Canada's growing income gap: It isn't the size of the pie, it's the size of the pieces

According to the Conference Board of Canada's report How Canada Performs, we are becoming a more unequal society. Although, in the period 1976 to 2009, all Canadians were better off in real dollars, the poor and the middle class have gained only marginally. The rich, on the other hand, are getting a lot richer. This is largely due to the "super rich"—the richest one per cent of Canadians. From 1998 to 2007—the decade of greatest economic expansion in this generation—they took home almost a third of all income growth. In the 1950s and 60s, the last time the economy grew so fast, they received only eight per cent of income growth. The graph below shows the Gini index for Canada (the share of total income that would need to be redistributed to achieve exact income equality) for 1976 to 2009.

As to what effect income inequality has on the well-being of a country, the report states, "High inequality can diminish economic growth if it means that the country is not fully using the skills and capabilities of all its citizens or if it undermines social cohesion, leading to increased social tensions. Second, high inequality raises a moral question about fairness and social justice."

How should our government react to this trend? The "fairness and social justice" bit may have little influence on the present office-holders—conservatives, after all, believe in privilege—but they should pay close attention to the "economic growth" and "social cohesion" bits. There is a growing body of evidence, summarized nicely in Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett's book The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, that more equitable societies are healthier societies. The evidence shows that 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 determining factor is the relative levels of incomes within a society, not the absolute levels. The reason, as the report states, is that less equality results in less social cohesion. This in turn results in increased insecurity, more stress and a greater obsession with status.

The Conservatives claim to want a stronger economy and less crime. An excellent step toward achieving both these goals would be to act forcefully to end this disturbing trend toward greater inequality.

It all began with Maggie and Ron

The modern march to free market supremacy is often thought to have begun with the ascendancy of the conservative regimes of Margaret Thatcher in the U.K. and the Ronald Reagan in the U.S. One of its ultimate—and inevitable—outcomes was the recent collapse of the world financial system and wrecking of the economies of those nations most seduced by it.

And now another chicken has come home to roost. The British media has been exposed as massively corrupt, a corruption that has crept also into the United States. Much of this has resulted directly from the policies of the twin conservative ideologues.

Murdoch was in no small degree a creature of Thatcher. Prior to the arrival of the Iron Lady on the political scene, Murdoch owned two tabloids, the Sun and the News of the World, fun reads whose exuberance, sports coverage and girly pics appealed to a male, blue-collar readership. Neither were politically influential. In return for Murdoch's support in her political endeavours, Thatcher set aside the competition law, allowing him to buy the Times and the Sunday Times and thus become the major player in the British press. Her support was also critical to Murdoch acquiring exclusive football rights, central to the success of his Sky TV. In return for this largesse, he turned his media muscle loose on Thatcher's enemies. The rise of Murdoch's empire and Thatcher's political reign in the 1980s was not coincidental.

Meanwhile in the United States, President Ronald Reagan's henchmen were busily dismantling the Fairness Doctrine, one of American democracy's strengths. The doctrine was a policy of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required broadcasters to present controversial issues of public importance and to present them in a manner that was honest, equitable and balanced. Under Reagan-appointed commissioners, the FCC stopped enforcing the Fairness Doctrine and repealed it entirely in 1987. Thus was the door opened for vested interests to dominate the air waves without the inconvenience of offering counter opinions.

Dominated by an unethical oligarch, the British media has degenerated into a cesspool of sleazy, bullying journalism and political influence peddling. The latter is the greatest threat, corrupting not only journalistic standards but democracy itself. Murdoch, triumphant in Britain, carried his corruption into the U.S. After turning his Sun newspaper in the U.K. into an instrument of crude news manipulation and distortion, now free of the need for fairness in the US. he was able to apply the model there with his Fox News network. Fox has brought journalism not down into the gutter, but into the sewer.

At best, Thatcher and Reagan were naive ideologues, believing the invisible hand would guide greedy, ruthless men to act responsibly even as they were released from reasonable rules. At worst, they were simply political opportunists, willing to trample the public good for their own ideological and political ends. Either way, we continue to pay a high price for their misguided ambitions.

China leads spending on green energy

"Global investment in renewable energy jumped 32 per cent in 2010, to a record $211 billion," reads the Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2011 report. The report, commissioned by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), revealed that for the first time financial new investment (money invested in renewable energy companies, utility-scale generation and bio fuel projects) by developing countries surpassed that of developed countries. China led the way, now the world leader with investment of $49 billion. Significant increases were also seen in South and Central America, the Middle East and Africa.

Europe saw a decline in financial new investment to $35 billion; however, this was more than made up for by a surge in small-scale project installation, predominantly rooftop solar. Germany alone saw an increase of $34 billion, up 132 per cent. "Europe’s small-scale solar energy boom owed much to feed-in tariffs, particularly in Germany, combined with a sharp fall in the cost of photovoltaic modules," said the report. The cost of PV modules has fallen by 60 per cent since mid-2008. As costs decrease, feed-in tariffs—higher prices for green power—are being reduced accordingly. In 2010, investment in solar came close to catching up to that in wind.

The overall increase in renewable energy investment from $160 billion in 2009 to $211 billion in 2010 is encouraging. UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner commented: "The continuing growth in this core segment of the Green Economy is not happening by chance. The combination of government target-setting, policy support and stimulus funds is underpinning the renewable industry’s rise and bringing the much needed transformation of our global energy system within reach." Yes, well ... keep your fingers crossed.

UK media mess—once again self-regulation fails

UK Prime Minister David Cameron has admitted it. He recently declared that press self-regulation in Britain had failed and a new body, independent of the media and the government, is needed to properly enforce standards. Quite an admission for a conservative, although having his one-time communications chief, former editor of News of the World Andy Coulson, arrested Friday, may have finally concentrated his mind on Britain's corrupt press.

"Party leaders were so keen to win the support of newspapers that we turned a blind eye to the need to sort this issue," said Cameron, "The people in power knew things weren't right but they didn't do enough quickly enough."

That's putting it mildly. Britain's premier press lord, Rupert Murdoch, has been described as the most powerful man in the UK, a man whose blessing is essential to winning a general election. When Tony Blair first ran for prime minister, one of the first things he did was fly half way around the world to genuflect before Murdoch in his native Australia. And when David Cameron became prime minister, one of the first visitors to Number 10 was of course Rupert Murdoch. The Great Corrupter has almost singlehandedly turned the country's democracy into an oligarchy.

This corruption of the democratic system is the greatest threat oligarchs such as Murdoch pose, not the sordid practices of paying police for information and hacking into the phone messages of celebrities, young murder victims and the grieving families of dead soldiers.

Now, in a grand gesture, Murdoch has shut down his scandal-plagued News of the World, but not, I suspect, because he has recently discovered ethics. Rather more because the paper's advertisers are deserting it by the dozen in order to avoid the taint of sleaze, and that means it could quickly become a money-loser. Murdoch may not understand journalistic standards, but he certainly understands money. And then, of course, there is his need for government approval to buy the 61 per cent of British Sky Broadcasting he doesn't own.

Cameron has indicated Murdoch's apparent act of penitence won't get him off the hook. "I want everyone to be clear," He has said, "Everything that has happened is going to be investigated." He intends to appoint a judge to lead a thorough investigation of what went wrong at the News of the World, including alleged bribery of police officers, and establish a second inquiry to find a new way to regulate the press.

