Climate predictions are getting better ... and hotter

Arguably, the biggest winner on election night in the U.S. wasn't Barack Obama, but the nerdy Nate Silver. Silver is of course the statistician who fed reams of polling data into his laptop and correctly predicted how every state voted, including the tie in Florida that eventually flipped to Obama.

But as remarkable as Silver's predictions were, he insisted it was nothing compared to what meteorologists did with Sandy, the monster storm that devastated New York and New Jersey. When the National Weather Service's computer model alerted meteorologists to a suspicious bunch of clouds gathering in the Caribbean, they projected it into an extremely accurate prediction of the hurricane, including the once-in-a-century veer west into New Jersey.

These highly accurate predictions aren't surprising as data becomes more accessible and computer power rapidly increases. Thirty years ago, the first climate models simulated only the Earth’s atmosphere. Now they include the effects of ocean currents, the shrinking of the planet's ice cover, even how plants and animals absorb and release carbon. Nonetheless, due to various uncertainties, predictions of global temperature increases range from three to eight or more degrees by 2100.

One source of uncertainty has been cloud cover, important to climate, particularly in the tropics, but hard to predict. Now, scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado have found a way around the problem by examining the accuracy of humidity predictions. Humidity is a good proxy for cloud cover. Examining ten years of atmospheric humidity data from satellites, they tested two dozen of the world’s most sophisticated climate simulations. They found that, “The models at the higher end of temperature predictions uniformly did a better job." The simulations that predicted smaller temperature rises "should be outright discounted.”

In other words, we should expect a global temperature increase of eight degrees or more by the end of the century if we don't rapidly mend our ways. And that will mean dramatically higher sea levels, disappearing coastlines, more severe droughts, bigger floods, more intense storms, and quite possibly global warming beyond our control. It will mean Armageddon.

Is the U.S. right rigging elections?

After reading an article in the November 2012 issue of Harper's ("How to Rig an Election" by Victoria Collier), I'm not as surprised that Barack Obama won the recent presidential election as I'm surprised he was allowed to win. The article points out that most votes in the U.S. are now tallied by voting machines, a technology with "enormous potential for electronic skulduggery." Furthermore, this technology has been outsourced to "a handful of secretive corporations with interlocking ownership, strong partisan ties to the far right, and executives who revolve among them like beans in a shell game."

The Election Defense Alliance—a nonprofit organization specializing in election forensics—working with independent statisticians who have compared decades of computer-vote results to exit polls, tracking polls, and hand counts, found that "when disparities occur, they benefit Republicans and right-wing issues far beyond the bounds of probability." The combination of privatization and computer technology is, it seems, corrupting American democracy.

In addition to the rigging, the author insists that Americans "have actually lost the ability to verify election results." And all this has happened "without public knowledge or consent."

As a student of democracy, I found the article fascinating. It is either the epitome of paranoia or an exposé of "one of the most dangerous and least understood crises in the history of American democracy." Read it here and take your pick.

Why does Britain have nuclear weapons?

There's a lot of talk these days about the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Britain's government is one of the voices adamant that it must not be allowed to do so. Oddly, no one has raised the obvious question, Why does the UK have nuclear weapons?

Iran, although insisting it has no intention of making a weapon, could make a good case for one. It lives in a dangerous neighbourhood. It is surrounded by nuclear-armed powers. Its two main antagonists, Israel and the United States, are both nuclear armed. And so on. It has solid justification for paranoia.

Britain, on the other hand, is surrounded by friends. Furthermore, it is good buddies with the most powerful nation in the world whose nuclear umbrella it would be welcome to shelter under.

One might argue further that Britain is a much more belligerent nation than Iran and is therefore less trustworthy with dangerous toys. Iran has not invaded another country in centuries. Britain has made a habit of it. Indeed, it invaded Iran twice in the 20th century and collaborated in destroying Iran's democracy in the 1950s. In 2003, under false pretences, it participated in the invasion of Iran's neighbour Iraq wreaking widespread death and destruction.

