I participate in an historic event

For my first posting in seven months, I can hardly do better than comment on my participation in a truly historic event. I not only observed but became a fully-fledged, if highly reluctant, participant. The event I refer to is the greatest flood in Alberta's history, perhaps in Canada's history, the great flood of 2013.

I live in an apartment building beside the Elbow River, a normally gentle, sparkling stream fresh  from the mountains that once a year transforms into a roiling brown monster. This year it broke 80 years of relatively benign behaviour and went rogue, 80 years that lulled those who live along its banks, enjoying its many delights, into a complacency now deeply buried. Joined by its big brother, the Bow, it went on a rampage that drew international attention. Between them, they caused the evacuation of 75,000 Calgarians, eight per cent of the city's population.

It stormed through our building, turning everything on the ground floor, including three apartments and the furnace and utility rooms, into garbage. Fortunately my apartment is on the fourth floor and so escaped the ruination. Nonetheless, as I form these words I have been homeless for four weeks, displaced until the building is appropriately repaired and declared safe.

As the Elbow, still my favourite river despite its misbehaviour, puts its ill-tempered outburst behind it and returns to its gentle summer self, Albertans struggle to learn the lessons the flood has taught us. We must first recognize that rivers flood and the Elbow and Bow have flooded worse in the past. We have not taken them seriously enough, providing insufficient safeguards and allowing excessive building with inadequate codes to proliferate in the flood plains. This must be dealt with if damage from future floods, and there will be many, is to be significantly mitigated.

We might also keep in mind our reckless attitude toward our environment. We are Canada's pollution province, pumping more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than any other. We are the major contributor to global warming and thus to the increase in extreme weather events. It is quite possible that our mischief contributed to the flood. The price of disrespecting nature may be the most important lesson we can learn.

World losing confidence in Obama

Most of the world breathed easier when Barack Obama was re-elected, but it would seem more a sigh of relief than enthusiasm for the man everyone fell in love with four years ago. Confidence in the president on a variety of issues has declined precipitously since 2009.

For example, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey of 20 countries from across the world, "in 2009, large majorities in France, Germany, Britain and Spain believed Obama would take significant measures to control climate change," however by 2012, "fewer than three-in-ten in these countries said Obama had, in fact, done this."

Western Europeans also feel he has "failed to meet expectations on his handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." The decline in confidence was not quite as sharp as with climate change, however the U.S. "no" vote in the UN on Palestinian statehood will almost certainly add to the disillusionment. In Muslim countries only a minority expected fairness to begin with and that expectation has now dropped to new lows.

Yet another issue of concern is Obama's use of drone attacks. The most supportive nation is Great Britain where 44 per cent support the strikes but even there 47 per cent disapprove. After Britain disapproval increases from 59 per cent in Germany to 89 per cent in Egypt.

What all this means is hard to say. It may be just another sign of declining American influence in the world. It seems that on keys issues, the world is now going to have to lead the former leader.

Starbucks sticks it to the Brits

I always look forward to reading yet another story about how multinational corporations slither out of their tax responsibilities and was, therefore, duly amused by a piece I encountered in Al Jazeera about the world's favourite coffee shop. It appears Starbucks, while selling £643-million worth of goods in the U.K. last year, paid not a cent in corporate taxes.

This was nothing new for the coffee giant. Despite handling a third of Britain's coffee shop trade, and boasting to investors the U.K. was among the best performing of its overseas markets, Starbucks has reported 13 years of losses to the taxman. Apparently it pulls this off by such sleight of hand as transferring funds to a sister company in the Netherlands as royalty payments and paying high interest rates on money borrowed from other parts of the corporation.

Her Majesty's tax collectors are not amused. The U.K. finance ministry announced it will provide £76-million of new money to track down wealthy individuals and companies who try to avoid paying tax. (Starbucks is by no means alone.) How much good this will do is moot. According to U.S. attorney David Spencer, consultant to Tax Justice Network, "There is more and more evidence of the fact that multinationals are shifting substantial income from high tax to low tax jurisdictions. This is because the OECD's [rules] are very complex and very difficult to enforce."

Public reaction may be more effective. Outraged Brits are calling for a boycott of Starbucks and protests at its shops. A spokesperson for the company stated, "We have listened to feedback from our customers and employees, and understand that to maintain and further build public trust we need to do more." Indeed—many millions of pounds more.

