will get up to under a pseudonym. I believe there is a blogging law that says if a thread reaches more than ten posts someone will have been called a nazi.

Perhaps the uncivilized behaviour characteristic of so much blogging will be suppressed a little by a recent court case in New York. Model Liskula Cohen, slandered by an anonymous blogger, went to court and forced Google, whose Blogger service the culprit used, to reveal the identity of her tormentor. The case has been described as a "landmark." Ms. Cohen is now able to sue the offending blogger for slander.

Most people who abuse blogging are probably quite decent human beings who would never say the trashy things they do in their posts if they were speaking to their victims face to face. Anonymity simply brings out the worst in them. If this case curbs some of the worst, it will be a victory for responsible blogging everywhere. As a blogger myself, I thank Ms. Cohen, her lawyers and Madam Justice Joan Madden of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

Want to get high? Sniff your wallet

Don't panic, but you are probably carrying cocaine around in your purse or wallet. Scientists from the American Chemical Society report that 85 to 90 per cent of American and Canadian banknotes are contaminated (their word, not mine) by cocaine residue. This is up 20 per cent from a study conducted only two years ago.

The scientists tested banknotes in five countries -- the United States, Canada, Brazil, China, and Japan -- and found “alarming” evidence of cocaine use. The U.S. and Canada had the highest levels while China and Japan had the lowest.

Of course this doesn't mean that 85 to 90 per cent of Canadians are rolling up their banknotes to snort cocaine. Much of the contamination is no doubt being spread from bill to bill. Nonetheless, obviously a lot of people are using their money to do more than just buy the stuff. And hey, you over there, stop sniffing your purse.

Guilty or ill? A crime problem or a health problem?

At one time, mentally ill people, with their often anti-social behaviour, were locked away in what were little more than prisons. Eventually our understanding of mental illness improved and allowed us to advance beyond this barbaric practice. Now we may be on the verge of yet another advance in both our understanding of and our reaction to anti-social behaviour.

Studies on impulsively violent men and psychopaths show that their brains are different from those of normal people. Brain imaging technology reveals that the amygdala, the part of the brain that processes emotions and aggression, and the orbitofrontal cortex, which handles impulses and decisions, are structurally and functionally different in psychopaths. Furthermore, levels of serotonin, the neurotransmitter that regulates aggression and impulsivity, are generally low in these people. To put it simply, their brains don't work right.

It may be hard for us to accept, but the fact is that the impulsively violent and the psychopathic are victims. They suffer from a mental handicap. They are no more responsible for their condition than a crippled man is for his crooked leg, and they are no more responsible for their antisocial behavior than he is for his limp. When they harm others, how are they more guilty of a crime than someone who has a contagious disease who unknowingly spreads it to others? Their disorder is much worse, of course, because it robs them of their basic humanity.

When they pose a threat, they must be sequestered from society, but should they be imprisoned or hospitalized? We can legally detain people with contagious diseases. It's called quarantine. It would seem reasonable to do the same with the dangerously antisocial. We have long had mental institutions for the criminally insane, but their incarceration has always depended on an arbitrary definition of "insane," specifically, knowing right from wrong. Well, psychopaths know right from wrong, at least in the legal sense, yet they too are "insane." They, too, are not responsible for their actions, or at least only marginally so. They do not have free will. (Of course, maybe none of us do, but that's another question entirely.)

This new knowledge offers real promise. If these people suffer from mental conditions, we can develop ways of treating them. By therapy, with drugs, perhaps even with a computer chip in the orbitofrontal cortex. We might eventually be able to turn a serial killer into a perfectly normal human being. Courts and prisons could be replaced by medical treatment just as the old asylums were.

This would be an enlightened age, but it would throw many of our concepts about justice into confusion. The desire for vengeance is very powerful. If a serial killer was cured, if he was literally a different person free of antisocial urges, what would be the point of incarcerating him? And if he were allowed to walk freely amongst us, how would we sate our desire for vengeance, particularly that of his victims?

And then there would be the question of our right to engage in mind control. How far might some in authority want to go in controlling the minds of "anti-social" citizens?