The latter is something we should be paying close attention to. Our daily press, even the Sun chain, isn't hacking people's phones or paying off police officers, but it is nonetheless owned and controlled by a handful of oligarchs and even if none have the power of Rupert Murdoch their concentrated ownership undermines democracy. We, too, need an independent regulator. The daily press is our most important public forum and is, therefore, much to valuable to leave to self-regulation by corporate interests.

Why we should not hold a referendum on proportional representation

It seems that every time the subject of changing the voting system comes up, we automatically assume that a change must be sanctioned by a referendum. I increasingly feel this is a mistake.

We have experienced four referendums on the voting system in this country recently, one in Prince Edward Island, two in B.C., one in Ontario, and all lost even though the systems proposed were thoroughly considered and two were recommended by citizens' assemblies. While it is true that in the first B.C. referendum the proposed system received 57 per cent of the vote, it nonetheless lost because the government set an unreasonable requirement of 60 per cent. In the next referendum the system was roundly defeated, obtaining only 39 per cent of the vote. It is time to think about whether the referendum approach is a sound one.

Referendums have major drawbacks as a democratic instrument, one of which is the ignorance factor. Some citizens will research the issue, think it through calmly and thoroughly, and discuss and debate it with others. Some won’t. The more complex the issue the greater the ignorance, and voting systems are, unfortunately, a complex issue.

Healthy democracy requires a great deal more than the people’s voice and the people’s will. It requires fully-informed, thoughtful voices and wills, and these are often absent, to a greater or lesser degree, from referendums.

One of the advantages of representative democracy is having decisions made by people whose job is to study issues thoroughly before deciding. Referendums short-circuit this advantage. If we insist that legislatures read bills three times (in the case of Parliament, three times in both the House and the Senate), are we being sensible when we decide an issue in one go in a referendum? A decision made by elected representatives after thorough consideration may well be closer to what the people would decide if they deliberated rather than if they simply voted in a referendum.

However, if we do want the people to decide directly, we could use a citizens' assembly, rather like the first step in the B.C. and Ontario processes. With a citizens' assembly, the participants can be thoroughly immersed in voting systems such that when they decide on a system, it is a knowledgeable, carefully considered decision. Unfortunately, in the B.C. and Ontario cases the decisions of the assemblies were subverted by forwarding them to referendums. Ironically, a citizens' assembly, if chosen by random selection, will almost certainly be more representative of the population at large than a referendum. An assembly is “the people” in microcosm.

I suggest, therefore, that the preferred approach to change would be delegating the choice of a system to a citizens' assembly and then referring that decision directly to the legislature.

Electoral change does not require constitutional change. What one government legislates, the next can undo. If the people dislike a system introduced by an incumbent government, they can respond accordingly and vote that government out in the next election. A vigorous debate generated by an unpopular voting system may be just the catalyst needed to fully develop a popular sense of what voting systems mean to democracy. This sense is now seriously undeveloped in this country. Relying on referendums for change may mean it will remain that way.

Canada's not entirely harmless romance with "Will & Kate"

Calgarians, indeed Albertans, will often tell you that this is a place where you are judged by what you do, not by who you are. I doubt this was ever true. I've lived across Canada and I've never found Calgarians any less susceptible to the prestige of a name or the seduction of celebrity than other Canadians. If there was any doubt about that, the current gushing over William Windsor and Katherine Middleton, Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Earl and Countess of Strathearn, Baron and Baroness of Carrickfergus, should leave no doubt.

If it's what you do that counts, these two haven't done much more than any other prominent young couple of wealth might do—get born into the right family, dabble a little in this, dabble a little in that, have an opulent wedding, wave to the groupies and otherwise endure the trials of celebrity. And yet this country is honouring them as if they have accomplished something of importance.

I don't want to be a party pooper. Lavishing attention on the royal couple is generally harmless fun, but let's not forget this guy is next in line after his dad to become king of England and therefore our head of state. Choosing our head of state in this manner ... whoops, actually we don't choose, do we. Accepting a head of state in this manner is not only undemocratic, it is sexist and bigoted. Sexist because sons inherit the Crown ahead of daughters and bigoted because the heir must be a Protestant not married to a Catholic.

And one wonders why our federal government is so indifferent to the fact William won't be elected when he becomes our grand poobah. This, after all, is the party that refuses to accept an unelected Senate.

So ... let's not end the fun. They are a lovely couple and any excuse for a party, eh wot? But let's give some thought to the fact that this harmless-appearing fellow may one day be imposed upon us as our head of state in accordance with an archaic and prejudiced tradition, a tradition deeply insulting to the democratic process.

British Columbians love their carbon tax ... so far

As British Columbia's carbon tax celebrates its third birthday, the province's residents seem to have grown rather fond of it. According to a Pembina Institute report, 69 percent of British Columbians are concerned about global warming and 70 per cent support their province being a leader in dealing with it. Furthermore, they would like the tax applied to all sources of pollution that cause global warming, not just fossil fuel combustion as is the case now. In fact, as a way of raising government revenue it was their second choice after corporate taxes, more popular than sales taxes, property taxes and personal income taxes.

British Columbians, unlike our federal government, are not prepared to wait for others to lead the way in dealing with climate change. Seventy per cent strongly agree or somewhat agree with the statement: “B.C. should be a leader in reducing pollution that causes global warming, even if our neighbors and competitors lag behind.” Over half feel current actions are “not tough enough” while only 36 per cent feel they are “about right.”

Indications are the tax is reducing the use of fossil fuels. Research by Stewart Elgie, a University of Ottawa economist and professor of law, found that B.C.’s per capita fuel usage had fallen more than four per cent compared with the rest of Canada while its economy, measured by GDP, has kept up with the rest of Canada's.

Nonetheless, this isn't good enough. According to the Pembina Institute, a carbon tax approaching 50 cents a litre for gasoline will be required to meet emission reduction goals for 2020, but the current tax, which has escalated each year, will work out to only 6.7 cents a litre in 2012 after which no increases are scheduled. About half of British Columbians are currently opposed to an increase after 2012, so more winning of hearts and minds is obviously required.

All of us are contributing to global warming, the biggest threat our civilization faces. All of us should therefore be held accountable for the damage we are doing. The fairest and most effective way to do this is through a carbon tax—the more you pollute the more you pay. It is encouraging to see British Columbians at least getting a start on accepting their responsibilities, but discouraging that the start is so small and that no other Canadians have accepted a comparable tax.

The Arab spring—seeking a deeper democracy than ours?

Catherine Ashton, high representative of the European Union for foreign affairs and security policy, recently stated that the EU called for "deep democracy" in countries such as Tunisia and Egypt as they liberated themselves from dictators. She emphasized that deep democracy is about more than votes and elections. It includes the rule of law, freedom of speech, an independent judiciary, impartial administration, enforceable property rights and free trade unions. "It is," she said, "not just about changing government but about building the right institutions and attitudes."

She is right about all that of course but she might have added that, most importantly, it is about ensuring that decisions of governments derive from citizens and not from vested interests. On this critical point, the governments arising out of the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt have the potential to be deeper than ours.