The free trade bust

Judging by the editorial hype in the corporate press and among Conservative politicians, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was the greatest boon to this country since the fur trade. When the agreement celebrated its 25th anniversary in October, International Trade Minister Ed Fast claimed opponents of such agreements are "denying Canadians an opportunity to benefit from economic growth and long-term prosperity.”

A recent article in the CCPA Monitor by economist Jim Stanford begs to disagree. Accusing the boosters of being long on self-congratulation and short on facts, Stanford took a different approach and adduced a few pertinent facts re before and after:

• Our exports to the U.S. today account for the same share of our GDP (19 per cent) as before the agreement was signed.
• Our exports to the U.S. are now mostly unprocessed or minimally processed natural resources whereas in the mid-1980s they were mostly relatively sophisticated manufactured goods.
• Our share of U.S. imports has declined from 19 per cent to 14 per cent.
• Our productivity has declined as a per cent of U.S. rates.
• Our inflation-adjusted family income levels are the same as in 1980.

In summary, the agreement did not boost our GDP, did not increase our share of U.S. imports or the quality of goods exported, did not improve our competitiveness, and did not increase our incomes. By Stanford's reckoning, the agreement was more bust than boon. Something to keep in mind as our government rushes madly about the globe eager to sign a free trade agreement with anyone who has a pen.

Canada's shameful vote against Palestinian statehood

Yesterday marked a shameful moment in the history of this country's foreign policy. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas asked the UN General Assembly to recognize Palestine as an observer state ... and Canada voted no.

Our vote puts the lie to our claim that we believe in a two-state solution, or at least that we believe in a just two-state solution. If we do, how can we possibly object to the Palestinians making a significant step in that direction by a peaceful process supported by a solid majority of the world's nations?

I suspect the answer to that question is that this approach undermines the power of Israel to completely dominate the process and thus the resolution of the issue. Given the situation on the ground, it has all the leverage, the Palestinians virtually none. It has the most powerful military in the region, equipped with nuclear weapons and backed unconditionally by the most powerful nation in the world; and it controls all of the territory in question in one way or another and steals more of it every day while further segregating the Palestinians.

Coercing the Palestinians into negotiations by rejecting any other approach means condemning them into accepting whatever crumbs the Israelis condescend to offer. And this may be exactly what Israel and the United States, and apparently Canada, have in mind.

Ultimately, negotiations will of course be necessary. However, currently they are going nowhere, and if the Palestinians can gain more leverage by other means, this can only lead to fairer negotiations in the long run. They will, furthermore, receive a fairer hearing in the UN where Third World countries, who have a view of colonization from the perspective of native peoples, will have more sympathy, even empathy, for the Palestinians than they can expect from the West, still burdened by imperial thinking.

The Jews have their state. It is churlish of us to deny the Palestinians any legal, peaceful means to achieving theirs. Our vote yesterday indicated rather than a just settlement between two equal states, we seek a Palestine defined by and solely in the interests of Israel. This is a policy as dangerous as it is hypocritical.

Wildrose has this one right

To say I rarely agree with the Wildrose Party would be an understatement. Yet they have recently stated a policy which I heartily support and have heartily supported for a long time. Party leader Danielle Smith reported this week that her party wants Alberta's election financing laws to ban donations to political parties from unions and corporations. The party joins the Alberta Liberals and NDP who have long supported a ban.

The measure would have cost Wildrose $870,000 in the last provincial election, 28 per cent of their total fundraising. However, this is a lower percentage than would have been lost by the other three parties. The Conservatives, for example, who are heavily dependent on corporate largesse, would have lost 78 per cent.

Prohibiting political contributions from corporations should be automatic— democracy is for citizens, not organizations—yet in this country only Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia, the City of Toronto and the federal government do so.

And it won't happen in Alberta soon. For obvious reasons, the Conservative government opposes the idea. House Leader Dave Hancock insists that campaign contributions don't come with expectations of favours. The Conservatives also intend to keep the individual contribution limit at the remarkably generous level of $30,000. Wildrose advocates reducing it to $10,000, still much too high but at least in the right direction. The federal limit is $1,000.

The fact that Wildrose, judging by the 2012 election figures, would benefit most from the ban on corporate and union contributions suggests their position isn't entirely altruistic. Nonetheless, they have done the right thing, and for that I salute them.

