Slowing Harper's rush to environmental ruin

The federal government, it appears, is in a hurry. We cannot exploit the tar sands fast enough and bad guys are getting in the way. In an open letter to Canadians, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver declared, "Unfortunately, there are environmental and other radical groups that would seek to block this opportunity to diversify our trade. Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth. No forestry. No mining. No oil. No gas. No more hydroelectric dams."

Wow—for someone who's criticizing radical groups that is quite the radical letter. Mr. Oliver went on to suggest the federal government will pursue ways to overhaul the hearings of independent regulatory bodies.

What, I wonder, is the rush. We are extracting resources from the Earth faster than it can replenish them and we are polluting it faster than it can absorb the pollution. The sensible approach at this point, if we want to avoid crashing our civilization, is to SLOW DOWN.

Slowing down development would accomplish at least four good things:

• Offer the planet more opportunity to recover from our assault on it.
• Give more sustainable technologies a chance to catch up.
• Make sure we do the proposed projects right, i.e. in the most sustainable way.
• Ensure we avoid projects that do more harm to the environment than any economic benefit warrants.

Oliver's comments came one day before federal regulatory hearings began on the Northern Gateway pipeline, designed to deliver crude from Alberta's tar sands to Kitimat, B.C. for shipment to Asia.
Over 4,300 people have signed up to address the hearing. Good for them. And good for us. This kind of interest in projects that have major environmental effects is healthy for the natural world, i.e. the world that sustains us. After all, the environment doesn't need our economy—indeed it would be vastly better off without it—but our economy ultimately depends entirely on the environment. Caring for the future of the environment is caring for the future of the economy.

Yes, in its currently depressed state the economy needs jobs, but trading jobs today for a ruined environment tomorrow is a fool's game. Unfortunately, our federal government is playing the fool

A good day for democracy in Montana

One of the biggest blows against democracy in American history occurred in 2010 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Citizens United case that government could not place limits on independent spending for political purposes by corporations and unions. The ruling, by essentially giving corporations the same First Amendment rights as citizens, opened the door to even further corruption of the American political system by big money, in effect allowing plutocracy to further dominate democracy.

But last week, the Montana Supreme Court took exception. In an extraordinary decision, the Court upheld the state's 1912-era corporate contribution limits. The decision applies only to state elections, but if appealed, and it probably will be, could provide a long-awaited opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the issue.

Writing for the majority, Justice  Mike McGrath stated, “Clearly the impact of unlimited corporate donations creates a dominating impact on the political process and inevitably minimizes the impact of individual citizens.” The Court ruled that various factors—a history of citizens fighting corporate corruption, political traditions of low-budget campaigning, and the vulnerability of judicial elections to corporate spending—were sufficiently compelling to preserve the century-old ban on corporate spending. It said it wanted Montana to remain a state where candidates run low-budget, personal campaigns and do not rely on anonymous, well-financed messaging from outsiders.

Even a dissenting judge, James C. Nelson, who opposed the ruling only because he felt bound to defer to the U.S. Supreme Court, lashed out at the Citizen United's decision. "I do not have to agree with the [U.S.] Supreme Court’s decision," he wrote, "And, to be absolutely clear, I do not agree with it. ... The truth is that corporations wield enormous power in Congress and in state legislatures. It is hard to tell where government ends and corporate America begins: the transition is seamless and overlapping."

Montana has a long history of dealing with corporate power. In the early 20th century, when copper companies dominated the state, Anaconda Co. controlled judges, legislators and newspapers, prompting the people to fight back with the legislation that the Court has now defended.

I will leave the last word to Justice Nelson: "Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creatures of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons."

Harper's paranoia reaches a new level ... a dangerous level?

Stephen Harper was in full psychic mode on a Calgary call-in show Thursday. He telepathically declared that Iran is "a regime that wants to acquire nuclear weapons ... and has indicated some desire to actually use nuclear weapons." An impressive feat—reading the minds of the mullahs.

The man is starting to look increasingly dangerous. As the Americans ratchet up their provocations of Iran, no doubt at the behest of the Israeli lobby, war looms and we can have little doubt that Harper, with his slavish devotion to Israel and his love of things military, would not hesitate to drag us into it.

The man feeds off paranoia. He pumps billions of our hard-earned dollars into prisons to protect us from the enemy within and weapons to protect us from the enemy without. Yet Canadians could hardly be safer. We live in a country with a low and declining crime rate. No other country has an interest in attacking us. Indeed, we have no enemies, unless of course we create them as Mr. Harper seems keen on doing with Iran.

According to psychologist and Harvard professor Steven Pinker and others who have researched the subject, we are living in the most peaceful period of our species' history. A fascinating talk by Pinker on the subject can be found here. What we Canadians really do not need is our prime minister exercising his psychic skills to manufacture hostility.

Obama disses due process

Another disappointment from U.S. President Barack Obama. On New Year's Eve, perhaps a time when he thought his nation was sufficiently distracted, he signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 which includes a clause granting the executive branch the power to indefinitely detain any person, including American citizens, it accuses of being a terrorist without charge or trial.

He attempted to modify his action with the curious statement, "I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions  ... I want to clarify that my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

He is certainly right about the latter, which prompts the obvious question, if it would break with the most important values of his nation, why in hell did he sign it? What is his promise never to act on the power worth? Maybe he won't, but are we to believe that the next George W. Bush or Richard Nixon won't?

Amnesty International ridiculed Obama's assurances, stating "Once any government has the authority to hold people indefinitely, the risk is that it can be almost impossible to rein such power in. President Obama ...  has allowed human rights to be further undermined and given al Qaeda a propaganda victory."

A victory for al Qaeda it surely is. I have no idea what goes on in the minds of people like those who blew up the twin towers, but I suspect their motives might have been one, to create a war between the U.S. and Islam, and two, to fracture American values. They achieved both and Obama has assured that the fracturing of American values will continue.

Hopefully, this story is far from over. To my untutored legal eye, this power violates the Fifth Amendment to the American Constitution which states, in part, "nor shall [any person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Many Americans, although obviously only a minority in Congress, still believe in their constitution and we may look forward, therefore, to a challenge of this legislation in the courts.

Congrats to Sista P

Not a bad way for the year to end, with the election of another woman as leader of her country. So congratulations to new Jamaican prime minister Portia Simpson Miller, or Sista P as she is affectionately referred to for her folksy, plain-spoken style. Simpson Miller's People's National Party won a convincing victory on Thursday with 41 seats in parliament to 22 for its opponents, the Jamaican Labour Party.

Simpson Miller's supporters have always respected her as a woman who was born in rural poverty and grew up in a Kingston ghetto. "She cares about the ghetto people," said one young admirer after the victory.

She has her work cut out for her dealing with Jamaica's poverty as well as its profound economic problems, including a debt running at 130 per cent of GDP. But that's for the new year. For the moment, I congratulate her again on her impressive victory and wish her success in dealing with the challenges facing her and her country.