We have experienced in recent years the shallowing of our democracy. Government decisions seem increasingly abandoned to an ideology of free market supremacy within which the influence of corporations and their neo-classical economic gurus all to frequently trump the influence of citizens. An example is U.S. President Barack Obama's medicare program, the most important piece of legislation passed in that country in recent years. Without major concessions to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, it is doubtful he would have seen it passed. But much more importantly, the economic liberalization and globalization driven by free market zealotry has resulted in the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.

Now the U.S. and the EU are encouraging the Tunisians and Egyptians to adopt this same philosophy just as they encouraged Eastern European nations to adopt it after the collapse of Communism, ignoring the fact that many of those countries then either stagnated or endured a monster credit bubble followed by a fiscal crisis and a collapse into the arms of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Fortunately, there is evidence the Arabs are not falling for it. For example, Egypt recently rejected a $3 billion loan from the IMF as Arab activists warned that conditions attached to western aid threaten to undercut the goals of economic and social justice at the heart of the Arab spring.

The Arab NGO Network for Development is concerned that transitional governments meant to be in power for the short term until elections can be held could be signing up their successors to long-term commitments to neoliberal reforms—privatization, deregulation and liberalization of trade—in exchange for the urgent financial help they need. They point out that these reforms were largely responsible for the inequality and concentration of power that created the need for revolution in the first place.

A joint statement from 65 Arab civil society groups included the following, "The path to development of each country should be decided by its own people, via constitutional processes and national dialogue." If the revolutionaries remain true to these words, they may not only create deep democracy for themselves, they may refresh democracy for all of us.

Petraeus's imaginary Taliban

In Nikolai Gogol's novel Dead Souls, his protagonist Chichikov seeks to purchase serfs who have died but are still registered against their owners as taxable assets. By relieving the owners of the tax burden, Chichikov obtains ownership of the dead serfs for nominal sums. He hopes thereby to inflate his apparent wealth and use it as collateral for an enormous loan which would provide the wealth and status he aspires to.

It appears that General David Petraeus, commander of the allied forces in Afghanistan, has been doing a variation on Chichikov. Last December, he reported that raids by Special Operations Forces had resulted in 4,100 Taliban captured and 2,000 killed in the previous six months.

The military has now admitted the 4,100 figure referred to the number of Afghans detained, at least 80 per cent of which were determined to be innocent civilians and released within two weeks. (One wonders where the hearts and minds of these 80 per cent innocent detainees have migrated to.) Apparently Petraeus was aware of this little discrepancy at the time.

Now the question arises, if the number reported captured was grossly exaggerated, how valid is the number reported killed? Are the 2,000 souls dead or just imaginary? Gogol would be amused.

On trashing the long form census—Stats Can on my tail

Shortly before the Canada Post lockout, Statistics Canada mailed me a copy of the 2011 National Household Survey, formerly known as the long form census, to dutifully fill out. I promptly trashed it.

But Stats Can was not finished with me. Yesterday, with Canada Post back in business, I opened my mailbox looking forward to some overdue magazines, but to my considerable disappointment all I found was a brown envelope from Stats Can reminding me to fill out its form. And as if that wasn't enough, later in the afternoon I received a phone call with yet another request that I fulfill this pointless exercise.

Don't get me wrong. I am a strong believer in the long form census. It is, or was, an important resource for a host of individuals and organizations—business, labour, religious, educational, charitable, etc.—and of course for government itself. I would be delighted to assist in the gathering of information that will result in a better understanding of and better policy-making for my country.

But the information provided by a census is only valid if it is gathered in a controlled manner and that means filling out the form must be mandatory. That, unfortunately, is no longer the case. Filling out the form is now voluntary which renders the information gathered useless or worse. I have no intention of wasting my time filling out a 40-page form to provide information that may present an inaccurate, even deceptive, portrait of Canadians.

I will wait until the government regains its senses, listens to the advice offered from almost every corner of Canadian society and returns to the mandatory long form. Then, if I'm still around, I will do my duty as a citizen and fill out the form with enthusiasm.

Pakistanis really don't like the U.S. They really don't

That the United States is unpopular in Pakistan is common knowledge. But just how unpopular is surprising. According to the Pew Global Attitudes Project, 73 per cent of Pakistanis hold an unfavourable opinion of the U.S., 68 per cent have little or no confidence in President Obama, and 69 per cent see the U.S. as more of an enemy than as a partner. Those are not good numbers for a country the Americans profess to need as a friend.

And they are not the only discouraging numbers. Adding insult to injury, 63 per cent of Pakistanis disapproved of the killing of Osama bin Laden and 55 per cent think it's a bad thing he is dead. Furthermore, support for their own government's military campaign against extremist groups is dropping, from 53 to 37 per cent over the past three years. Their military nonetheless remains popular with 79 per cent saying it has a good influence on the country. (The Americans may have a somewhat less generous view.) 

All of this is not to suggest Pakistanis are soft on extremists. Only 12 per cent have a favourable opinion of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, although that rises to 27 per cent for Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Kashmir-based group that has carried out numerous attacks against India. Eighty-five per cent believe suicide bombings and other violent acts against civilians in defense of Islam are never justified. This has risen from 38 per cent in 2002. 

So, the U.S. distrusts the Pakistani army, and the Pakistani people distrust the U.S.—quite a conundrum. Yet if the United States is to influence lasting change in the region, it must come to terms with Pakistan, a nation central to the region's future and, of course, a nuclear power. The above numbers suggest that will be quite a challenge.

Impeaching Ahmadinejad

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameni, has a problem. He wholeheartedly supported incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the 2009 presidential election, and now it turns out the flaky Ahmadinejad is being a bad boy. Allies of the president and his chief of staff and close confidant, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, are accused of attempting to undermine the power of the clerics. In recent weeks, at least 25 people close to Ahmadinejad and Mashaei have been arrested.

In April, in a fit of pique over Khameni's intervention in a cabinet appointment, Ahmadinejad abandoned his office for 11 days. Apparently the only reason he returned to work was because he was threatened with impeachment. But that hasn't mitigated the threat. Several members of Iran's parliament have warned Ahmadinejad he still faces impeachment if he insists on supporting Mashaei. Given that all MPs are vetted by Iran's Guardian Council, a body controlled by Khamenei, this would seem to be a clear warning from Khamenei himself.

Khamenei is quite likely employing Parliament to avoid the embarrassment of confronting his former pet in public. Although he would no doubt prefer Ahmadinejad go quietly, all he has to do is pull the trigger and Parliament will impeach. In any case, the romance is over. One way or the other, Ahmadinejad is toast.

Americans tire of war spending

Americans have for some time seemed to have an insatiable appetite for military spending. Defence was the sacred cow of their federal budget. Now it seems they are losing that appetite for at least one form of military expense—waging war.

The Afghan war is expected to cost the United States $118.6 billion in 2011, over four times Afghanistan's GDP. The cost, soaring since Barack Obama became president, surpassed that of the Iraq war in 2010 when the U.S. spent $93.8 billion in Afghanistan versus $71.3 billion in Iraq. And these costs exclude long-term expenses such as veterans’ benefits for the returning soldiers which will persist for many years.