Canadian democracy—always good for a laugh

Headline: Conservative Joan Crockatt wins Calgary Centre by-election with 37 per cent of the vote.

So ... I will now have an MP most of my fellow constituents don't want in a government that most Canadians don't want.

Ah, Canadian democracy, you've got to love it.

Here's a headline I'd rather not see

Checking The Guardian on my morning round of news websites, I encountered the following headline: "Canada, the surprise "pariah" of the Kyoto protocol." The subhead went on to add, "Some Canadians doubt whether their country should have any say in negotiating the second Kyoto protocol after it became the only nation to reject the first one."

One of those doubters, Green party leader Elizabeth May, is quoted as saying, "I can't imagine how anybody would want us in the room." Ms. May suggested that might be because we were negotiating to weaken the second Kyoto, have already signaled we will not take on new targets in the second period, and have legally withdrawn from the protocol.

She is of course quite right. We are an environmental slacker of the first order. As the article points out, we are not just the only country to have repudiated Kyoto, the sole legally binding international policy tool to deal with carbon emissions, we rank immediately behind the U.S. and Australia as the worst global emitters per capita.

After years of seeing Canada portrayed as a constructive participant in international affairs, it's a bit of a shock to see us headlined as a pariah. I guess I will just have to get used to it.

Sun suckers the rest of the media ... again

As the NDP rapidly and somewhat surprisingly closed in on the Conservatives during the last federal election campaign, Sun Media dug deep into Jack Layton's past to find something to smear him with and then flaunted it just days before the election. The rest of the media instinctively jumped on the bone and escalated the story to great heights.

Now as the Liberals, again somewhat surprisingly, close in on the Conservatives in the Calgary Centre by-election, Sun Media digs up an item from the past to smear Justin Trudeau. And again the rest of the media obediently follows the Sun lead.

This lack of savvy, of sophistication, on the part of the Canadian media, including the CBC, is disappointing if not pathetic.

The irony, of course, is that what Trudeau said was true. The gist of his message was that the problem with Canada is that it is being run from Alberta and Albertans don't represent Canadian values. Well ... they don't, do they? Albertans vote overwhelmingly Conservative (there is only one non-Conservative MP) and in the last federal election 60 per cent of Canadian voters made it abundantly clear that the Conservatives do not represent Canadian values. At least not if values are defined by a solid majority. Trudeau is being pilloried for stating the truth, and that doesn't do the media much credit either. Sun Media types must be grinning like Cheshire cats.

Sun has become to the Conservatives what Fox News is to the Republicans. Perhaps the rest of the media ought to be investigating that relationship rather than allowing themselves to be manipulated by a propaganda machine.

Time to disestablish the Church of England

The Anglican Church, as the nation's officially "established" church, has had a privileged position in England since the Act of Supremacy in 1534. It isn't called the Church of England for nothing. For example, the 26 most senior bishops of the Church have by right a seat in the House of Lords. The head of state must be a member of the Church and may not marry a Catholic (although presumably he or she might marry a Muslim, Hindu or Jew). Monarchs are required to swear that they will "maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion [the Anglican Church] as established by law."

The connection to the state is strong. Archbishops, bishops and deans of cathedrals are appointed by the monarch on the advice of the prime minister. Measures proposed by the Church affecting its governance or worship must be approved by the British Parliament. Church assets are managed by 33 Commissioners, including the British prime minister, who are responsible to Parliament.

As a result of its favoured status, it has prospered mightily. In 2007, its land, property and stock market assets were valued at $9-billion, generating $285-million in annual revenue. Its investment fund originated in money accrued by Henry VIII and given to the Church in 1704 by Queen Anne.

Despite its status as the established church of the nation and its great wealth, it is losing its credibility among the British people. Although it has nominally 24 million members, only 1.1 regularly attend weekly services. Attendance declines as the average age of churchgoers increases.

This week the Church fell further in the esteem of modern Britons when its house of laity voted against the ordination of women bishops. (The house of bishops, to its credit, voted massively in favour.) Politicians from all parties expressed their displeasure and Prime Minister David Cameron lamented, "The church needs to get on with it and get with the program."

The Church may simply have been taking instruction from St Paul: "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence," (1 Timothy 2:12). However this bit of misogyny no longer has credibility even with Christian women, and the Church's failure to "get with the program" should have consequences. It is an appropriate time to take the long overdue step of ending the Church's special relationship and attendant privileges with the British state. It is time to disestablish the Church of England.