We might do well to ponder these questions. We see promise of knowledge that could revolutionize crime and punishment, and offer us much safer societies, yet offer us also moral challenges we haven't yet faced.

Anti-Semitic Semites?

Critics of Israel's policies toward the Palestinians are frequently charged with anti-Semitism. Which inevitably leads to the question, is the charge justified or is it the old demagogic tactic if you can't attack your opponent's argument, attack your opponent. Bernie M. Farber, CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, has attempted to clarify the matter. "Criticism of Israel crosses into anti-Semitism ," Farber says in a letter to The Globe and Mail, "when it calls into question the legitimacy of Israel's identity as a Jewish state."

Unfortunately, Farber's definition sounds rather like the demagogic tactic. How can one not call into question the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state? Twenty per cent of the population is Muslim Arab. What are these people? Invisible? Nonentities? Members of a lesser race as Winston Churchill once referred to them? To ignore such a substantial minority and define a state by its racial majority is in itself racism. And if this minority is Semitic, as of course it is, then is not the racism anti-Semitism? If so, then Mr. Farber would seem to have his argument backwards.

And we should not be surprised. The whole point in creating Israel was to create a racial state. So we should expect its supporters to justify its definition as such. And to support, also, the continued exile of millions of Palestinian Arabs, denying them the right to return to their homeland solely on the basis of their race.

Or is it race? Is the failure of the Arabs not race but religion? Is it being Muslim that puts them beyond the Pale? Is the prejudice religion rather than race, or is it both? Racio/religious prejudice, so to speak. Not that it matters much, defining a nation by either or both is an odious practice.

Jews such as Mr. Farber are often in the forefront in defending human rights. They were prominent in the struggles against segregation in the American south and against apartheid in South Africa. Yet when it comes to Israel, the same people exhibit a curious blind spot. The rednecks in the South and the Afrikaners in South Africa only wanted one thing -- to maintain the integrity of their race, to maintain their identity as a people. And that is what the Jews of Israel are trying to do. Unfortunately, they are doing it with ethnic cleansing, collective punishment, apartheid and relentless land theft, all of which puts them roughly in the same league as the rednecks and the Afrikaners. Perhaps they have now discovered a little empathy for their former foes.

Farber accuses critics of attempting to "punish Israel for wanting to retain its Jewish identity." Unfortunately, Israel retaining a Jewish identity means marginalizing and punishing Palestinians. So what choice do people of conscience have but to call into question that "identity"?

The Globe leads with an environmental story? What is the media coming to?

I reached for The Globe and Mail today in its usual place on the paper rack and immediately thought my news dealer had messed up. The paper I was reaching for had a lead story about an environmental crisis. Couldn't be the Globe, I thought, must be some ecology rag that got stuck in there by mistake. But I was wrong. Sure enough, the lead headline in the Globe today was "Salmon Run Disaster: 10.6 Million Sockeye Expected... Only 1.7 Million Came: Where Have All the Salmon Gone?" A long headline emphasized with half a page of very red fish.

Destruction of the environment isn't something the corporate press has shown a lot of interest in. Global warming, humanity's greatest threat, ought to be the number one media issue yet it struggles to get a mention. Preserving the environment might involve consuming less, and that's something the corporate press, whose prime function is selling stuff, really isn't eager to talk about.

Maybe the only reason the collapse of a fishery makes the front page is because it's worth a lot of money, but nonetheless I appreciate front-page attention to the biggest challenge facing us -- saving our planet from our own greed, stupidity and arrogance.

Will the Globe keep it up? My mind says not a chance. My heart says maybe. Hope springs eternal.

Is protectionism a bad thing?

The chief economic bugaboo among politicians at all levels these days seems to be protectionism. American protectionism specifically. Prime Minister Harper whispers his concerns in President Obama's ear at every opportunity. The premiers cry out for a new trade deal to save us from Buy America policies, frightened by Canadian municipalities' threats to apply their own buy-local policies in retaliation.