Americans OK with taxes but not with the system

I admit to some surprise. Listening to the Republican contenders for the presidential nomination, you might think Americans wanted nothing more than to pay less taxes. In fact, according to a recent Pew Research Centre survey, most Americans (52 per cent) believe they pay about the right amount of tax. Interestingly, there has been a significant decline over the past decade in the number of both Democrats and Republicans who feel overtaxed.

What Americans don't approve of is their tax system, with 55 per cent saying it's unfair. When asked what bothers them most, only 11 per cent say the amount they pay. Twenty-eight per cent say the complexity of the system, and a whopping 57 per cent say that wealthy people aren't paying their fair share.

They are so unhappy about this that 59 per cent want Congress to completely change the system, only 34 per cent believing minor changes will do.

It appears that not only Occupy Wall Streeters are concerned about the increasing unfairness in their country. This bodes well for wealth distribution becoming an issue in the 2012 elections.

No-religion most successful "faith" in UK

"Give me the child and I will give you the man," the Jesuits boast. Indoctrinate a child in a faith and he, or she, will carry that faith for life. Or at least, most will.

According to the latest British Social Attitudes survey, not indoctrinating a child in a faith is even more successful. Of those brought up with no religion, 94 per cent still had no religion as adults. None of the religions came close to this retention rate. Eighty-seven per cent of those brought up in non-Christian faiths remained affiliated with their religion, but the numbers were much less for Christians with the Catholics at 62 per cent retention and the Protestants, including the venerable Anglicans, at 49 per cent.

So the Jesuits aren't 100 per cent right—in fact, only 62 per cent for their guys. A pretty poor show compared to the 94 per cent for the no-religion folks.

The survey indicated that about half the British population now belong to no religion, rising to nearly two-thirds of young people 18-24. And well over half of those who do belong never attend religious services. The number of people affiliating with a religion is steadily declining with the greatest drop among the Anglicans. Affiliation with the Church of England has halved in the last 20 years. The British, it seems, are just not very religious and getting less so all the time.

Chiquita si, tar sands no

Chiquita Brands has caused a bit of a flutter on the Canadian scene by announcing it will avoid using fuel from Alberta's tar sands. The company says it has joined 13 other companies in trying to reduce its carbon footprint.

The announcement is timely. According to an industry report, the intensity of tar sands carbon emissions—the amount of greenhouse gases created per barrel of oil produced—increased by two per cent from 2009 to 2010. The industry, and the Alberta government, have both made much of reductions in intensity even as overall emissions increase with increased production. Now even intensities are increasing.

This will not help the Alberta government meet its commitments for greenhouse gas emissions. According to a report by the Pembina Institute, if the province doesn't implement significantly stronger measures, its target for reducing emissions by 2020 will fall short by 70 per cent.

Chiquita's action is not universally appreciated, however. A group of tar sands cheerleaders has announced a boycott of the company. Not surprisingly, a couple of federal ministers have announced their support. Chiquita has offered many good reasons to be boycotted over the years—this is not one of them.

The invisible dead Iraqis

U.S. President Barack Obama has declared the Iraq war over. While he proclaimed what he once termed a "dumb war" a success, he lamented the heavy cost. "Over 30,000 Americans have been wounded and those are only the wounds that show. Nearly 4,500 Americans made the ultimate sacrifice," he said. What he didn't say was that at least 100,000 Iraqis have died, hundreds of thousands have been wounded, also many with wounds that don't show, and millions exiled.

He lauded American achievements—"a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq with a representative government that was elected by its people"—yet ignored the suffering of the Iraqis that was collateral to the achievement.

Needless to say the Iraqis, faced with rebuilding their country, political instability, rampant sectarian violence and millions of refugees, are not so sanguine about the "success." Neither Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki or President Jalal Talabani turned up for the departure ceremony in Baghdad. Uniformed U.S. soldiers belatedly moved into the seats reserved for the two Iraqi leaders. Perhaps an empty seat should have been reserved for the Unknown Iraqi Civilian.

The "one percent" win another one as health care CEOs clean up

As the Occupy Wall Street Movement campaigns against the unfair distribution of wealth in the United States, the "one percent" they hold accountable just keep on raking it in. According to the latest survey, American CEOs enjoyed pay hikes of between 27 and 40 percent last year. Meanwhile, wages for the majority of Americans continue to lag inflation.

Surprisingly, the top earners weren't bankers. The big winner was John Hammergren, CEO of McKesson Corporation, the world’s largest health care firm. He "earned" $145,266,971 last year, most of it in stock options and perks. Runner-up was Joel F. Gemunder, CEO of Omnicare, the U.S.'s largest provider of pharmaceutical care for the elderly. He only managed $98,283,242.

Hammergren could, however, really hit the jackpot. If McKesson Corporation is sold, he is due a $469-million payoff. Not bad, a half-billion dollar reward for getting rid of your company.

With President Obama's new medicare legislation neatly designed to favour health care and pharmaceutical companies, these two industries can look forward to producing many more winners in the future.

Will global civilization avoid collapse?

I consider myself a lucky man. I was born in the right place at the right time to enjoy what may well be the peak period of civilization. Never has human society offered so much to those in a position to take advantage of it—physical luxury not even kings and queens could enjoy in past eras, intellectual freedom unparalleled since the ancient Greeks, an exceptionally wide spectrum of political choice, knowledge beyond anything available previously, social justice achieved by few previous societies—a cornucopia of gifts.

Now, unfortunately, civilization—global civilization—is faced with imminent collapse, taking much of this good stuff with it. If this sounds like an old man reminiscing nostalgically about the good old days, consider the evidence.

Climate scientists tell us the only way to avoid catastrophic and irreversible climate change is to hold temperatures to less than 2ºC above preindustrial levels. Furthermore, they warn us that even if current pledges by the world's nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are met, they will not be enough. More ambitious cuts are needed. These are the views of people who, unlike our political and business leaders, actually know what they are talking about. They are our wise men on this issue.

And what are the chances of achieving the necessary cuts? Unfortunately, not good at all. At the recently concluded Durban Conference, the best the world's nations could come up with was a deal to do a deal. Developed and developing countries will work on an agreement to be legally binding on all parties, but it won't come into force until 2020. This is the date the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change calculates that emissions must peak and fall rapidly thereafter if we are to limit temperature rise to within the 2ºC.

So the doomsday scenario is not the view of cynical old men. The evidence is clear, and it tells us that according to our best science and political reality, we are firmly on the road to catastrophic and irreversible climate change.

It is possible, of course, that major polluters will impose the necessary limits without a global agreement. But the chances of that are not promising either. The world's major economies made pledges to limit their emissions at the Copenhagen talks in 2009, but these are having little effect and the possibility they will unilaterally expand these pledges is remote. Meanwhile, global output of greenhouse gasses continues to reach record levels.