Britain currently has a Vanguard submarine drifting deep through the world's oceans armed with 40 nuclear-tipped Trident missiles, collectively possessing destructive power 300 times greater than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Although ordinarily only the prime minister has the authority to order a nuclear attack, if a submarine commander loses radio contact and suspects Britain has been destroyed, he can fire away. This scares me a hell of a lot more than the possibility Iran may make a weapon.

So, why does Britain have nuclear weapons at all? For an obvious reason, really—status. Tony Blair said as much. In his memoirs, he admitted he could see the "common sense and practical argument" against renewing the Trident system but, "In the final analysis I thought giving it up too big a downgrading of our status as a nation."

He might also have mentioned that the UK is a signatory of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, under which the nuclear powers are obliged to rid themselves of their nukes, something Britain is not doing. Perhaps we should be pointing our fingers at the violators of the Treaty, rather than those who, at least to date, have kept their word.

The CBC—a very good deal

The Friends of Canadian Broadcasting recently sent me an email summarizing a few pertinent facts about the CBC, our national broadcaster and the only national medium not owned and controlled by the corporate sector. Some of these facts I would like to share.

For instance, we sometimes forget in these dumbing-down days of Harper conservatism that the CBC (actually its predecessor) was created by a Conservative government, specifically that of Prime Minister R.B. Bennett in 1932.

Surveys indicate that 83 per cent of Canadians believe the CBC is important in protecting Canadian identity and culture, and 78 per cent of Canadians would like to see CBC funding increased or maintained. In other words, the CBC enjoys very broad public support.

Governments, however are less supportive. Jean Chrétien's Liberals slashed the CBC’s budget by $400-million in the 1990s and funding continues to decline under the Conservatives. Only four of 26 western democracies (Portugal, Poland, New Zealand and the U.S.) spend less as a percentage of GDP than Canada on public broadcasting.

On average, government funding of public broadcasters in western democracies is $80 per capita per year. By comparison, funding of the CBC works out to a paltry $33 per Canadian per year or about eleven cents a day.

Keeping in mind we pay much, much more for corporate media via advertising, a little more than a dime a day is a bargain indeed for the only national medium that belongs to all of us, i.e. that is democratic—the only national medium that isn't run by corporate servants. Increasing that to a quarter a day would only bring us up to the average funding in western democracies, yet would allow for an even better CBC ... without the advertising.

Sorry for Romney? Save some pity for Adelson.

If you think Mitt Romney lost big on Tuesday night, give a thought to poor old Sheldon Adelson. The casino mogul is one of those very rich Americans trying to buy up the political system.

After backing Newt Gingrich in the Republican primaries (not much luck there for the gambler), he then swung hard behind Romney. According to Mother Jones, he and his wife invested more than $57-million in pro-Republican super-PACs.

And invest is the right word. If Romney had won and instituted his proposed tax cuts, Adelson could have saved an estimated $2-billion. That's billions, folks, not millions. Furthermore, his largesse could have proved valuable in solving his legal woes. Aside from three lawsuits he faces over his Macau operations, he is also involved in a bribery scandal and claims he violated U.S. anti-money laundering laws. With his businesses under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department and other agencies, he could have used a friend in the White House.

Investing in politics is, as in business, often a gamble. The king of casinos rolled the dice ... and crapped out.

Iran and Israel negotiating nukes—will common sense break out?

Officials from both Iran and Israel attended a nuclear non-proliferation meeting in Brussels this week. The intent of the meeting was to set the stage for a full international conference on banning nuclear weapons from the Middle East.

The Iranian and Israeli officials are ostensibly attending as private citizens, yet they carry considerable clout and have the permission of their governments to participate. The Iranians were led by Ali Asghar Soltanieh, the country's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Israelis by Jeremy Issacharoff, an ambassador for strategic affairs at the foreign ministry.

The meeting's mood was described as "respectful and positive," quite in contrast to the provocative blustering of the two country's leaders: Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu, a man so belligerent his generals have to rein him in; and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, one of the world's most offensive trash talkers.

The date of the international conference is still undecided and one cannot hope for much, but if the two main protagonists in this drama are at least meeting in an atmosphere of respect, one can hope for something, and even that is progress in the Middle East.