As the cost of the war has escalated, so has the desire of the American people to get out. According to a Pew survey, 56 per cent of Americans now want to remove their troops as soon as possible compared to only 33 per cent expressing this view when Obama assumed office. Only 39 per cent want the troops to remain until the situation has stabilized, down from 61 per cent over the same period.

Earlier this week, the United States Conference of Mayors approved a resolution calling for an early end to military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are asking Congress to redirect the billions being spent on war and reconstruction toward urgent domestic needs, saying that American taxes should be paying for bridges in Baltimore and Kansas City, not in Baghdad and Kandahar. This is the group's first resolution on foreign policy since it called for an end to the Vietnam War forty years ago.

This growing recognition of limits to American power was neatly expressed by Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia who said, "The question the president faces—we all face—is quite simple: Will we choose to rebuild America or Afghanistan? In light of our nation’s fiscal peril, we cannot do both.”

President Obama does seem to be facing up to this reality. In his television address Wednesday evening, he declared that the "tide of war is receding" and announced the rapid withdrawal of the 33,000 "surge" troops. It isn't all that rapid, actually—scheduled over a year and a half and it's only the troops added since he became president—but it is in the right direction. He also hinted at a more militarily modest foreign policy, saying the country needs to "chart a more centered course" between "an isolation that ignores the very real threats that we face" and the urge to "overextend ourselves, confronting every evil that can be found abroad."

If he carries through on all this, he has the opportunity to cut his country's obscene defence budget without appearing to reduce security. And, of no less importance, he may bring much-needed relief from American aggression to the rest of the world.

Why the dolphins are smarter than us—recently revealed

Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, animal advocate and a very funny man, once observed that, "Man always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reason."

Adams makes a playful remark about a playful species, but it carries a serious truth. Dolphins, without our presence would be thriving in a healthy environment, but with our presence find their environment threatened along with that of most other species on Earth. Homo sapiens is on the verge of creating the sixth great extinction. All because we have achieved too much—too much technological expertise but not enough smarts to use it wisely.

When we invented intensive agriculture and thus civilization, we set ourselves on a path toward technology that would eventually lead us to wrecking our environment. Throughout most of that history, life has been worse than the old hunger-gatherer lifestyle for the great majority of people and now, after a brief period of high living, it's about to get a lot worse for us and probably most of our fellow creatures.

Inventing civilization appears to have been the biggest mistake in human history. Unless we radically change our ways, we would have been much smarter to emulate the dolphins and retain our simpler way of life, mucking about in the fields and woods having a good time. The dolphins were right, just as Adams claimed. And we thought he was kidding.

Sports—tribalism in full cry

The now infamous Vancouver hockey riot has done a pretty good job of smearing the city's reputation around the globe. Shocking as it was, it wasn't entirely surprising. Rioting seems to be part and parcel of professional team sports. The reason, of course, is that team sports are a tribal phenomenon and tribalism has a close relationship to violence.

When people go to a music concert, a movie, the ballet, whatever, they go principally to appreciate the performance—the art and the skill. But when they go to a sports match they go principally to see our guys beat their guys, to see our tribe triumph over theirs.

If you go to a concert and the performers sing out of tune or if at a ballet the dancers trip over each other, you are unhappy. You may want your money back. If, on the other hand, they sing or dance beautifully, you are delighted, you got your money's worth. You don't much care one way or the other whether the performers are from your home town or from Beijing. The performance is the thing.

But if you go to a sports match and it's badly played but your team wins, you are nonetheless ecstatic. On the other hand, if the game is brilliantly played but your team loses, you are depressed. The tribe is the thing.

Players on teams don't all wear the same uniform just so they can tell their guys from the other guys, it is equally about tribal regalia. The fans, too, often deck themselves out in team colours and other symbols—the tribe in full cry.

Sports, next to war, are almost unique in generating mass loyalty and mass emotion. States know this and often invest heavily in sport to unite their people and promote their tribe. When Olympic winners mount their pedestals, their national anthem is played and their national flag waved, and that's essentially what it is all about—flaunting the tribal symbols.

Unfortunately, that mass loyalty and emotion will from time to time spill over into mass violence. It happened in Vancouver on June 15th, and it will happen somewhere else next year or the year after. It is, you might say, in the nature of the game.

Time to end growth?

According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Canada's economic prospects are looking good. In its latest global forecast of economic activity, this year we will have the highest GDP growth in the G7 except for Germany. We are, it appears, doing very well.

Or are we? Growth is the mantra of our business and political leaders and such classical economists as hang out at the IMF, to whom it is the preeminent measure of a country's economic success, if not its overall success. And by growth, they mean growth in the GDP, i.e material growth. What they are measuring in effect is how rapidly we are devouring our planet's resources. If those resources were infinite, that would be fine, but they aren't. In fact, we are using up our planet's resources faster than the planet can replenish them and we are polluting the planet faster than it can absorb the pollution. In short, growth is exhausting the planet. And that means we are exhausting our civilization.

A major contributor to the collapse of civilizations, going all the way back to the first civilizations in Mesopotamia, has been their demand for more from their environment than it could provide. Ultimately, they wrecked their environment and that wrecked their civilization. And we are now doing the same thing, only this time on a global scale. In the past, new civilizations could always spring up somewhere else; this time there is no somewhere else.

So do we really want Canada to be a leader in a process of civilizational suicide? If not, we should contain our applause for our GDP performance and instead insist our business and political leaders end this insane race to the edge of the cliff and start seriously to put an end to material growth. We can, after all, grow in many ways: grow a more equitable and compassionate society, grow in creativity, grow our leisure time and our time for civil participation, and so on. Both history and physics tell us there is no sane alternative.

"Saudi women, start your engines!"

I admit I was motivated to write this post by the above heading. I couldn't resist it, so I plagiarized it. Apparently it first appeared as a Twitter message on the main site women2Drive. As flippant as it sounds, it sends a serious message.

It reminds us that in this modern world of ours we still have a nation where women have to beg men just to drive a damn car. Where they must obtain permission from men to take a job or travel. A nation where religion remains supreme in all its misogynistic glory.

And it reminds us this sorry excuse for a nation is a good friend of the West, recently the beneficiary of a massive arms deal with the Americans, the largest in U.S. history.

But Saudi women are protesting. Nothing big like Tunisia or Egypt, just a few gutsy ladies getting behind the wheel and heading downtown—a mini-revolt you might say. But you never know. Small acts of defiance can lead to revolutionary change. Rosa Parks did it by sitting at the front of the bus. Saudi women may do it by sitting in the driver's seat of a car.

A dynamic Turkey steps up

Congratulations to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) for their victory in the Turkish election last Sunday. Erdogan led his party to their third straight win with a majority of seats and almost 50 per cent of the popular vote.

The AKP has guided Turkey to unprecedented prosperity. Since they first took power in 2002, the GDP per capita has risen from $3,500 per annum to $10,079. Foreign investment in the Turkish economy has soared from $1.1 billion to $9 billion, and Turkey has increased trade with its neighbours from $5 billion to $16 billion. In 2010, Turkey became the fastest growing economy in Europe. Staples such as gas, tea and sugar, once scarce, are now plentiful. The AKP government has matched the economic progress with improvements in social programs.