We are doing what societies have been doing since human beings settled into the agricultural way of life 10,000 or so years ago. Civilization after civilization, society after society, has established itself, grown and prospered, then collapsed, and the leading reason for collapse is demanding more from the environment than it has the capacity to provide. And that is exactly what we are doing today. We are extracting resources faster than the planet can replace them and we are creating pollution faster than the planet can absorb it.

The major difference this time is that we are doing it on a global scale. Despite having the greatest perspective on history ever, and the greatest knowledge of science, we insist on making the same old mistake. It seems we have learned nothing.

There is some small hope. Occasionally societies have recognized their folly and changed direction. For example, in the 17th century the Japanese were doing what the Easter Islanders infamously did—deforesting their islands. They were faced with the same result—the loss of their most important natural resource followed by catastrophic social collapse. But they recovered in time by radically changing their culture, even their diet. They became masters of silviculture (forest management) and strictly regulated forest use; they relied less on farm animals and more on fish for protein, allowing farmland to be reforested; they used lighter construction methods for their homes; they developed more efficient stoves and relied more on the sun for heating; and they reduced their birth rates. The result was a stabilized population, more sustainable consumption of resources and today almost 80 per cent of Japan is covered with forest.

So it can be done. The question is can a diverse, fragmented, competitive and mutually suspicious global population do what a local, homogeneous population did? After all, the Kyoto nations are about to meet their collective target for CO2 emissions by 2012, when a more stringent second stage was to kick in. Unfortunately, that second stage has now in effect been abandoned. The sad reality is that we are not doing what is necessary and time is rapidly running out.

If the imagination and wisdom required to radically change our national and global cultures simply isn't there, if we have created a challenge that exceeds the capacities of our species, well ... civilizations come and go. Ours will probably go, but it's been a great ride. At least for some of us.

Americans and Western Europeans—different breeds

That Americans see the world differently from Europeans is not a surprise, but what may seem surprising to many is just how differently, and how similar Europeans' views are to each other.

For example, a recent Pew Research Centre survey showed that whereas 58 per cent of Americans thought that the freedom to pursue life's goals without state interference was more important than the state guaranteeing nobody is in need, only 38 per cent of British people did. Germans, French and Spaniards closely agreed with the Brits at 36, 36 and 30 per cent respectively. The numbers nicely juxtapose American individualism against European collectivity.

This contrast was also illustrated when respondents were asked if their country should have UN approval before using military force to deal with international threats. Only 45 per cent of Americans said they should whereas 66-76 per cent in the four European countries included in the study said they should.

As to whether or not their culture is superior to others, most Americans agreed. The Europeans were more modest, all four countries disagreeing, the Germans at 52 per cent and the British at 63 per cent. Surprisingly, a full three-quarters of the French did not think their culture was superior to others.

Religion is, not surprisingly, a major area of difference. Fifty per cent of Americans believe religion is very important whereas no more than 22 per cent of the Europeans do. And over half of Americans believe it is necessary to believe in God to be moral, a view shared by no more than a third of the Europeans. Only 15 per cent of the French hold that view. And whereas solid majorities of Europeans considered themselves primarily by their nationality as opposed to their religion, as many Americans considered themselves Christians first as considered themselves Americans first.

On the gay front, sixty per cent of Americans thought homosexuality should be accepted by society, a significant improvement over earlier surveys, but still well behind the Europeans where support for acceptance doesn't drop below 80 per cent.

The Americans and the Europeans, at least judging by these four Western European countries, are indeed different breeds.

Office of Religious Freedom shows its bias

The federal government's creation of what it terms an Office of Religious Freedom is not off to a good start. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, mentor of the new office, has created a panel to help lay out parameters for the proposed office. The panel is in itself hardly representative of religious tolerance. It consists of four Christians (two Catholics and two evangelicals) and two Jews. It appears anything outside the Judeo-Christian tradition is beyond the pale. No Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., need apply and—needless to say—no atheists. Even Christians from moderate Protestant denominations were excluded. Oddly, the branches of Christianity selected are two of the most intolerant.

Omitting a Muslim representative particularly stands out. There are twice as many Muslims as Jews in Canada, they are the fastest growing of our non-Christian faiths, they compose the world's second largest religion, and they have been most in the public eye, yet they are omitted in favour of two Jewish representatives.

Also conspicuous by their absence are representatives from human rights organizations such as Amnesty International. Although their absence is, perhaps, not surprising. A neutral human-rights group may have made their religious colleagues uncomfortable by challenging them about their own intolerance, such as the vicious, Christian-inspired gay-bashing currently going on in Africa.

Religion is, after all, an arena of intolerance. Religions tend to be their own greatest enemy. The biggest threat to the freedom of one religion is usually another religion. Who has persecuted Christians more down through the years if not other Christians? Baird's panel could clearly use some neutral participants.

The makeup of the panel leaves one wondering if the object of the new office will be not so much promotion of religious freedom as promotion of Judeo-Christian proselytizing. In any case, as an atheist I am suspicious of singling out religion for concern about freedom. If we are to have an office to defend and promote freedoms, it should apply to all freedoms. Now that might be worth a few taxpayer dollars.

Alberta values are not Western values

Globe and Mail columnist John Ibbitson recently gave a talk to a standing-room only crowd of Torontonians about how a set of Western values has captured the country. Ibbitson was, I suspect, making a mistake common to Eastern pundits. He was assuming that what might be called Alberta values form a monolithic set of what might be called Western values. In fact, the idea that Alberta values are Western values is false, as is the idea that there is a monolithic set of Western values.

Alberta is a generally conservative province and its politics reflect this. Conservatism has a presence in other parts of the West as well, but to a lesser extent, while other philosophies are also powerfully represented. Manitoba, for example, has an NDP government and the NDP form the official opposition in two other provinces. Alberta is in fact the odd man out, the only Western province with a weak New Democratic Party.

Medicare was invented in the West and that was a triumph for democratic socialism, not for conservatism. The Kyoto Accord, much in the news these days, was least popular in Alberta but its popularity in Manitoba was exceeded only by its popularity in Quebec. Gay marriage was also least popular in Alberta, no surprise there, but popular in B.C. (again behind only Quebec). There is often greater disagreement on issues within the West than between the West and the East, as these examples illustrate.

The current state of political affairs in this country is due a lot less to a rise in  "Western values" than to recent self-destructive tendencies within the Liberal Party. Apparently in his talk, Ibbitson suggested the change is permanent—the journalist as prophet. He should keep in mind that it wasn't long ago the Conservative Party self-destructed and now it forms the government. The only thing we can be sure of is that things will change again.

In the meantime, while I recognize columnists' apparent need to simplify things, I would appreciate Eastern pundits respecting the real West rather than leaning on caricature. We are, in fact, a people of great variety, intellectually as in other respects, a people among whom views and values are strongly represented from left to right, progressive to conservative. It does us an injustice to pretend otherwise, even if it does make for good columns in the Globe and Mail.

Talking to Iran

I am beginning to get the uneasy feeling that we are psyching ourselves up for war with Iran. With the Americans' two Middle Eastern buddies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, egging their patron on, with the U.K. exchanging unpleasantries with the Iranians, and with Canada's new militarism offering a "ready, aye, ready" attitude, we seem to be moving in a dangerous direction.