Work is making us crazy

 In 1991, Linda Duxbury of Carleton University and Christopher Higgins of the University of Western Ontario conducted the first national study of work-life conflict in Canada to “explore how the changing relationship between family and work affects organizations, families and employers.” They repeated the study in 2001 and in 2012 have completed a third round. The study examined the work-life experiences of over 25,000 Canadians employed full time in public, private and not-for-profit organizations.

The results are not encouraging. First, Canadians are working harder than ever. The amount of time spent in paid employment has increased dramatically with 68 per cent of men and 54 per cent of  women working more than 45 hours per week in 2011 compared to 55 per cent of men and 39 per cent of women in 2001.

While people are working more, apparently they are enjoying it less. Absenteeism over all increased seven per cent from 2001 to 2011 with people missing work due to emotional and mental fatigue increasing by 12 per cent. Workers reporting a high level of stress increased from 44 per cent in 1991 to 54 per cent in 2001 to 57 per cent in 2011, while those suffering from depressed mood, a state characterized by low energy and persistent feelings of helplessness and hopelessness, increased from 24 per cent in 1991 to 36 per cent in 2001 and 2011.

The Canadian workplace it seems is becoming a place of increasing unhappiness. It makes one wonder what all the remarkable technical progress of the last 20 years was for. Nor apparently has globalization brought the utopia corporations and their political servants promised.

The tragedy is not only a decline in the quality of work life. As we approach a time when growth must stop in order to preserve a future for both the health of the environment and the health of civilization, working less could make a major contribution. And we could enjoy the extra time for family, community and simply enjoying life. Yet we seem to be going in precisely the wrong direction. What, exactly, is the point?

An Allende returns to Chilean politics

Last Sunday, Maya Fernández Allende was elected mayor of Ñuñoa, a district of Chile's capital, Santiago. Ms. Allende is a granddaughter of Salvador Allende, the Chilean president who died when General Augusto Pinochet headed a coup that ended Chile's lengthy democracy and introduced a reign of torture and murder.

Democracy eventually returned after 16 years of brutal dictatorship and now an Allende has returned to politics as well. Raised in Cuba, where her family fled after the coup, she came home in 1992 and joined the Socialist party but didn't run for office until 2008 when she won her first election as a member of the local council. Her victory was part of a leftward swing in municipal elections across Chile with Allende herself winning in a district long held by right wing politicians.

An official photograph of Salvador Allende wearing the Chilean presidential sash decorates the new mayor's office. She was too small when he died to remember him but says she would loved to have known him as a grandfather and has promised to be faithful to his legacy.

"The dictatorship did not allow you to express yourself, you might talk and then be disappeared, so people stopped talking," said Ms. Allende. "There was lots of silence. This generation has changed, it has come back to the street, to knock on the door, to bang the table."

Olé for the new generation and olé for Mayor Allende.

In Iraq, as in Vietnam, the war never ends for the innocent

The Vietnam war officially ended almost 40 years ago, two generations in time, yet the sacrifice continues. The soldiers have all left the battlefield, but every year thousands of Vietnamese, mostly children, are maimed and killed by unexploded munitions, and thousands of babies are stillborn or deformed by the lingering effects of the insidious herbicide Agent Orange.

And so it is in Iraq. A number of studies have reported extraordinarily high incidences of birth defects among Iraqi children. For example, a recent article in the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology reported that among a group of families studied in the city of Fallujah, from 2007 to 2010 almost half the children born suffered birth defects, compared to under two per cent before the war. Furthermore, from 2004 to 2006, miscarriages were over 40 per cent compared to under five per cent prior to 2000. The study further reported that in the city of Basra, which was bombed in the late 1990s as part of the no-fly campaign and again in 2003 during the invasion, the number of birth defects per live births increased by 17 times.

Nor are the victims limited to Fallujah and Basra. The study states, "reports of health problems in the Iraqi population and in the surrounding countries have continued to surface. News of increases in childhood cancers, of perinatal and infant morbidity and mortality, and of unusual increases in congenital birth defects, have continued to emerge from across Iraq."

One of the study's authors, Mozhgan Savabieasfahani of the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health, told a reporter, “There is compelling evidence linking the staggering increases in Iraqi birth defects to neurotoxic metal contamination following the repeated bombardments. There is no other explanation."

