Baghdad Clogger immortalized

The Baghdad Clogger, Muntazer al-Zaidi, is being honoured for his famous shoe-hurling of George W. Bush. A statue of a giant shoe, complete with poem, has been erected in Tikrit, Saddam Hussein's hometown. The artist, Baghdad-based Laith al-Amari, says his impressive copper and fibreglass masterpiece is a homage to the pride of the Iraqi people. To paraphrase Winston Churchill: Never was so much owed by so many to a shoe.

Can we de-nuke the world, after all?

When the conversation turns to nuclear weapons these days, the focus is almost entirely on Iran. The rumour is the Iranians may be developing a nuclear weapon and that, among other things, would violate the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Iran has, after all, signed the treaty. What is rarely mentioned, however, is that the treaty not only calls for non-nuclear signatories to not develop nuclear weapons, it also requires nuclear signatories to get rid of their weapons. This they have not been doing. On the contrary, they have been enhancing their nuclear potential. They, who are violating the treaty every day of the week, are hardly in a moral position to criticize Iran because it may, at some time in the future, violate the treaty.

But this may change. The United States, at least, may achieve that moral position. The most important signatory of the treaty may actually live up to its obligations. In his election campaign, Barack Obama declared, "It's time to send a clear message to the world: America seeks a world with no nuclear weapons." He promised that, "As long as nuclear weapons exist, we'll retain a strong deterrent. But we'll make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy." Now ensconced in the White House, he appears to cleave to that promise. His newly appointed ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, recently stated that the new administration will, "work constructively and securely toward the goal of a world without nuclear weapons."

This goal can only be achieved by the co-operation of all nuclear nations, of course, including both those who have signed the treaty and those who have not, but what's important is that the world's major nuclear nation is apparently prepared to lead the way. If it does, if it follows through on its promise, it may finally have some moral leverage in its effort to prevent Iran from developing a weapon. But much more important, it will make a nuclear weapons-free world possible. Now there is something to hope for.

The churches are on to something

I have always been something less than a fan of organized religion. Observing the hostility and violence the world suffers because of faith-based thinking -- the recent terror in Gaza being a good example -- I wonder where the morality is to be found in these ostensibly moral institutions. Somewhere, I suspect, buried under their self-righteousness. And yet sometimes it emerges, and when it does it would be churlish not to acknowledge it. Such an emergence was in evidence recently when Kairos, a coalition of eleven Canadian churches and church organizations, wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Harper and other first ministers that examines how global markets focused solely on profit led to the current economic crisis while ignoring poverty and environmental destruction.

As for the stimulus efforts, the coalition perceptively observes, "Governments seem prepared to spend trillions of dollars to recreate the old destructive model, while refusing to deal directly with the causes of the devastation," and suggest that, "We must change course and invest meaningfully in a new economic framework that will combat poverty, ill health and climate change." In other words, instead of simply rebuilding the same old capitalist system, we should be challenging the very ethos of the system and seeking a new model that allows us to live harmoniously with our environment while enjoying a reasonable and equitable degree of economic prosperity.

The emphasis on growth for growth's sake at a time when we are devouring our planet is not a solution. Yet that's exactly what we hear from our politicians, the press and the business community. And that is certainly what we will hear from the panel of corporate executives appointed to advise the federal government. We will not likely hear ideas from outside the corporate box from a panel, bright as they may be, who are dedicated to selling stuff.

Kairos points out that many Canadians other than banks and investors were suffering well before the current crisis hit. In 1989, our federal politicians promised to end child poverty in Canada by 2000. In fact, they only managed to reduce it from 11.7 % in 1989 to 11.3 % in 2006, an almost total failure despite a decade of prosperity. Furthermore, social assistance benefits have dropped 21% and food bank use has nearly doubled. The current system fails the ethical principle of equity. The rising tide raises fewer and fewer boats.

This economic failure is compounded by environmental failure. Kairos claims, "Recent research by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change shows that if we are to give ourselves a real chance to stop an increase of more than two degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels (a measure of dangerous climate change), global emissions must peak no later than 2015." The growth-based economy won't allow us to get even close to that. This brings Kairos to talk about "God’s economy of Creation, within the limits of which all other economies function." I would attribute the "economy of Creation" to nature rather than God, but I love the phrase so I won't quibble. The point is economies must fit nature, not nature fit economies which is the assumption of the growth-based approach.