All this is ostensibly about Iran developing nuclear weapons. If this is indeed Iran's intent, I fail to see how an attack would deter them. It might delay them, but it would also provide them with greater justification and probably greater determination.

True, they have signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, so arming themselves with nuclear weapons would indeed be naughty, but then they wouldn't be alone in failing to meet their obligations. The treaty requires the nuclear powers to rid themselves of such weapons and they aren't. And of course nuclear-armed Israel hasn't even bothered to sign the treaty.

If Iran really does want nuclear weapons, it will almost surely obtain them. Even North Korea managed that. And, considering Iran is in a nuclear-armed neighbourhood and it has a hostile relationship with three nuclear powers—the U.S., U.K. and Israel—a nuclear ambition would be understandable. The question, perhaps, is do we want to influence that ambition or would we rather wait for a nasty surprise as was the case with Pakistan? If the former is the case, then the answer is dialogue. Jaw-jaw rather than war-war, as Churchill put it.

Canada, rather than leaping to support every act of hostility toward Iran, might suggest the U.S. and Iran sit down and work out their differences across the table, not with preliminary talks but with unconditional, comprehensive negotiations. These would include Iran's nuclear designs as well as the Americans', and of course the Israelis'; Iran's support for Hamas and Hezbollah and the Americans' support for Israel; Iran's hostility toward Israel; American support for the assassination of Iranian scientists; the roles of the U.S. and Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan; and so on—everything on the table.

The Americans might keep in mind that the slide into mutual hostility began when they, in collaboration with the British and the Iranian military, overthrew the progressive, democratically-elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. An apology from the United States for this egregious act might be a good start.

Americans turn against the Tea Party

A recent Pew Research Center survey indicates that Americans, or at least those who have an opinion on the matter, are turning against the Tea Party. A year ago, as the Republican Party was making sweeping gains in the midterm elections, 24 per cent of Americans said they agreed with the Tea Party while 14 per cent disagreed. That has now reversed with 20 per cent agreeing and 27 per cent disagreeing. A majority in both surveys offered no opinion.

Even in districts which elected Tea Party candidates, support has changed significantly. Agreement has dropped from 31 per cent to 25 per cent and disagreement more than doubled from 10 per cent to 23 per cent. Again, most Americans had no opinion.

Apparently the Tea Party in action has turned out to be a lot less appealing than the Tea Party in theory.

Elizabeth May, Tuvalu and honest representation

I was intrigued by Green Party Leader Elizabeth May's attempt to join the Tuvalu delegation at the Durban Climate Change Conference. As she explained, "If my government, the Government of Canada, does not need my help, I offer it to another government, one that works for my children because the Government of Canada does not work for my children, my grandchildren." Unfortunately, May missed the deadline so will be attending the conference as a mere observer.

Not only is May's attempt to collaborate with a nation that is disappearing under the waves praiseworthy, but it illustrates a problem with the way Canadian views are represented in the global arena. As May points out, "When Canada goes to an international negotiation, it doesn't go as the Harper government, it goes as Canada." Well, it certainly should, but unfortunately it doesn't. It represents only the Conservative Party. A great many Canadians, obviously including Elizabeth May, are not represented at the Durban Conference and are reduced to gnashing their teeth in frustration as Environment Minister Peter Kent "plays hardball." Many of us are, in this instance, better represented by the government of Tuvalu.

This applies to many, perhaps most issues. A government elected by 40 per cent of the voters purports to represent all Canadians on the world stage. This representation may be politically legitimate but it is morally fraudulent. The morally sound approach—the democratic approach—would be for a Canadian delegation to include representatives from all parties in the House of Commons, allowing them to debate and vote their consciences as they see fit. That, unfortunately, is hardly likely, certainly not with the current government.

Including all parties would not only represent Canadians more democratically, it would represent them more logically. After all, divisions in the world are less accurately described by nationality than they are by philosophy. Environmentally responsible Canadians have more in common with environmentally responsible Tuvaluans than they do with Canadian climate change deniers, or Tuvaluan climate change deniers for that matter ... if there are any.

All Elizabeth May attempted to do was ensure that Canada was honestly and morally represented. I salute her effort. If the government persists in denying large numbers of Canadians representation at international conferences, I hope the other opposition parties will follow her example.

Lest we forget: today is The International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People

The International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, a United Nations sponsored event, has been observed every year on November 29th since 1977, 30 years to the day after the partition of Palestine.

The UN General Assembly has requested that the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People and the Division for Palestinian Rights organize an annual exhibit on Palestinian rights or a cultural event in co-operation with the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the UN, and to encourage member states to give the widest support and publicity to the observance of the Day.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement saying, "Let us, on this International Day, reaffirm our commitment to translating solidarity into positive action. The international community must help steer the situation towards a historic peace agreement."

This is an appropriate time to wish the Palestinians luck in their bid to become full members of the United Nations and all that entails.

South Africa on slippery slope?

Normally, I'm wary of slippery slope arguments but when an African government acts to limit freedom of speech, I suspect such an argument may be valid. Unfortunately, South Africa has done just that. A law, ostensibly to protect state secrets, has been approved by the South African National Assembly. The law makes it a crime to leak, possess or publish information judged as classified by the government. Whistle blowers and journalists will face up to 25 years in jail if found guilty of such action. The government will, of course, determine what is classified. There is, crucially, no public-interest defence clause.

Critics argue that this is a first step in dismantling South African democracy. And the critics are many. Leader of the opposition party Democratic Alliance, Lindiwe Mazibuko, warned: "This bill will unstitch the very fabric of our constitution. It will criminalize the freedom so many of our people fought for." Archbishop Desmond Tutu added, "It is insulting to all South Africans to be asked to stomach legislation that … makes the state answerable only to the state. Please hear the warnings of the academics, civil society leaders, labour representatives, media corps, and legal and constitutional experts." Even the Nelson Mandela Centre of Memory, which rarely criticizes the governing African National Congress party, issued an "expression of concern."

Although the bill will probably be approved by parliament's upper house, it could still face a challenge in the constitutional court. For the sake of South African democracy, let us hope that it does.

Why 338 constituencies? Why not 150? Or 100?

The Liberals have suggested an approach to achieving fairer regional representation in the House of Commons, and they should be listened to. Their solution is certainly better than that of Bill C-20 which will add yet another 30 seats to the House. The Liberals would achieve representation essentially as fair as C-20 without adding any more seats. They would sensibly just redistribute the current 308 seats.

But why 308? Why not save a great deal of money and reduce the number to 150, or 100? A large number of local representatives may have been necessary early in our history when communities were relatively isolated and communication slow. But in this age of instantaneous communication, that justification is archaic. As long as we achieve fair regional representation—still important in this disparate country of ours—local representation is of limited importance.

In the first place, national parties deal with national issues. Local issues are the responsibility of local, or perhaps provincial, government, and therefore a multitude of local constituencies is not required at the national level.