The country is also moving up on the international stage, becoming both a regional and a global player with its use of soft power. After seeming to ignore its neighbourhood for decades, it has become increasingly influential, offering an attractive alternative to peoples justifiably suspicious of American and European interventions in the region. Erdogan's newly assertive foreign policy is highly popular among  Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanese and Palestinians.

Of particular importance is the example Turkey sets for those Arabs pushing for democratic change. Not only is it a dynamic and successful Muslim democracy, it is governed by an Islamic party.

It has its problems, of course, dealing justly with its large Kurdish minority perhaps first among them. But a prospering local democracy will provide the perfect mentor for the Middle East, rather as Brazil is proving to be an excellent mentor for South America as its nations awaken to democracy and emancipation of their indigenous peoples.

Erdogan, the AKP and Turkey deserve continued success, domestically and internationally, in their democratic adventure.

CBC contributes much more than dollars

A study released Wednesday by international consultants Deloitte and Touche reports that CBC/Radio-Canada contributed $3.7 billion to the Canadian economy in 2010. This contrasts to its annual parliamentary allocation of $1.1 billion and overall expenditure of $1.7 billion. The study concluded the public broadcaster's contribution to the Canadian economy is well above its spending power because of its support for jobs and businesses across the country.

The study took into account the economic effect if the government used the $1.1 billion for other purposes. It found that a broadcaster forced to rely on advertising and other commercial revenues would do much less for the economy because it would be forced to buy more foreign programming, crowd out private broadcasters and contribute less to creative communities across the country. A privately funded CBC would be forced to spend less on both news and Canadian programming. The study can be found at http://www.cbc.radio-canada.ca/about/value.shtm.

It would seem the CBC offers a handsome economic return on investment, but its return is much more than economic. It creates diversity and depth in Canadian culture while uniting a very broad and diverse country.

Furthermore, it is our only truly independent mass medium, at least nationally. Owned equally by all of us, it is our only national “public” forum. Other media—commercial TV and radio, and the daily press—are corporate-owned and answer to a corporate agenda. We must pay for them, of course, as they are funded principally by our advertising dollars. Indeed we pay a great deal more for corporate media via advertising than we pay for the CBC via taxes. If we want to buy food, clothing, shelter, etc., we must pay for advertising and thus pay to indoctrinate ourselves in the corporate message. 

Without the CBC we would be much less a democracy. As important as its contribution to Canadian culture is, its contribution to the democratic process is perhaps even more important. That it is also a significant contributor to our economy is icing on the cake.

Stephen Harper's moral relativism

In Stephen Harper's speech to the recent Conservative convention, referring to foreign policy, he announced that the Conservatives moral stance would be clear. "Moral ambiguity, moral equivalence are not options," he stated, "they are dangerous illusions."

They may or may not be, but he is something of a moral relativist himself. A prime example is the Palestine issue. In his view, any violence against Jews is abhorrent but even much greater violence against Arabs is acceptable, even justified. For example, he infamously referred to Israel's 2008/09 assault on Gaza as an "appropriate response." The response was to thousands of rocket attacks from Gaza which over an 8-year period had killed about 30 Israelis. The assault on Gaza killed 1,400 Palestinians, including almost 300 children. In addition, much of Gaza's infrastructure was destroyed, including half of the hospitals. Subsequent to the war, Gazans experienced increasing epidemics of health problems with a 60% increase in birth defects and a doubling in the number of cases of blood cancer. All of this murderous efficiency was, in Harper's view, an appropriate response to the largely ineffectual rocket attacks.

Slaughtering 300 children is never an "appropriate response." It is always, under any circumstances, an atrocity.

Harper's seeming indifference to the suffering of Palestinians is disturbingly reminiscent of that great conservative hero Winston Churchill. At the Peel Commission on the future of Palestine in 1937, Churchill, who supported the creation of a Jewish state, was asked what was to become of the Palestinians. He replied, "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. ... I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." 

Is this Harper's attitude toward Palestine? A "higher-grade race" is quite appropriately replacing a lower-grade race? I would hope not. I don't believe Harper is the racist Churchill was. So how then do we explain his moral relativism regarding the Jews and the Arabs in Palestine? 

Moral relativism is, in itself, a good thing. After all, all morality is relative, all circumstances are different, and good decisions result from thoroughy considering circumstances. But I suspect Harper has been led into his position on Palestine not by fairly considering the circumstances of both parties, but rather by his own moral certainty, an evangelical Christian moral certainty that often leads to conveniently easy but dangerously biased reasoning. Unfortunately, that moral certainty is now guiding our country's foreign policy.

Good news—Gates says NATO faces dismal future

U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates is not amused by the lack of military esprit de corp among America's NATO allies. "The blunt reality," he lectured, "is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress—and in the American body politic writ large—to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defence."

One can appreciate his disappointment. The Americans have invested heavily on tens of thousands of troops in Europe training with local forces so they can work effectively together defending common interests. Yet when called upon to defend these interests, as defined by the U.S.—Iraq and Afghanistan for example—the Europeans participate only halfheartedly.

The problem, of course, is that NATO was created to defend North Atlantic nations and many Europeans have difficulty understanding how waging wars on the other side of the world is related to that purpose. Indeed, with the collapse of the threat from the Communist East, the prime justification for the alliance, they begin to wonder if NATO itself has any purpose.

The Americans on the other hand, being in the empire business, see threats everywhere, and want to use NATO as backup for the military adventures they deem necessary to mitigate those threats. Unfortunately, Europeans now tend to see themselves as out of the empire business and don't seem particularly interested in helping the Americans stay in.

For that matter, the American people aren't all that keen either. A recent survey indicated that about half of Americans think the U.S. should "mind its own business internationally" and 65% approved of reducing overseas military commitments as a way to cut the budget deficit. It seems the "American body politic writ large" already has a "dwindling appetite" for spending money on global military involvement.

All of this is encouraging. The United States is the world's most bellicose nation, constantly at war with somebody. An increasing reluctance of its allies to support its imperial designs, combined with an increasing reluctance of Americans to pay the price, may bring the great power to heel.

This does not mean there is no role in the world for NATO. If it changed its name, incorporated troops from other parts of the world, and put itself at the disposal of the UN, it could serve a new and useful purpose, a truly international one, perhaps under the Responsibility to Protect initiative. However, as long as it remains primarily an instrument of U.S. hegemony, it deserves to dwindle and die.

Peru chooses social democracy over capitalist "democracy"

Some events of note in South America's last five years:

• In Bolivia, President Evo Morales presided over the ratification of a new social democratic constitution and was re-elected as president with 64 per cent of the vote. 
• In Ecuador, President Rafael Correa easily won re-election and ratified a new constitution that guarantees social rights and limits privatization. 
• Also in Ecuador, the people voted for ten progressive initiatives, including, as an article in Al Jazeera put it,  "the strict regulation of two blood sports: banks are now banned from speculation and bulls can no longer be killed in bull fights."
• In Brazil, Lula da Silva left office the world's most popular politician, handing over the presidency to Dilma Rousseff, a former urban guerrilla and economist who vows to continue Lula's policies of making Brazil a more humane and equal nation.

Now Peru has joined the swing to social democracy with the election of Ollanta Humala as president. His election should ensure that Peru will join those other South American countries that have been moving democracy away from a neoliberal concept of deregulated capitalism and globalization toward a more humane, sustainable model.