Why can't we be more like Norway?

Canada and Norway are a lot alike. We are both prosperous, free-market democracies. But as Bruce Campbell points out in his series of articles in the CCPA Monitor, there are also some significant differences.

For example, the way it manages its oil resources which, as an Albertan, I cannot but envy. Even though Canada produces more oil, Norway has accumulated a sovereign wealth fund of $656-billion compared to the Alberta's Heritage Fund's measly $16-billion.

While Norway is a major oil exporter, it also manages to be an environmental leader, ranking third on Yale University's Environmental Performance Index which considers a range of issues, including water and air pollution, biodiversity and climate change. We rank 37th.

Norway also does better than us on the UN Human Development Index, a composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and income. Norway ranks first, Canada sixth, although when adjusted for inequality, Norway is still first but we drop to 12th.

We do well on the Economist's Democracy Index, ranking eighth. The index is based on five categories: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political culture. Norway, once again, is number one. Frankly, given our archaic electoral system, I think we are lucky to rank eighth.

In summary, Norway does a better job than Canada managing its good fortune, sharing the wealth among its people, taking care of Mother Earth, and running its affairs equitably and democratically. I believe we could learn a lesson or two here.

Federal environment minister joins the real world

When I worked in the oil industry many years ago, we used to refer to those politicians, academics, media people, etc. who didn't fully appreciate our interests as not living in the real world. The real world was of course our world, the world of industry. Ironically, now many people in the oil industry and their political acolytes are not living in the real world.

The real "real world" is of course the world as described by science. And science is telling us this world is being warmed up by human activity and if we don't stop doing it rather quickly, we will reach the point where the warming will be out of our control. And if that should happen, civilization as we know it is likely to succumb to catastrophe and collapse.

you don’t have to convince me that climate change is a very real and present danger and I think that we need to address it. We need to address it by bringing the rest of the world on board to do something about it.

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Hurricane+Sandy+another+sign+danger+global+warming+Peter+Kent+says/7572645/story.html#ixzz2CnLdnlIU

Much of the oil industry and its boosters in the federal cabinet have been averse to this reality. Now, to my relief, federal Environment Minister Peter Kent has decided to at least recognize it. Discussing the devastation of Hurricane Sandy recently, he observed, "You don't have to convince me that climate change is a very real and present danger and we need to address it." I had to read that quote a dozen times and check other sources before I believed it, but he does indeed seem to have made precisely that statement.

He went on to say, and I hope he wasn't switching to comic mode, that we would have to address it by, "bringing the rest of the world on board to do something about it." A bit rich for a government that has created an international reputation for this country as an environmental slacker, but encouraging at least in entertaining the possibility of leadership.

We need to address it by bringing the rest of the world on board to do something about it.”

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Hurricane+Sandy+another+sign+danger+global+warming+Peter+Kent+says/7572645/story.html#ixzz2CnNFHsU6

So will the Conservatives abandon their commitment to eternal growth and boundless production of dirty oil? Highly unlikely I think. They may have recognized the real world, however I doubt they are yet ready to live in it. But I won't quibble—recognition alone is progress. Let us be optimistic as we welcome Mr. Kent to the 21st century.

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Hurricane+Sandy+another+sign+danger+global+warming+Peter+Kent+says/7572645/story.html#ixzz2CnLdnlIU

you don’t have to convince me that climate change is a very real and present danger and I think that we need to address it. We need to address it by bringing the rest of the world on board to do something about it.

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Hurricane+Sandy+another+sign+danger+global+warming+Peter+Kent+says/7572645/story.html#ixzz2CnLdnlIU

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Hurricane+Sandy+another+sign+danger+global+warming+Peter+Kent+says/7572645/story.html#ixzz2CnLdnlIU

you don’t have to convince me that climate change is a very real and present danger and I think that we need to address it. We need to address it by bringing the rest of the world on board to do something about it.

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Hurricane+Sandy+another+sign+danger+global+warming+Peter+Kent+says/7572645/story.html#ixzz2CnLdnlIU

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Hurricane+Sandy+another+sign+danger+global+warming+Peter+Kent+says/7572645/story.html#ixzz2CnLdnlIU

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Hurricane+Sandy+another+sign+danger+global+warming+Peter+Kent+says/7572645/story.html#ixzz2CnLdnlIU

you don’t have to convince me that climate change is a very real and present danger and I think that we need to address it. We need to address it by bringing the rest of the world on board to do something about it.