Secondly, the great majority of people vote for the party, not the candidate, so as long as a region is fairly represented, it doesn't require a multitude of voices saying essentially the same thing.

And finally, in the House of Commons, all the members of the same party vote the same way. Once the regions are proportionately represented, any more votes are just echoes.

Efficiency, i.e. respect for the taxpayer's dollar, demands that we achieve equitable representation for the regions at the least cost, and that means the least number of MPs. And equitable representation can be obtained with far fewer MPs than 338. Reducing the number substantially would of course require a constitutional amendment to eliminate the "grandfather clause," which guarantees each province at least as many MPs as it had in 1985, but with the increased efficiency Canadians might very well be amenable to the change. It would be a good time also to remove the "senatorial clause" which guarantees that each province have at least as many MPs as Senators. Over-represented provinces, PEI first among them, would complain but then they are a diminishing voice.

Short of changing the constitution, the Liberal proposal is a sound approach. Fix the number at 308 and adjust as necessary.

Ehud Barak sympathizes with Iran's alleged nuclear aspirations

Whether or not Iran is developing nuclear weapons, it appears that Israeli defence minister Ehud Barak appreciates why they would. In an interview with PBS's Charlie Rose, when he was asked if he would want a nuclear weapon were he a member of Iran's government, he replied, "Probably, probably. I know, it's not—I don't delude myself that they are doing it just because of Israel. They look around, they see the Indians are nuclear, the Chinese are nuclear, Pakistan is nuclear ... not to mention the
Russians."

He could also have mentioned that the Iranians must deal with two hostile nuclear-armed nations—the U.S. and the U.K.—constantly prowling in their backyard. In any case, he recognizes that Iran would be justified in developing nukes, at least from an Israeli point of view.

Many Israelis are unhappy with Mr. Barak's observation. The last thing they want to hear from their defence minister is empathy for Iran developing a nuclear weapon. But there it is. Maybe, disarmed by Charlie Rose's charm, he just allowed his tongue to slip. Nonetheless, what he said simply made sense. If you are quarreling with nuclear-armed nations, as Iran is, then if you don't have the ultimate weapon, you lack leverage. If you want to play with the big boys you have to carry the big stick. Israel, as the defence minister has indicated, certainly understands that.

Say goodbye to the frogs

Frogs are delightful little buggers. Look at this little rascal in the photo, a red-eyed tree frog. With his goofy expression and padded toes, you can't help but love him ... or her.

Too bad, really, that they are doomed. As we humans press on causing the world's sixth great extinction, amphibians are perhaps the most in danger. About half of amphibian species are in decline with a third facing extinction. They face three major threats—climate change, habitat loss and disease—two of which at least are created by us. Now scientists have discovered that these threats often overlap to the extent frogs' future may be grimmer than formerly realized.

And after the frogs, what next? My bet is the creatures of the coral reefs. As carbon dioxide levels driven by fossil fuel use increase in the atmosphere, so does the amount absorbed by the world's oceans. This leads to acidification and an environment that erodes corals. The oceans are now more acidic than they have been at any time in the last 800,000 years, and at current rates will be more corrosive by mid-century than they have been in the past 20 million years. At least one quarter of all species of life in the oceans are associated with coral reefs. Most can now look forward to the same bleak future as the frogs.

If any of these species on land or sea survive the holocaust, I hope the red-eyed tree frog is among them.

APEC—Environment one, Keystone zero

Despite Stephen Harper's 25-minute walk in the garden with Barack Obama during the recent APEC forum, the president was not dissuaded from his decision to conduct a thorough review of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline project. Apparently he is unconvinced by our prime minister's declaration that approval of the pipeline is a "no brainer." Perhaps the president, as Harper suggests, is just playing politics, or perhaps he recognizes that Keystone, which has been referred to as the “fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet,” is about much more than a pipeline. That it is about the health of our planet and the future of global civilization.

Perhaps, during that stroll in the garden, the president got a little of this through to Mr. Harper. The prime minister joined with the other APEC leaders in signing off on the "Honolulu Declaration" which, among other things, commits the members to promoting environmentally friendly growth, including the need to "rationalize and phase out inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption."

According to President Obama, "We raised the bar on ourselves and will aim for even higher energy efficiencies.... This would be a huge step toward clean-energy economies and fighting climate change." Fine words, easily said, and perhaps I'm grasping at straws, but it does seem to indicate that the environment is on their minds, even Mr. Harper's, and that they recognize much more needs to be done. That, with the delay of Keystone, offers some small reason for optimism.

Obama's sartorial slip

"I was persuaded by our team to perhaps break tradition, and so we have not required you to wear your aloha shirts."

Thus President Obama broke the 20-year tradition of having the assembled leaders at an APEC forum ditch their power suits and don the traditional local dress.

Kind of a shame. After all, they were meeting in Obama's home state of Hawaii and those aloha shirts are pretty spiffy. They looked great on Elvis.

On the other hand, checking out Putin and Bush in traditional silk jackets at the 2001 forum in Shanghai, maybe it's a wise move.

Canada's climate change policy—drinking the Kool-Aid

The warnings continue. And they are ominous. In its annual World Energy Outlook released November 9th, the International Energy Agency (IEA) reported that the world will lose the chance to limit global warming if it doesn't act now. This isn't news of course. Climate scientists have been trying to tell us for some time that the problem isn't so much a greenhouse effect as a runaway greenhouse effect. While many scientists predict catastrophic results if warming of the Earth isn't limited to two degrees centigrade, the IEA predicts that the current promises by the world's nations to reduce emissions will result in an increase of over 3.5 degrees, and of course there's no guarantee these commitments will be met.

Although Canada contributes only a small portion of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, that does not prevent us from setting an example, of being a leader in dealing with the greatest threat facing global civilization. We have, after all, exercised leadership in the world in the past despite our size. But that time has apparently passed. Now we seem content to be a follower, and this is sadly the case in dealing with climate change. We can expect no leadership here, not as long as we have a government whose movement on the climate change issue is bound by the ball and chain of the tar sands.

Our behaviour reflects that followership. We muzzle our climate change scientists. We drag our feet at international conferences. We tie our commitments to those of the U.S. which has no federal climate change plan. Nor will we sign international agreements unless they are signed and ratified by all major emitters. The fact that these emitters are not doing nearly enough does not bother our government. Apparently, if they choose to drink the Kool-Aid, we too will fill our cup.

Did former Israeli security chiefs rat out Netanyahu?

Meir Dagan, former head of Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence service, is no admirer of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He has accused Netanyahu of being "irresponsible and reckless" and feels that Israel's security is being mismanaged by the prime minister and Ehud Barak, the defence minister.

According to a story in the Guardian, Netanyahu is now said to believe that Dagan and Yuval Diskin, former head of Shin Bet, Israel's domestic intelligence agency, are trying to sabotage plans being drawn up by him and the defence minister to attack Iranian nuclear sites. Apparently, he has ordered an investigation into leaks of the plans and suspects the two former security chiefs of being the culprits. Netanyahu's suspicions are justified. When Dagan ran the Mossad, he referred to an attack on Iran as "the stupidest idea I've ever heard."