The Kairos letter goes on to discuss the principles of Ecojustice, naming four: solidarity, sustainability, sufficiency and equity. Solidarity refers to an ethical commitment to all people and creatures; sustainability to adopting "environmentally fitting habits of living and working that enable life to flourish"; sufficiency to "a standard of organized sharing, which requires basic floors and definite ceilings for equitable or 'fair' consumption"; and equity to fairness in both decision-making and outcomes. Here are four fitting goals for a new economy.

Kairos concludes their letter with an appeal for "the creation of a just and sustainable international financial order – not minor reforms that will shore up an unjust system." Unfortunately, in Canada the emphasis, including the emphasis in the new federal budget, is on the latter rather than the former. I urge our politicians to read and absorb this letter. It is superbly written, full of inspiring and creative phrasing, worth a read for the pleasure of the writing alone. But more importantly, it sends the message that the current crisis is an opportunity to think beyond growth, GDP and other yardsticks of an economy unfit for the modern age. We need a paradigm shift.

Big day in Bolivia

Fifty years ago, Bolivia's native people were banned from the presidential palace in La Paz. Last week, their leaders met in the palace to honour President Evo Morales, one of their own, for delivering a new constitution designed to empower the indigenous majority and redress half a millennium of grievances against colonialism, discrimination and humiliation. According to Morales, it will "refound Bolivia as a new state with equal opportunities, a new state where everyone will have the same rights and duties." On Sunday, Bolivians approved the constitution in a referendum.

Among other things, the constitution will recognize self-determination for 36 indigenous nations and set aside seats in Congress for minority groups; place all gas, oil and mineral reserves under state control; provide for election of high court judges; prohibit discrimination by sexual orientation; and guarantee freedom of religion.

Not everyone is happy. Conservative opponents among the European-descended population vehemently oppose the changes. They disagree with such provisions as state control over natural resources, penalties against privatization and the separation of church and state. Some of their criticisms may indeed be justified, but they have no one to blame but themselves for the document. If they had accepted the indigenous people as equals to begin with, a new constitution would have been unnecessary and highly unlikely. Not all supporters of the president were happy either, some thinking it didn't go far enough. That's politics for you.

Notwithstanding the criticism, it signals a new dawn for the native people of Bolivia and perhaps elsewhere in South America. Eugenio Rojas, head of an Aymara group, declared, "We are indigenous people that for the first time in history are in power. ... We want to be an example to other peoples, to show the world that us, the indigenous, can manage a country."

I wish them the greatest luck.

Hypocrisy, the handmaid of terrorism

In his inaugural address, President Obama laid out a powerful warning for certain types of evil-doers: "And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you." The irony of his warning, of course, is that one of America's closest allies and dearest friends has just concluded an attempt to advance it aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents.

Israel's assault on Gaza sent a clear message to Gazans: if they support Hamas, they will be severely punished. That of course defines what terror is: the application of extreme fear to coerce a civilian population into adopting a certain political posture. But President Obama would never apply the word "terrorist" to Israel. When it's one of your friends doing it ... well, they're your friends, and it's rude to call a friend a terrorist, even if it's true. And it gets worse. Many Americans not only condone Israeli terror but support it. As do many Canadians, including most of our press and both the two leading political parties. And why not? They are our friends.

At the same time, we wonder why the Arab street is so anti-American. It is, of course, because of the hypocrisy. The Third World generally, victims of Western imperialism for centuries, understands and so, often to our frustration and dismay, generally supports the Arab view on Palestine.

There are hypocrites on that side, too, of course, who support suicide bombings and other violent acts by Palestinian militants. Although, to be fair, the Palestinians are the victims. They are the refugees, the ethnically-cleansed, and therefore deserve a bit more slack. Terror is sometimes referred to as the weapon of the weak. The Palestinians, unlike the Israelis, have no army, navy and air force, no nuclear weapons, and aren't supported by the most powerful nation on earth. If anyone is justified in using terror, it is those who have nothing else.