But is protectionism such a bad thing? Indeed, it seems odd for Canadians to wail against protectionism when a version of it just saved our financial bacon. Despite enormous pressure from the U.S. to deregulate, i.e. globalize, our banking system, Paul Martin resisted. If he hadn't, our system would have crashed just as the Americans' did, and Stephen Harper wouldn't be able to boast about what good shape our financial house is in.

John Maynard Keynes, the economist we keep returning to because of his good sense, once said, "Ideas, knowledge, art, hospitality, travel -- these are the things which should of their nature be international. But let goods be homespun whenever it is reasonably and conveniently possible; and, above all, let finance be primarily national.” Keynes was talking about the conservative virtue of self-reliance -- let us be open to the world but let us take care of our own needs. That worked for our banking system, why not for other things and for other people?

So I have a certain sympathy for those Americans who choose to depend primarily on their own resources. Why shouldn't they take care of their own people -- their own companies and their own workers -- first? Why shouldn't they seek self-reliance? And why shouldn't we?

In any case, what is so often pedaled as "free trade" is nothing more than corporate advantage. NAFTA is a good example. It allows American corporations to freely exploit cheap labour in Mexico but does not allow Mexican workers the right to exploit high wages in the U.S. What kind of "free" trade offers freedom to corporations but denies it to working people? Some freedom. The protectionism so feared by politicians and business people is revealed as essentially protection for corporate profit, particularly through exploitation of cheap labour.

Recent events have suggested that strength in the economy is like strength in nature. Strong systems need flexibility and that means they need variety. The more uniform the international economy is, the more a failure in one part affects the whole system. Our banking system remained strong precisely because it retained its individuality, its independence.

Sadly, all political parties have joined the "free" trade bandwagon. Premier Gary Doer has threatened Manitoba municipalities with legislation if they reject a new trade deal with the U.S. "If we have an agreement with the United States, it's my responsibility to deliver it in my own province, through the legal means we have possible," he has said. The right of local governments to choose their own economic path would be overridden. One wonders what happened to the "democratic" in New Democratic Party.

Knee-jerk acceptance of globalized trade, with its erosion of local democracy, workers' rights and self-reliance, is dangerous. We have just witnessed a good example of just how dangerous it is as the whole international system crashes because of irresponsibility in the United States. Protectionism, or self-reliance, or independence -- choose your term -- deserves more than simple dismissal. The fact it was advocated by John Maynard Keynes tells us that.

The welfare state as recession-proofing

One set of countries -- Sweden, Denmark and Norway -- seem to be enduring the current recession rather better than most. According to Harvard Business School economist Christian Ketels, "The outlook for these countries is good. They are going to return to normal quicker, and in better shape, than everybody else."

There are a number of reasons for this. All had sound public finances to begin with. All were running budget surpluses and all had tightened their banking regulations in the 1990s. Norway has accumulated its oil and gas revenues into a sovereign wealth found now worth $420-billion which provided ample funds for stimulus without running a major deficit. And the Scandinavians run highly competitive economies.

That competitiveness hints at yet another reason. It is supported by large, well-funded public sectors. The World Economic Forum insists that high levels of investment in education and training are a key to Scandinavia's success, stating in its competitiveness report, "This has provided the workforce with the skills needed to adapt rapidly to a changing environment and has laid the ground for their high levels of technological adoption and innovation in recent years."

Of particular importance in a recession, these countries' high-tax, high-benefit welfare systems stabilize their economies. Swedish workers who lose their jobs can expect to receive up to 80% of their wages for the first 200 days out of work, dropping to 70% for the next 100 days. In Norway, unemployed workers receive 62% of their salary for up to two years. This makes for a powerful economic stimulus by helping to keep demand high, and it does it by subsidizing working people rather than bankers and car companies.

Norwegian Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen observes, "We notice more interest around the Nordic model because we manage to combine productivity, growth and welfare. A large public sector is a buffer against the turmoil of the markets." That others are interested is hardly surprising. It has recently become graphically clear how very important a buffer against economic turmoil is in a globalized capitalist economy. We Canadians will be well-served by taking the message to heart and beefing up our welfare state.