Dagan is no dove. He was once described as "one of the most right wing militant people ever born here ... who ate Arabs for breakfast, lunch and dinner." As head of Mossad, he was in charge of operations that included sabotaging computers and assassinating scientists to delay Iran's nuclear program, setting up an attack on a Syrian nuclear reactor, and assassinating Hezbollah and Hamas agents. When a man with this record considers his prime minister "irresponsible and reckless," alarms should go off.

In the West, we tend to focus on Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, when we think of troublemakers in the Middle East. Perhaps we should pay closer attention to Benjamin Netanyahu.

The UNESCO vote and the decline of American influence

Following the vote Monday to admit Palestine into UNESCO, Hamas official Ahmed Yousef said it "shows that Israel and America are not dictating politics to the world anymore." Hamas's view carries its own bias, nonetheless Mr. Yousef has a point. U.S. opposition to the vote does indeed serve as another example of the empire's declining influence in the world.

In the U.S.'s own backyard, once secured by the Monroe Doctrine, South American nations are increasingly drifting left and away from American political and economic policies. If they have an exemplar at the moment it is Brazil. Only Colombia remains a loyal ally.

In the far east, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is expanding both its membership and its agenda and seems intent on squeezing out the influence of both NATO and the United States in that part of the world. With China and Russia as members, and India and Pakistan likely to join, that seems a reasonable ambition. The United States applied for observer status in 2005 but was rejected.

In the Middle East, the Americans have almost become spectators to rapidly evolving events. They watched helplessly, and seemingly in confusion, as the Egyptian people overthrew Hosni Mubarak. Egypt is the most important country in the region and the U.S. had invested billions in the Mubarak regime, an investment now down the toilet. In Libya, the Americans participated only as followers and seemed content to be relegated to that unfamiliar role.

Even in Europe, American policies are often looked at askance. When the U.S. insists that the Europeans do more in this or that war effort, it often receives a Gallic shrug. And surveys show that majorities in most European nations believe China either will replace or already has replaced the United States as the world's leading superpower.

China steadily advances on American economic primacy and takes an increasingly assertive approach in international affairs as it does. The BRIC bloc—Brazil, Russia, India, and China—is also assuming a greater presence on the world stage. The financial and economic collapse of 2008, triggered by American malfeasance, did nothing to enhance the U.S.'s financial reputation.

The U.S. remains the world's largest economy and is the only country with global military reach. It possesses the world's reserve currency, superb universities, powerful corporations and an ability to bounce back from adversity. Yet its reputation is dragged down by a bellicose foreign policy, a widening gap between rich and poor, a massive debt and balance of payments deficit, excessive energy use and high levels of violent crime.

Its UNESCO vote against Palestine and its withdrawal of funding only made it look like a bully. Indeed, the 107-14 vote in itself illustrated the decline of its ability to influence other nations. Latin America, Africa and Asia strongly supported Palestinian membership. The BRIC bloc all voted for. As did France. So, interestingly, did Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait and Libya. Even America's most important friend and ally, Britain, abstained. The American empire seemed just a little less on Monday.

Congratulations to the Palestinians ... and UNESCO

Allow me to add my cheer to those that went up at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 36th General Conference after delegates approved Palestinian membership. The move was particularly courageous considering the United States will now punish the organization by cutting its 22 per cent contribution.

The Americans claimed they opposed the move because it could harm Mideast peace efforts. This is nonsense. These "peace efforts" have been going on for decades, have achieved nothing and are going nowhere. They could hardly be harmed. It is well past time that efforts to achieve justice for the long-suffering Palestinians was pursued by other means—peaceful means of course. Indeed, this action may jolt Israel and the U.S. into getting serious about their peace efforts.

In any case, UNESCO's move is perfectly consistent with what Israel and the United States, and Canada and just about every other government in the world, have claimed all along is the ultimate goal—a two-state solution. Fully accepting the Palestinians into the United Nations will be an inevitable result of that goal, so why not start on it now? With the discredited peace negotiations going nowhere, why not at least do what we can? It is simply churlish to deny the Palestinians any progress at all.

Although we are no longer relevant in the Middle East, I should mention that our government joined Israel and the U.S. in voting against the Palestinians. Not, as they say, one of our finer moments.

Six more MPs for Alberta—not good news for this Albertan

I admit to ambivalence about the government's announcement that under the proposed Fair Representation Act the country will gain 30 more MPs. It is a good thing, of course, to strive for more equitable representation and that's what this Act attempts to do. My province, Alberta, will receive six more seats to bring its representation closer to its share of the population.

That will be a good thing for most Albertans—but not for me. In the last election, the Conservatives won 27 out of Alberta's 28 seats in the House of Commons. The party I support, the NDP, won only one even though they received 17 per cent of the vote. The 17 per cent should have earned them five MPs, not one. Given the idiosyncrasies of our voting system, the odds are that the six new seats will also go Conservative which means representation for Alberta social democrats will be reduced even further below its current meager level. So, ironically, the Fair Representation Act may result in less fairness for citizens like me.

In fact, the system is so perverted, I have given up voting in federal elections altogether. In my constituency, Calgary Centre, the Conservative candidate routinely wins by 15-20,000 votes. The result is a foregone conclusion. My vote for the NDP counts for nothing. Under a proportional representation voting system, it would count toward electing an Albertan who truly represents me, but we don't have such a system. Casting a vote that counts for nothing strikes me as participating in a fraud, so I abstain.

To those who will benefit from the proposed redistribution, enjoy! The rest of us will have to wait for a Fair Representation Act that is fair to everyone.

The "climate change caucus"—good news on two fronts

An initiative championed by Liberal MP Kirsty Duncan has borne fruit in the House of Commons. Dr. Duncan proposed a "climate change caucus" consisting of members of all parties, and it has now been formed. In addition to Duncan, the caucus consists of Conservative MP Michael Chong, NDP MP Denise Savoie, Bloc Québécois MP Maria Mourani and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May.

According to Savoie, "The climate change all-party caucus provides a space for meaningful discussion on the defining issue of our generation—in a forum without talking points or media." The group plans on staging events to engage other MPs “regarding the climate crisis,” including climate and faith; the lead-up to the next international climate change summit in Durban; extreme events and disaster preparedness and economic impacts of climate change and clean technology.

The caucus is well credentialed for their task. Kirsty Duncan has taught medical geography at the University of Toronto and global environmental processes at Royal Roads University, and served on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Michael Chong is one of the few Conservatives who is passionate about action on climate change. He has encouraged his government “to accelerate its efforts through the clean energy dialogue with the United States and at the climate change talks in Cancun, Mexico.” Both Savoie and Mourani have echoed Chong's call "to act quickly and ... to act now." As for Elizabeth May ... well, this is primarily what she's in politics for. An impressive group.