Personally, I still don't believe they are justified. I believe that if they have nothing else, that is to say no instruments of violence, then they should rely on non-violence, on the methods of Gandhi. These can be immensely effective -- Gandhi freed India, the second most populous nation on Earth, employing passive resistance. I suspect that if the Palestinians had employed passive resistance all along, they would have made much more progress. But that's me. How many people anywhere actually believe this? How many people believe, as Christ advised, that if you are smitten on one cheek, you should turn the other also? Not many Christians, certainly. So we can hardly expect the Palestinians to believe it. Nonetheless, I don't agree that that makes violence against innocents acceptable.

The West's problem is convincing the Third World to take it seriously when it condemns actions such as those of the Sudanese government in Darfur while at the same time condoning the actions of Israel in Gaza. Why are the Sudanese so bad? Because we don't like them? Because they go further and commit torture and gang rape? That is a matter of degree, and of course, degree is very important, but if terrorism is wrong in principle and not just in the details, it deserves condemnation whatever form it takes.

If we want to be taken seriously in condemning terrorism for its own sake, not just because of who does it or how they do it, we need to be consistent. It's wrong when religious fanatics do it, it's wrong when insurgents do it, it's wrong when governments do it, and it's wrong when democratic governments do it. It was wrong when Islamic extremists bombed New York and it was wrong when the United States nuclear-bombed Japan.

Or was it ? Do we, in truth, believe terrorism is appropriate in certain places at certain times? If we do, let's say so and stop acting as if it is wrong in principle. Let's identify when it is acceptable and when it isn't, and who is allowed and who isn't. Let's end the hypocrisy. And for heaven's sake, let's stop talking about a war on terror if it's really just a war on people we disagree with.

"Obama is Lyndon Johnson"

"Obama is Lyndon Johnson." This rain on the Obama parade comes from Glen Ford, executive editor of Black Agenda Report, in an article in Al Jazeera. It is a harsh judgment, but does it have merit?

In his inaugural address, Obama challenged his fellow Americans to "remake America." He has vowed to build infrastructure, invest in scientific research, improve health care, harness new sources of energy, and transform education. He has already committed to a stimulus package that could exceed $1-trillion. All this he will do while expanding the war in Afghanistan, even into Pakistan if necessary.

Does this not stir a memory? Didn't another president promise to reform society, in fact to build a Great Society, while at the same time expanding a war in Asia? His name, of course, was Lyndon Johnson. As rich as the United States was, it wasn't rich enough to fight a war on poverty at home and a war abroad at the same time. As a result, both failed.

Moreover, as Glen Ford points out in his article, the Vietnam war, which precluded victory in the war on poverty, is where Martin Luther King departed from Johnson. And Obama's support for the Afghan war is largely where Ford departs from Obama. "National revitalization," Ford insists," including redress of historical African-American grievances, is impossible unless military expenditures are dramatically reduced." Yet Obama has promised to expand the military.

The U.S. is richer today than it was in Johnson's time; nonetheless, it is hard to believe it is now so much richer it can afford to massively resuscitate its economy, reform its society and fight at least one major war all at the same time. At least not without a significant raise in taxes and Obama has promised to cut taxes. America's debt is massive, its financial institutions enfeebled, consumer spending has collapsed, social programs are poorly funded, 45 million citizens lack health care insurance, the war in Afghanistan gets worse ... how is all this to be fixed and paid for?

In any case, we have a new emperor: vigorous, enthusiastic, inclusive, open-minded, highly intelligent and curious -- immeasurably superior to the last one and perhaps the best in living memory. We are immensely relieved not only to see the last of the appalling Bush presidency but to have been spared -- I shudder to think of it -- a McCain/Palin administration. We cannot help but be optimistic. And yet ...

Yesterday, he told his fellow Americans in the soaring rhetoric for which he has become famous, "Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions — who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short." Perhaps, Mr. President, but I also hope your memory is not too short to remember LBJ.

The U.S. ... our new Mexico?

Since the advent of agreements such as NAFTA and the WTO, and the rush to "free" trade generally, Canadian workers have worried about having to compete with workers in low-wage countries such as Mexico and China. Who would have thought the threat to auto workers would come from the United States? Industry Minister Tony Clement has said General Motors and Chrysler must reduce their labour costs to U.S. levels if they want to participate in the $4-billion federal bailout. Canadian auto workers could see their wages and benefits cut by $15 to $20 an hour.