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Hurricane+Sandy+another+sign+danger+global+warming+Peter+Kent+says/7572645/story.html#ixzz2CnLdnlIU

The corporate counterrevolution rolls on

In the 1960s, a phrase was being bandied about that included the two words that most terrify corporate executives: consume less. A substantial number of people, particularly young people, were coming to the conclusion that the road to nirvana may not necessarily lie through endlessly consuming more stuff. Indeed, consuming ever more stuff might just be fouling our nest—despoiling the very environment we depend upon for our sustenance. A cultural revolution was taking place.

Corporations and wealthy individuals decided that this consume less nonsense had to be stopped. In the 1970s, they swung into action. They began a process of pooling funds and investing them in think tanks, media outlets and lobby organizations to promote their agenda. The 1970s saw the birth of such conservative organizations as the Business Roundtable and The Heritage Foundation in the United States and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (formerly the Business Council on National Issues) and the Fraser Institute in Canada. The number of registered lobbyists in Washington rose from 175 in 1971 to 2,500 in 1982 to almost 35,000 today.

In order to restore the dominance of the consumer society and relentless growth, corporations have worked to undermine the role of government, reduce the power of organized labour, and deregulate markets. They are doing very well in achieving their goals.

Trade agreements alone have done much to enhance their power over governments and weaken the bargaining power of workers. The agreements restrict government’s ability to regulate corporate behaviour while freeing corporations to leverage workers in developed nations against cheap, non-union labour in developing nations. Union membership in North America has fallen precipitously, to 31 per cent in Canada and 11 per cent in the U.S. Capital is winning the war with Labour.

The mass media have become increasingly the instrument of oligarchs. Rupert Murdoch dominates  the press in Britain and has created an entire TV network in the U.S. dedicated to right-wing propaganda. In Australia, he owns eight of the 12 major daily papers and mining interests are buying control of three of the remaining four.

Corporations have done well, too, in deregulating markets. Deregulation in the U.S. brought catastrophe to the financial markets, but the bankers continue to roll in money, and regulation they face as a result will be much weaker than what was in effect before Bill Clinton trashed the Glass–Steagall Act. Considering that Barack Obama depends heavily on election funding from the financial industry, we should not be surprised.

American corporations have even captured the U.S. Supreme Court. Its Citizens United decision, a case sponsored in part by the infamous Koch brothers, freed up corporations to buy elections as never before. Corporations even fund their own grass roots movements as we saw with the same Koch brothers and the Tea Party Movement.

 Sometimes the blatant bowing of politicians to corporate power is cringe-inducing: Tony Blair, as one of his first acts when he became leader of his party, traveling to the other side of the world to genuflect before Rupert Murdoch; Barak Obama placating the insurance and pharmaceutical industries in order to get his health care bill passed.

According to Pulitzer Prize-winning Steve Coll in his book Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power, since 1998, when Exxon merged with Mobil to create the world’s largest company, it has netted a cash flow of $493-billion and maintains an AAA credit rating. During the same period the United States government has seen a net cash flow of minus $5,700-billion and its credit rating has dropped to AA+. Governments struggle while the corporate counterrevolution rolls on.

New leaders face challenge as U.S. and China mistrust grows

With Xi Jinping assuming leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, China and the United States have both now chosen their leaders for the near future. They both face considerable challenges, not the least of which is the growing mistrust between the people of the two superpowers.

According to a Pew survey, although two-thirds of Americans think relations between their country and China are good, a similar number believe China can't be trusted. Furthermore, while a year ago more Americans thought the U.S. should build stronger relations with China rather than "get tough," that has now reversed.

Chinese attitudes toward the U.S. are also hardening. In the last two years, the number of Chinese who view the U.S. favourably has dropped from a majority (58 per cent) to a minority (43 per cent), while those who have confidence in President Obama's international policies has dropped by similar numbers.

Despite the mistrust, the Chinese appreciate the American way of doing business, greatly admire U.S. science and technology and approve of American ideas about democracy. Clearly, there is a solid basis for improving the relations between the two nations. Let us hope their newly confirmed leaders take advantage. Harmony between the two would be good for them, and good for the rest of us.

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.