Not only are they dealing with what Duncan refers to as "perhaps the defining issue of our generation," but they serve as an excellent example of how politicians can work together on important issues regardless of political affiliation. Good news on two fronts.

Convincing this government to "to act quickly and ... to act now" on climate change is a huge challenge, and Michael Chong has not always endeared himself to Mr. Harper, but formation of the caucus suggests all hope is not lost. These days, even that is something.

Capitalists really do run the world—science says so

Science, it seems, is confirming the Occupy movement's concerns about capitalists running the world. A trio of complex systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology combined the mathematics used to model natural systems with comprehensive corporate data to map ownership among the world's transnational corporations (TNCs). They discovered that less than one per cent of the corporations controlled 40 per cent of the wealth in the system.

Starting with the world's 43,060 TNCs, they constructed a model of which corporations controlled others through shareholding networks, combined with their operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power. The model revealed a core of 1,318 corporations with interlocking ownerships. Each had ties to at least two others with an average of 20. This group represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, but in addition they collectively owned the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms, representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.

Further untangling the ownership web, the team found much of it tracked back to a "super-entity" of 147 even more tightly knit corporations that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. Most were financial institutions.

This may not represent a conspiracy, but it does represent a disturbing concentration of wealth and power. The group shares common interests and extraordinary means to influence governments toward satisfying those interests. Thus the democracy yields to the plutocracy, which is of course essentially what the Occupy movement is protesting.

The Pope supports a Tobin tax

In 1972, Nobel Prize-winning economist James Tobin suggested his now famous currency transaction tax as a way to manage the volatility of exchange rates. He believed that governments were not capable of adjusting to massive movements of funds across foreign exchanges without causing hardship to their people and sacrificing their economic policy objectives. By imposing a small tax (he suggested something around 0.5 per cent) on each exchange of one currency into another, volatility would be reduced as would the effects on national economies.

The idea of this tax was then seized upon as a means of providing revenue for dealing with poverty and environmental issues throughout the world. It appears that the Pope has become a supporter. In a document entitled Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of a Global Public Authority, released Monday by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, the Vatican recommends "taxation measures on financial transactions through fair but modulated rates with charges proportionate to the complexity of the operations." Pretty much what Tobin suggested 40 years ago.

The council went even further to recommend a central world bank that "regulates the flow and system of monetary exchanges" to help restore "the primacy of the spiritual and of ethics ... and, with them, the primacy of politics—which is responsible for the common good—over the economy and finance." These instruments would "nourish markets and financial institutions ... which are capable of responding to the needs of the common good and universal brotherhood."

So will we find Benedict XVI camping out with the Occupy movement? Probably not, but his heart seems to be with them.

Measuring social progress—the Canadian Index of Wellbeing

Released last Thursday, the Canadian Index of Wellbeing (CIW) illustrates yet again the folly of using the GDP as a measure of social progress. The GDP is, after all, simply a measure of how much stuff we buy and sell. It doesn't cover areas of our lives such as community vitality, democratic engagement, education, the environment, health, leisure and culture, and time use, all of which are included in the CIW, along with living standards.

The overall trend is quite different from that of the GDP as shown in the attached graph. While our GDP has increased 31 per cent over the period from 1984-2008, our quality of life has increased only 11 per cent. Although our wellbeing improved in a number of areas, we lost ground in other areas including the environment.

Furthermore, the GDP hides some disturbing trends. For example, while Canadians are on average better off in terms of income and wealth, inequality of both has increased.

The CIW is discussed in detail in the report "How are Canadians Really doing?" which can be found here. If you are interested in a comprehensive picture of the trends in Canadians' overall quality of life, the report makes for an intriguing read.

As the CIW website says, "For the first time in our country’s history, we have a transparent picture of how our quality of life—in all of its many dimensions—is changing." Here is a powerful instrument to inform social and economic policy. We will be foolish if we don't take advantage of it to improve Canadians lives.

Public transit blossoms in Calgary

When Calgary's GoPlan, the blueprint for the city's transportation development for the next 30 years, was created in the mid-1990s, it predicted that by 2024, 50 per cent of commuters would be using public transit to get downtown to work. Only 33 per cent used public transit at the time. Critics said the plan was optimistic, even unachievable.

It has turned out to be wildly pessimistic. Thirteen years sooner than expected, half of rush hour commuters are now taking transit into downtown while only a third are driving. The C-Train, Calgary's light rail transit (LRT) system, now handles 270,000 trips every weekday.

Various factors are thought to have contributed to the change. First is the improved transit system. The city has continually increased transit hours, extended LRT lines and added more bus service to keep up with growing demand. Secondly, while the city has spent millions on improving its road system, it has not built freeways into the downtown. And then there is parking. Limited parking downtown has resulted in some of the highest monthly rates outside of New York.

So it can be done. People can be shifted from their cars to public transit in major ways and surprisingly quickly. If it can be done in the car-loving oil capital of Canada, it can be done anywhere.

Welcome to the new Supremes

Finally, the Prime Minister has filled the gaps in the Supreme Court and seemingly with good choices: Justice Andromache Karakatsanis and Justice Michael Moldaver, both from the Ontario Court of Appeal. Politically, the two justices are considered small-c conservative, not surprising for a Conservative Prime Minister.

Justice Karakatsanis, called to the bar in 1982, has practiced criminal, civil and family litigation. She was appointed a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in 2002, presiding in all areas of the work of the court, and a judge of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in 2010. Before becoming a judge she gained considerable experience in the public service, not a bad field of expertise to bring to the Court. Her various duties for the Ontario government included serving as Deputy Attorney General, as Secretary of the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat, and as Chief Executive Officer of the Liquor Licence Board.

Justice Moldaver, a Gold Medalist graduate of the University of Toronto, was appointed to the Supreme Court of Ontario in 1990 and to the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1995. He has lectured at the University of Toronto Law School and has held a variety of other prestigious positions in the legal and academic communities. One quibble about Justice Moldaver may be that he doesn't speak French.

The selection process was thorough. The Prime Minister and the Justice Minister consulted with the legal community to draw up a list of candidates which was then scrutinized by a selection panel that included MPs from all parties. (In accordance with the Supreme Court Act, the Prime Minister may only appoint a person who has either been a judge of a superior court or has been a barrister or advocate with at least 10 years standing at the bar.) The panel, which reviewed past judgments by the candidates and consulted with prominent members of Ontario's legal community, drew up a short list of six candidates for the Prime Minister's final selections. Apparently, the panel's short list was unanimous among all parties.

The Prime Minister has also maintained the gender balance on the court, not a bad thing either. Altogether, two worthy choices.

Calgary's main attraction

What is Calgary's most popular attraction? The Calgary Stampede, you say? Flames games, perhaps? The Calgary Zoo? Wrong, wrong and wrong.