The idea is to match the tough demands of the Bush administration bailout that require American-owned plants to get their compensation in line with Japanese-owned plants. That the industry must not just lower wages and benefits but must conform to the non-union Japanese plants suggests the goal is union-busting as much as economy-saving. (Our government's attempt to limit the right to strike for civil servants suggests that might be part of the goal here as well.) One can say with confidence that without union plants setting the standard, the Japanese plants wouldn't even be paying the wages they are now, particularly keeping in mind that a number of the Japanese plants are in the Deep South, where exploiting labour is a tradition. Now, with weakened unions ... well, the bottom's the limit.

It is reasonable to ask workers to make a sacrifice if an industry is accepting welfare. But the U.S., pride of the free market, serving as the excuse for lowering wages is a bit of a comedown. How the mighty have fallen ... and continue to fall.

Madness in Mugabeland

Wanna get rich quick? Head for Zimbabwe. For a mere forty bucks you can get a 100-trillion Zimbabwe-dollar banknote. That's right, one hundred trillion. It's not worth much -- well. forty bucks, actually -- but think about just once in your life having 100 trillion dollars in your pocket. The country has just issued new $10-trillion, $20-trillion, $50-trillion and $100-trillion notes to try to keep pace with inflation.

Zimbabwean dollars, unfortunately, are like everything else in the country these days -- worth little and rapidly worth less by the minute. Prices double every day. And then there's other bothers like the cholera outbreak, which has taken more than 2,000 lives so far, human rights workers are systematically tortured and talks on a power-sharing agreement between opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai and the country's lunatic president Robert Mugabe have stalled. The madness never ends.

Canada as slacker?

I seem to remember that Canada was once a world leader, but the memory is fading. More and more these days we seem to be a follower.

Take foreign policy, for example, and the current crisis in Palestine. Our objectivity once allowed us to be a peace-maker in the Middle East, winning a Nobel Prize in the process, but now we are such a slave to Israeli and American policy we are irrelevant to making peace in the region. In the not too distant past, we contributed significantly to achievements in international law and security such as the Land Mines Treaty and the International Criminal Court. Now we seem indifferent and uninvolved. Once we were leading peacekeepers, now about the only military action we see is in Afghanistan, faithfully following the American initiative.

We once had some small importance in the effort to achieve international responsibility toward the environment. We signed Kyoto, after all. Now, if we are not pariahs on climate change, we are close to it. At the last round of international meetings on greenhouse gas emissions in Poland, we were singled out for criticism by South Africa. South Africa, for heaven's sake! In an assessment ranking the 57 largest greenhouse gas emitters on their efforts to combat climate change, we came 56th, ahead only of Saudi Arabia. Bereft of initiative, we wait patiently for Barack Obama's lead.

Our efforts on social policy don't seem to be setting the world on fire, either. In a ranking of 25 developed countries on the care and education of young children, we came dead last. Needless to say, Sweden ranked first.

Not that the country isn't in rather good shape. It is. Our economy is suffering like everyone else's, but nonetheless it is in much better shape than most (thanks largely to Paul Martin's brilliant eight years as finance minister). Our health care and education systems creak and groan but continue to provide excellent service. So life in good old stable Canada is fine indeed, as usual. Yet . . . when it comes to making a difference in the world we seem to have stalled. We are in something of a dead zone.

It shouldn't be hard to come up with some creative leadership in a world desperately in need of it. The international economy is in a mess. Global warming advances almost without heed. The Middle East succumbs to death and destruction. There's room for a million inspiring ideas here. We just don't seem to be in the mood.

Hillary Clinton and "stupid power"

At her Senate confirmation hearing, Hillary Clinton claimed she wants to shift American foreign policy toward the use of "smart power," something she defines as "principles and pragmatism, not rigid ideology,"and then -- clearly cleaving to rigid ideology -- said she won't talk to Hamas. Hamas is of course a major player on the Palestinian side and one of the few organizations in the Middle East that legitimately represents Arab people through the democratic process. To refuse to talk to them is to persist in folly and bodes ill for peace in the Middle East. In Clinton's own words: "We cannot negotiate with Hamas until it renounces violence, recognizes Israel and agrees to abide by past agreements. That is just, for me, an absolute."