The South American revolution has a definite liberating air about it. For half a millennium the indigenous peoples of that continent have suffered under burdens of exploitation and oppression from both internal and external forces, internally from the European populations beginning with the conquistadors and externally from the United States. Now they are freeing themselves from both and doing it democratically. It is a good thing to see. Spring has sprung, it seems, in South America as well as the Middle East.

Now here's a death penalty I can support

Former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, now secretary of Homeland Security for the U.S. government, is a staunch supporter of the death penalty. This is not a position I would normally agree with. However, when Ms. Napolitano refers to the Arizona Workers Act, which she signed into law as governor, as a potential "death penalty" for corporations, I agree with her sympathies entirely.
 
Contravention of the Act, which was drawn up in order to keep businesses in Arizona from hiring illegal aliens, is punishable by suspension and subsequent revocation of business licenses. Put simply, a business can be terminated. The Act recently survived a challenge in the normally corporate-friendly U.S. Supreme Court.

Whether this is a good or bad law doesn't interest me. What is important is that it reminds us that corporations exist to serve us, and they exist at our pleasure. When they misbehave we have the right to punish them, even to the extent of ending their lives. As they increasingly intrude on our democracy, exploiting powers we have granted them through privatization and globalization, we are well-advised to remind ourselves of this from time to time.

U.S. follows lead of Taliban Jack

Googling the history of our Afghanistan adventure the other day, I encountered  a snide Vancouver Sun article written in 2008 mocking "Taliban Jack" for his position on the war, sarcastically summarizing his views as, "Bring in the UN, facilitate discussions among the warring parties, directly engage the Taliban leadership, develop a comprehensive peace plan, build consensus around a political settlement. That kind of thing."

Well it seems "that kind of thing" has caught on. The Sun pilloried Jack's views as anti-American, yet now the Americans are adopting his position. The United States and Britain are currently pressing the UN to lift sanctions against 18 former senior Taliban leaders. (The U.S. asking the UN to lift sanctions rather than impose them is in itself remarkable.) The reason for the American and British action is almost certainly to allow the Taliban chiefs to travel outside of Afghanistan for peace negotiations. With the sanctions lifted, the Taliban could establish a political office in a third country. Turkey, Turkmenistan and Qatar have offered to host such an office.

The sanctions were imposed in 1999, when the Taliban were in power, and were expanded after 9/11, with dozens of insurgents banned from traveling or holding bank accounts. Removing the restrictions, a move long supported by the Afghan government, has been a key demand of the insurgents.

The first direct meetings between U.S. officials and the Taliban were reported to have taken place last month in Qatar and Germany. Apparently the talks included the personal secretary of Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban's supreme leader.

So there you have it. Jack Layton was on the right, perhaps inevitable, track all along. What will we hear now from the cynics—Taliban Barak?

War on drugs busted

Reports criticizing the War on Drugs are manifold but few carry the cachet of the Report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy. Issued this month, the report commissioners are a uniquely prestigious group that include the former presidents of Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Switzerland; a former U.S. Secretary of State under Presidents Reagan and Nixon; a former Secretary General of the UN; a former Canadian Supreme Court Justice; a former chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve; one of Britain's most successful corporate leaders, and so on.

The conclusions of the report are unequivocal. The Executive Summary begins, "The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world." Can't get much clearer than that. The summary goes on to say, "Government expenditures on futile supply reduction strategies and incarceration displace more cost-effective and evidence-based investments in demand and harm reduction."

The report shows that in the ten years 1998-2008, opiate use increased 34.5 per cent, cocaine use 27 per cent and cannabis use 8.5 per cent. Drugs, it seems, are winning the war.

Recommendations include, " End the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others. ... Encourage experimentation by governments with models of legal regulation of drugs to undermine the power of organized crime ... Offer health and treatment services to those in need. ... Eschew simplistic "just say no" messages and "zero tolerance" policies in favor of educational efforts grounded in credible information ... Replace drug policies and strategies driven by ideology and political convenience with fiscally responsible policies and strategies grounded in science, health, security and human rights – and adopt appropriate criteria for their evaluation. ... Break the taboo on debate and reform."

The report specifically refers to "heroin-assisted treatment programs that have proven successful in many European countries and Canada."

Unfortunately, our government's approach—tougher laws, more imprisonment and shutting down heroin-assisted treatment programs—would seem to contradict just about everything in the report. If our government is not sensitive to the human cost of its approach, we might expect it to at least be sensitive to the economic cost. As British businessman Richard Branson, one of the commissioners, remarked, "It's estimated that over one trillion have been spent on fighting this unwinnable battle. The irony is that a regulated market—one that is tightly controlled, one that would offer support not prison to those with drug problems—would cost tax payers much less money." That should be music to Conservative ears.

The report is a good read with a thorough analysis of the state of the drug war, including the results of decriminalization initiatives, and solid recommendations for a more constructive, one might say saner, approach. I sincerely hope our governments reads it.

Will the Conservative majority placate the West?

The West has in the past had a number of grievances against Ottawa, some legitimate, some not so much. The sense of grievance is strongest in Alberta for various reasons not the least of which was Pierre Trudeau's National Energy Program of 1980. One by-product of the resulting alienation is the growing sense that the only party that can fairly represent the West's interest is the Conservative Party, the Liberals being perceived as the party of the East.

The Mulroney government, despite being highly favourable to Alberta, did not seem to alleviate the alienation, perhaps because Mulroney was seen as Quebec's man. Indeed, the Mulroney government contributed to the creation of the Reform Party in Alberta. Nor have the Harper minority governments, despite their strong Western flavour, helped to cool suspicions about Eastern designs. The proposal to form a coalition Liberal-NDP government headed by Stephane Dion, after his thorough rejection in the West, did not help. The Harper administration is seen as their government by many Westerners, yet unable to act in their interests as it has been under siege by opposition forces.

Now, the siege has been lifted, a majority achieved. The Conservatives command the nation, even establishing a beachhead in the effete confines of Toronto. So, the question arises: will this consummate power combined with the humiliation of the despised Liberals offer disaffected Westerners the reassurance they seem to need that all parties must now come to terms with a vigorous West and its increasing importance to the country? Will it give them the confidence to support other parties, perhaps ones closer to their personal philosophy, safe in the belief they need no longer rely solely on the Conservatives to serve Western interests?

If so, this election may have served a good purpose after all. Yes, the country will regress under the Conservatives but progress is, after all, two steps ahead and one step back, and if the overall attitudes of the regions are healthier (keeping in mind also that Quebec rejected the Bloc in favour of a federalist party), that in itself is progress. The Liberals and the NDP did not do well in the West in this election, yet ironically it may offer them the opportunity to get back in the game.

Don't mess with my vote, Jack

With 59 of their 103 seats in Quebec, we could expect the NDP to pay close attention to Quebec's concerns. That would, of course, be appropriate. But what I wouldn't have expected them to do is propose eroding the democratic rights of the rest of us in order to favour that province. This is what Jack Layton has proposed with his suggestion that the government give Quebec more seats in the House of Commons.

With 24.4 per cent of the seats for 23.2 per cent of the Canadian population, Quebec is fairly represented in the House. Furthermore, its share of the population is decreasing.