According to an article in Fast Forward Magazine, in 2010 the Calgary Public Library system "had more visits than the Stampede, Calgary Zoo, Heritage Park, Science Centre, recreation arenas and all professional sporting events combined." It circulated more items than any other system in North America except those of Toronto, New York and Los Angeles.

For a city sometimes perceived as redneck, we Calgarians do surprising things. We elect the most progressive mayor in the country and we read our brains out. Libraries are one of the finest measures of civilization and on that score at least, we are apparently quite a civilized bunch.

Occupy Wall Street—a Sixties moment?

Is Occupy Wall Street a Sixties' moment? Will it bring about lasting change or simply fade away? Either way, it is overdue. Started in New York, inspired by the Arab Spring, it has now spread throughout the U.S. and beyond. The views of the participants are diverse, yet seem to focus on two demands: We want our democracy back and we want a more equitable, sustainable society. The demands are reasonable and timely.

The United States more than other Western nation has seen its democracy reduced to a shadow. The Obama administration offers a variety of examples. Its centerpiece of domestic legislation, the health care program, seemed designed as much to placate the insurance and pharmaceutical industries as serve the American people. And when he dealt with the financial crisis, he focused on bailing out the banks rather than their victims and even hired some of the scoundrels who contributed to the problem. But rather than blame Obama, we might ask if he had a choice. Given the lobbying and publicity power of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, he probably couldn't have passed his legislation without their concurrence. As for the financial industry, it was a major contributor to his 2008 election campaign, and he will need that support again if he hopes to win in 2012. Corporate largesse is now essential to winning elections in the U.S.

And while democracy is steadily eroded by plutocratic power, wealth drifts increasingly into the hands of those who already have the most. The United States now has its most inequitable distribution of wealth since at least the end of the Second World War and the most inequitable in the Western World. Nor is its wealth production sustainable, dependent as it is on diminishing resources and pollution of the environment.

In a properly functioning democracy, these fundamental issues would be debated through the conventional party process, but that is hard to do in the kind of dysfunctional democratic/plutocratic system that exists in the U.S. Both major parties are beholden to corporate power which wants neither issue debated seriously. Former President Dwight Eisenhower, who famously warned against the military-industrial complex would be astonished to see his country now run by a military-industrial-Congressional complex. Nor is the mass media, the political forums of modern democracy, much help in holding such debates when they are owned and controlled by corporations.

The dissenters are therefore, like those in the Sixties, left to rely on less orthodox methods than party politics or the mass media to get their message heard, such as the tried and true approach of taking to the streets.

And the movement is growing. Demonstrations have spread from New York to almost every other major city in the U.S., including Chicago, Boston, St. Louis and Los Angeles. Unions representing transit workers, airline pilots, teachers, doormen, security guards, maintenance workers, postal workers, healthcare workers, and other labour sectors have pledged support. Actors, filmmakers, musicians, academics, and other celebrities have also shown support, as have some Congressmen.

Canadians, too, are getting in on the act, with protests planned for cities across the country, including Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and Calgary. We Canadians have been fortunate in not having our democracy eroded to the same degree as the Americans, nor have we suffered the same disparity of incomes. Just as we refused to surrender our financial system to the vagaries of unregulated free markets as they did, we have maintained a more democratic and equitable society generally, but the same destructive forces of global capitalism are pressing in on us, too, so adding our voices to the movement is an exercise in both solidarity and prudence.

The movement may, like those in the Sixties, produce lasting effects, or it may just fade away, but it's a righteous cause—or causes, rather—a refreshing rejection of the status quo.

A message from Forest Lawn for workers everywhere

The workers at Sobeys' Forest Lawn supermarket, the only unionized Sobeys in Calgary, are currently on strike. The pickets have been on duty for two weeks. Doug Smith of the United Food and Commercial Workers union says the action resulted from the company's refusal to bargain in good faith. He claims they have been bargaining for 22 months and the union is prepared to continue negotiations, but Sobeys is refusing to return to the bargaining table. For its part, the company says it is willing to negotiate but wants to reach a contract that is fair to everyone and reflects the deal non-union employees have at other Sobeys locations.

We can make a reasonable guess what the "deal the non-union employees have" consists of—whatever the company decides to unilaterally impose. Without the union hovering in the background, no doubt it would be even less than it is now. And now the company plans on reducing all its employees to the lowest common denominator.

The lesson for workers here is an old one. Without unions, they have no leverage. They are at the mercy of management. There may be fewer unions these days, but just their presence alone remains a major incentive for companies to treat their workers well. They are the only democracy in the workplace, the only guarantee that workers voices will be heard.

I wish the United Food and Commercial Workers members at Sobeys Forest Lawn store all the luck in the world, for their sake, for the sake of their non-union colleagues at other Sobeys outlets, and for the sake of non-union grocery store employees throughout the city.

Premier Redford's male cabinet

The recent election of Alison Redford as leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta, and thus the premier of the province, was healthy progress for women in Canadian politics. Now Premier Redford has selected her cabinet and there the progress halts. Out of 21 members of cabinet, including Redford, there are only three women.

One cannot entirely blame Redford, however. She had little to choose from. Of all the provinces, Alberta has the second lowest proportion of women in its legislature. Of 67 Conservative MLAs, only 10 are women.

Redford as premier may represent healthy progress, but obviously Alberta has a long way to go to achieve a healthy mix of the feminine and the masculine in our political culture.

Congrats to Tawakul Karman and friends

I was a little surprised at the Nobel Peace Prize awards for 2011. I had felt sure the winners would include a leader from Egypt's Arab Spring revolt, the Arab Spring being the major peaceful achievement of the year and Egypt being the most prominent example of it. Nonetheless, the winners are all sound choices—all women, chosen "for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women's rights to full participation in peace-building work."

The award to Yemeni journalist and pro-democracy activist Tawakul Karman was of particular importance for more than playing "a leading part in the struggle for women's rights and for democracy and peace in Yemen." It was important also because she is a devout Muslim and a member of an Islamist party associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. She demonstrates that Islamist parties are not immune to women's rights and democracy. Thorbjorn Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel committee, disagrees that such groups are necessarily a threat to democracy, saying, "There are many signals that that kind of movement can be an important part of the solution."

Karman may have been chosen over participants in the Egyptian revolt because she has been involved in the struggle long before the Arab Spring. In 2005, for example, she founded Women Journalists Without Chains, focusing on the right to a free press.

Her award sisters, too, are highly deserving. Liberian president Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, the first woman elected head of state in Africa, was chosen for contributing "to securing peace in Liberia, to promoting economic and social development, and to strengthening the position of women." She has been a tireless fighter of corruption and has made education compulsory and free for all primary-age children.

The third winner, fellow Liberian Leymah Gbowee, helped bring peace to her county in the early 2000s. According to the Nobel committee, she "mobilized and organized women across ethnic and religious dividing lines to bring an end to the long war in Liberia, and to ensure women's participation in elections." She is now executive director of the Women in Peace and Security Network, an organization that works with women in other West African countries to promote peace, literacy and political involvement.

Worthy winners all. Congratulations, ladies.