While we remember the soldiers of wars with wreaths, monuments and days of commemoration, the most tragic victims of war—the innocents—are quietly forgotten, even as their suffering goes on and on. Perhaps if we commemorated their sacrifice first, rather than that of those who commit the violence, we might see war in a truer light.

The Canada-China investment treaty—why?

Having read the investment treaty that Prime Minister Harper negotiated with China last September, my concerns about it have not been alleviated. (Honestly, I actually did read it!)

To begin with, I have problems with the process that created it. Negotiated in secret, it was then tabled in Parliament where it sat for 21 days while the government, as they have a right to do, denied debate. It can now be signed into law. This backroom process may be fine in an autocratic and secretive system such as China's, but it isn't acceptable where transparency and open discussion are valued. Under the treaty, China can sue for decisions made by provincial or municipal governments, yet these levels of government have been largely absent in the making of the treaty.

Disputes under the agreement are to be heard not by Canadian (or Chinese) courts but by private tribunals. The treaty states that tribunal hearings and their decisions are to be made public, but "subject to the redaction of confidential information" and "the Tribunal may hold portions of hearings in camera." What is or isn't confidential information will apparently be up to the tribunal. Furthermore, it says "a Contracting Party should endeavour to apply its law on access to information so as to protect information designated confidential by the Tribunal."

If Canadians are to foot the bill for awards against our government by the tribunals, as indeed we will, then such awards damn well ought to be under our laws. One wonders if it is constitutional to hold us accountable otherwise. Our laws are to be taken into consideration, but only "where relevant and as appropriate." As the tribunals may hold hearings in camera, presumably they will decide when "relevant" and "appropriate" apply.

The lack of democracy in all this is disturbing.

But quite aside from the treaty itself, why are such agreements necessary at all? Canada is a stable country of great wealth governed by the rule of law and possessing one of the world's finest court systems. Foreign investors are fortunate to be offered the opportunity to invest here. Surely it is not asking too much to insist they invest under our laws and policies. Indeed, what does it say about us when we feel it necessary to guarantee foreign investors they will be protected from Canadian rules? Government encouraging foreign investment is fine, serving as corporate minders is not.

If our government's concern is less about encouraging investment here and more about protecting Canadian corporations investing abroad, this does not justify eroding our democratic processes. Nor does it justify eroding the power of citizens in other countries. Corporations operating overseas should be prepared to take the risks involved investing in unstable or corrupt regimes or insure themselves against such risks. And we might want to think twice about protecting our corporations in countries where they are not behaving in the best interests of the people of those countries.

If you wish to torture yourself with legal jargon and read the treaty yourself, it can be found here.

Has Mr. Katz done Alberta democracy a favour?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Americans and global warming—science bounces back

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

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

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

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

Israelis endorse apartheid

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

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

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

Mr. Kenny's arbitrary guidelines

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

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

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

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

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

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

The swan song of the Round Table on the Environment

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

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

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

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

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

Americans increasingly belligerent as foreign policy debate looms

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. and Russia vie for Iraq arms business

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

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

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

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

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

Kenny's power play should be opposed

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

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

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

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

A paean to the Elbow River

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

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

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

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

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

Malala Yousafzai—heroine

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

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

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

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

The U.S. squeezes the Palestinians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The enemy of my enemy is not a terrorist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weaselling out of the Convention on Cluster Munitions

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

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

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

What would Martin Luther say?

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

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

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

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

Harper's subversion of co-ops

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

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

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

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

Romney really does represent Republicans

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

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

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

I'm happy Canadians are happy

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

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

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

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

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

The drug war—cui bono?

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

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

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

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

Why the Wall Street gang aren't in jail

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

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

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

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

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

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

What ails Canada?

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

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

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

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

Harper plays Mulcair ... at our expense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Social justice in the OECD

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

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

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

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

Water—a matter of security

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

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

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

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

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

The folly of shunning Iran

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

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

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

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


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

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

Obama's twin challenges

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

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

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

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

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

News flash—U.S. corn growers oppose subsidy

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

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

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

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

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

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