Democracy is nothing less than equal political power and one citizen/one vote is the embodiment of that principle. Now it appears Mr. Layton is willing to sacrifice my political equality for his political gain. First-past-the-post has already reduced the value of my vote to essentially zero in federal elections, and the only hope I have of giving it meaning is a system of proportional representation. And that is one of the reasons I support the NDP. Of the three major parties, it has been the strongest advocate of PR. Gaining a fair vote via a new voting system and then having it undermined by giving a piece of it to Quebeckers is something I would have trouble accepting quietly.

I hope this is just Jack talking off the top of his head and not voicing an NDP policy. As a policy it would do a pretty good job of alienating voters in Ontario and the West, i.e. where the population is growing, and thus reducing the NDP's chance of ever forming a national government.

So by all means, Jack, let the party be a good representative for Quebec, but not by sacrificing the democratic rights of the rest of us. Don't become the new Bloc. Forget you ever tossed the idea out and never mention it again. We'll forget you said it and move on.

Obama and the Middle East—time for the Yankee to go home?

I realize that U.S. President Barack Obama is now campaigning for the 2012 election. And I realize also the importance of Jewish support to his campaign. And I recognize the need for politicians to pander to important constituencies. But did he have to stoop, in the words of an Al Jazeera correspondent, to such a "scandalously obsequious pleading tone" in his speech to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee?

Pandering is usually fine—no harm done—but pandering to Israel via its zealous American supporters involves victims. Specifically, the Palestinians. Promising unconditional support for Israel, as he did, is nothing less than abandoning Israel's victims. After all, unless the U.S. holds Israel to account, nobody will, and the Palestinians are left to their mercy.

He got, by some reports, 50 standing ovations, and 50 standing ovations from an AIPEC crowd is very bad news for the Palestinians. The crowd knew what he was saying, they can read between the lines: "We really want Israel to do this, but if they do something entirely different, we will support them anyway, and we will support them unconditionally." He reiterated what the Americans have been saying for 50 years.

His speech simply underlines something that is becoming increasingly clear—the Americans are now irrelevant in the Middle East. They won't help the Palestinians rid themselves of their oppressor. They are scrambling to keep up with the Arab people generally as dictators are swept out of power, dictators that were often good friends of the United States. As for peace, they are more the ally of war, currently involved in the largest arms sale in U.S. history to their favourite dictators in the region, the misogynistic Sauds. The Americans are capable of causing trouble while seemingly incapable of causing peace.

Obama is even irrelevant to Israel. Netanyahu scorns him, simply dismissing his blah, blah, blah about 1967 borders, knowing he has more clout with the U.S. Congress than Obama does. The Congress's fawning response to Netanyahu when he spoke to them early this week attests to that. And while Obama has to genuflect to AIPEC, Netanyahu owns it. The dog will be wagged and the tail will do as it damn well pleases. The status quo will continue: Israel will steal more land, the Palestinians will be more intensely segregated, and the victims of this land theft and segregation will continue to suffer poverty and humiliation.

But not forever, despite Israeli and American intransigence. They are taking their future into their own hands. Hamas and Fatah are reconciling—hugely important to the Palestinians who are sick and tired of their feuding. And in unity comes strength. The Palestinians will push for recognition as a state in the UN General Assembly in September. Needless, to say, the Americans, aping Israel, oppose both of these measures, but the Palestinians, supported by the Arab world, will persist. And young Palestinians are learning from their colleagues in Tunisia and Egypt about rising up against an oppressor. Earlier this month, thousands of Palestinian refugees and their supporters marched on Israel's borders with Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, and more marches are planned.

Help also increases from outside. Support for the Palestinian people grows in the international community, and support will increase particularly from Arab countries should they truly become democratic. Already, Egypt has stated it will permanently open its Rafah border crossing with Gaza.

Where is the U.S. in all this? Increasingly in the background. History is passing them by. Maybe it's time for them to leave the Middle East to the Middle Easterners, and try just minding their own business. They clearly have enough problems in their own house to keep themselves busy. Time, perhaps, for the Yankee to go home.

Sheila Fraser—an honourable public servant

In our habitual government-bashing, we sometimes overlook the splendid contributions made to our society by our civil servants. Such a contribution, manifesting integrity and commitment to public service at its best, has been exemplified for the past ten years by our retiring Auditor General Sheila Fraser.

The CBC  refers to Ms. Fraser as "one of the most important—not to mention popular—Canadian national figures of the last decade." Quarreling with either one of these claims is impossible. Scrupulous, forthright and unflappable, her pointed yet balanced critiques of both Liberal and Conservative government spending practices characterized her tenure and made her one of the most well-known and well-respected of Canadians. Quality civil servants such as Sheila Fraser are, I often think, even more important to government than quality politicians.

Canadians owe her a vote of thanks for ten years of assiduous oversight of our government's use—or abuse—of our tax dollars. She will be hard to replace.

Dandelions win one!

Finally, a victory for that cheerful harbinger of spring, the common dandelion. The Alberta government has removed the little yellow fellow from the list of noxious weeds in the province's Weed Control Act. Municipal bylaw officers will now no longer be able to fine homeowners who let dandelions overtake their yards. Calgary's pest management co-ordinator Simon Wilkins says officials in Calgary have more serious weed problems to tackle than dandelions anyway.

Of course they do. Indeed, listing dandelions as noxious is pretty noxious in itself. They are edible in their entirety: leaves delicious in salads, flowers good for making wine and roots for making a coffee. And the little plant is more than tasty. Its long taproot brings up nutrients for shallower-rooting plants and adds minerals and nitrogen to the soil. It also attracts pollinating insects and releases ethylene gas which helps fruit to ripen. Noxious indeed!

I have always enjoyed the delightful surprises the dandelion offer the city dweller. That bright yellow head pushing up through a crack in the sidewalk in early spring, for example, sending the heart-warming message that winter is finally over, about the least noxious message a Canadian can get. And to see an ugly vacant lot suddenly transformed by a carpet of yellow—the whole neighbourhood is brightened.

True, they do look a little ratty as they go to seed, but that's a small price to pay for the charm they offer. In any case, I'm looking a bit grey and weedy myself in my old age. So cheers for the dandelions—long may they gladden the hearts of Albertans.

The Better Life Index is a better measure

The search for a better measure of standard of living just got a big boost with the launch of Your Better Life Index by the OECD. The need for an alternative to the ubiquitous but misleading, if not outright dangerous, GDP is underlined when the prestigious OECD, with its membership of 34 industrial countries, emphasizes the importance of considering a range of criteria to determine a country's quality of life rather than just income.

According to the OECD, the index is part of a "larger Better Life Initiative that aims to measure well-being and progress. The index allows citizens to compare lives across 34 countries, based on 11 dimensions—housing, income, jobs, community, education, environment, governance, health, life satisfaction, safety, work-life balance." Perhaps the most unique aspect of the index is that people can weight the dimensions themselves to compare the countries according to their own standards.

The choice of dimensions is arbitrary of course but seems to cover a reasonable range of life quality factors. The index joins a number of other indexes offering superior yardsticks to the GDP for assessing the health of a society, such as the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) and the Canadian Index of Wellbeing (CIW). We seem to be well on our way to returning the GDP to the place its inventor, Nobel Prize winning economist Simon Kuznets, intended for it, as nothing more than a measure of national income. Upon introducing the GDP to the U.S. Congress in 1934, Kuznets immediately warned "...the welfare of a nation can, therefore, scarcely be inferred from a measure of national income...." Kuznets would, I suspect, have welcomed the introduction of a yardstick that could reasonably measure "the welfare of a nation," such as Your Better Life Index.

No doubt you are now asking how well Canada does on the index. Well, see for yourself. Check how well we are doing by OECD standards and by your own standards, at http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/.

Calendar note: Sunday, May 22 is the International Day for Biological Diversity

Recognizing that the Earth's biological resources are essential to humanity's economic and social welfare, yet species and ecosystems are threatened as never before, the United Nations established The Convention on Biological Diversity in 1993. The Convention has 3 main objectives:

1. The conservation of biological diversity.
2. The sustainable use of the components of biological diversity.
3. The fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.

In order to further increase understanding and awareness of biodiversity issues, The United Nations has proclaimed May 22nd as the International Day for Biological Diversity. Each year the day celebrates a different theme. 2011 is the International Year of Forests, so this year the theme is forest biodiversity.

Events focusing on forests are taking place throughout the year including the International Forest Film Festival earlier this year in New York. On May 22nd, countries throughout the world will showcase their work on forest biodiversity with activities and events to celebrate the International Day for Biological Diversity.

So this coming Sunday, remember to hug a tree or, better yet, plant one.

Reflections on the murder of Osama bin Laden

At the end of the Second World War, the Americans and their allies captured a pack of Nazis, an assortment of the most evil men on Earth. They could have lined them up against a wall and shot them and there would have been little argument. But, as the Americans have often done, they set a higher standard. They arrested these men, charged them with war crimes, and only after trying them in a court of law did they punish them.

How things have changed. In dealing with their bogeyman Osama bin Laden, they offered no arrest, no charges, no trial. Instead they sent a hit team to break into his house and shoot him down in front of his wife and children. In the last 65 years, it seems the U.S. has descended from the rule of law to extrajudicial murder.

There can be no doubt they could have captured him alive. He was unarmed, and if they could land and retrieve 79 assassins, they could certainly have brought back one prisoner. Instead they decided to wreak simple vengeance.

Summary justice is of course no stranger to the United States. Vigilantes often rode in the Wild West and lynchings were once part of the American landscape, but one might think Barack Obama of all people would be above that sort of thing.

However his poll ratings are up along with American triumphalism, and his military did indeed do their dirty work well, even recording it live for the folks back home. On that score, I must say I find the idea of the President of the United States and his entourage watching a snuff film put on by his military somewhat unsettling.

When asked why he didn't release the photographs of bin Laden's corpse, the President responded, "That is not who we are." That, sir, may now be in question.

When is bad financial management good financial management?

Consider two events and the responses to these events by two different governments. The events are remarkably similar. A party is elected to government at a time when the economy is healthy and then is blindsided by a recession referred to as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. As a result, the government runs steep deficit budgets.

Thereafter, the similarity ends. One party is punished for its efforts—thrown out in the next election and condemned thereafter as financially incompetent. The other party is rewarded handsomely—re-elected with a solid majority, supported by almost the entire daily press, and praised for its financial acumen.

The first event is the election of the NDP in Ontario in the early 1990s and the second the recent election of the Conservatives federally.

The myth that Conservatives are fiscally responsible relative to the NDP is as persistent as it is wrong. An article by Tony Sanger, Senior Economist with the Canadian Union of Public Employees, in the Progressive Economics Forum clearly illustrate this fact. The attached chart from the article shows that over the past 30 years NDP governments have balanced their budgets 50 per cent of the time compared to Conservative governments' 37 per cent. Sanger also showed that comparing size of deficits as a share of GDP, NDP governments again came out ahead, illustrating that not only did the NDP balance their budgets more often but also ran smaller deficits.

Why this myth persists is an intriguing question. No doubt ownership of the daily press by that good friend of the Conservatives the corporate sector is a large part of the answer.

First-past-the-post creates a conservative English Canada vs. a progressive Quebec

The NDP scored a number of firsts for itself in the 2011 election: the first time with seats in the triple digits, the first time as Official Opposition, the first time with strength in Quebec, and so on.

This is also the first time it has beaten the first-past-the-post (FPTP) election system. In the past, the NDP has been the major loser in the strange and undemocratic games FPTP plays, consistently receiving far fewer seats in the House than its popular support justifies. But this time it was slightly ahead of the game with 33 per cent of the seats for 31 per cent of the popular vote.

The NDP's more equitable showing resulted from its Quebec performance: 77 per cent of the seats for 42 per cent popular support. In Saskatchewan on the other hand, the province most closely associated with the NDP (even though the original CCF was founded in Alberta), it was shut out despite receiving a third of the vote.

This was in fact the pattern of the election. The NDP grossly over-represented in Quebec and, along with the Liberals, under-represented just about everywhere else. The Conservatives, on the other hand, were under-represented in Quebec, four per cent of the seats with 17 per cent of the vote, but heavily over-represented in English Canada. Overall, with only 40 per cent of the votes, they gained 54 per cent of the seats in the House.

The Conservatives are widely thought to own the West, and they do, although not to the extent the election indicated. If they didn't have the 20 more seats than they deserved in the West, they wouldn't have won a majority.

In any case, we now have yet another polarity in the country—a conservative English Canada and a progressive Quebec—once again aggravated by FPTP. Will we never rid ourselves of this undemocratic beast and adopt an electoral system that accurately represents the Canadian people?

Massive dual win for Harper—a majority and a Liberal Party in ruins

Stephen Harper has long had two goals, a short-term goal of winning a majority government and a long-term goal of destroying the Liberal Party. Last night he achieved the first and got a good start on the second, both in convincing fashion.

Of course he couldn't have achieved either without a lot of help from the Liberals themselves. They decided to push for an election when they were low in the polls, with a leader who couldn't connect to ordinary Canadians and a platform so vague it seemed indistinguishable form the Tories. Nonetheless, even though I'm an NDP supporter, I take no satisfaction in seeing the Liberals brought so low. Liberalism—the small "l" variety—does after all represent the best in human nature.

In any case, their loss could turn out to be a blessing. Since 2006 they have floundered in their attempts to rebuild their party with another election always looming in the background. Now they have four clear years to concentrate on revitalizing their party, creating a strong grass-roots base, and solidifying their funding.

After all, life is short but politics is long. I can remember when the NDP had so few sears in the House, they lost their party status, and look at them now—102 seats and forming the Official Opposition. They even received a special treat: for the very first time they have more seats than their proportion of the popular vote would justify. And we all remember when the post-Mulroney Conservatives were nearly wiped off the map. And look at them now, or at least the new Reform-leavened version. And then there were the UK Liberals who were overrun by Labour early in the last century. It's taken them decades to recover but now they are back in government, albeit in a coalition.

Rebuilding will be made more difficult for the Liberals  by a mass media in this country that has over the past few decades become increasingly right-wing and partisan. (Witness the sleazy attempt by the Sun papers to halt the NDP surge with a smear of Jack Layton.) Nonetheless, they now have the time and the opportunity. Whether or not Harper ultimately destroys them, as he would dearly love to do—he's just that kind of guy—will be largely up to them.