Normally with negotiations you bring what you want to the table, the other side brings what it wants, and you talk. Clinton is demanding Hamas submit on major points before they are even allowed to approach the table. This is less a call to negotiate than it is an imperial command. One wonders if she will allow them to submit standing up or whether she will insist they do so on their knees.

An underlying reality is that the Arab people oppose the state of Israel. This is exemplified by at least two powerful pieces of evidence. A recent poll on American popularity in the world showed that it is by far the lowest in the Middle East. It hasn't sunk under Bush, just remained very low. At the same time, the popularity of pro-Palestinian movements soars. The popularity of Hezbollah went through the roof during Israel's invasion of Lebanon and the popularity of Hamas among the Arab masses is increasing now. Are the Americans really too obtuse to get the message?

We might not like this reality but reality does not conform to our likes and dislikes. It just is. If the the West. particularly the United States, wants to contribute to peace in Palestine, it must accept the views of the Arab street, and this means sitting down with groups like Hamas who genuinely represent them. It isn't impossible to talk to people you don't like or agree with. We despised the Soviet Union and they threatened to bury us, yet we managed to negotiate agreements covering every thing from trade to armaments to culture.

The West's failure to deal with the realities of the Middle East over the past 60 years aggravated by its constant meddling has left the region worse off. The largest and most long-suffering group of refugees in the world, the Palestinians ethnically cleansed from their homes, has suffered three generations of exile and incarceration. The toxicity of all this has spread beyond the Middle East, arriving in New York in 2001. Now Hillary Clinton offers nothing but more of the same. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

My daily fix -- The Globe and Mail

I confess, I'm addicted. Not to anything that has me sweating and trembling if I don't get my daily fix, but addicted, nonetheless. I simply have to have my daily paper.

My current drug of choice is The Globe and Mail. I use the word "choice" loosely because I really don't have much of a choice at all. Living in Calgary, I am offered four dailies: two local, two national ... all conservative. This is the "choice" the vaunted free market offers me. It is rather like Henry Ford's famous offer on his Model Ts: any colour you choose as long as it's black. I am offered any philosophy of daily paper I like as long as it's conservative. So, as my politics float somewhere in the liberal-left range of the philosophical spectrum, I am reduced to buying the least conservative of the four, the moderately conservative Globe and Mail.

The Globe's regrettable militarism does not make my choice easier. Their support for Israel's most recent aggression is nearly as unequivocal as our federal government's. In an editorial of December 30th, while wondering if the Israeli slaughter of hundreds of Palestinians and wounding of thousands more wasn't enough, they went on to heap the entire blame on Hamas. Despite claiming to oppose capital punishment, they fail to quibble with the collective capital punishment of the Palestinians. They would oppose the execution of Robert Pickton, a man who killed more people than Gaza's Qassam rockets, but have no objection to Israel's assassination of Hamas leader Nizar Rayan along with his four wives and six of his children.

A December 13th editorial supported extending our adventure in Afghanistan beyond 2011, partly for "practical considerations." The editorial explains, "As Canada attempts to navigate its way through economic crisis … the federal government must consider its relations with Barack Obama’s incoming administration.” In other words, we should prepare to kill people in order to cultivate our relationship with the United States. The amorality of this sort of National Post quid pro quo is astonishing.

I am reluctant to support an organization that wallows in this sort of warmongering, but I do need that fix. I roam the web -- the CBC, the Guardian, Al Jazeera, The New York Times -- but it just isn't the same as kicking back with a coffee and reading the daily paper. It has been part of my routine for far too long, longer than I can remember. And sometimes the Globe gets it right. I agree with their editorial views on issues such as gay marriage and Omar Khadr, and there's delicious reading in Rick Salutin's columns, Tabatha Southey's humour pieces and John Allemang's poetry. Along with a daily dose of the news, there's some good stuff in there. And I have reasonably good luck at having my letters to the editor published. As an inveterate scribbler, I find this quite satisfying. My ego approves.

But oh, it would be nice to have a left-wing, or even liberal, daily to choose from in this benighted city. That won't happen of course. Newspapers have fallen on hard times. The possibility of a new local or daily paper is slim to none, and in any case no one on the left has the money to start one. So, I'll soldier on with the Globe, the lesser of four evils.

Canada condones war crimes

The Isreali assault on Gaza is unequivocally a criminal act. To cite only one item of international law Israel has violated, I offer Article 33 of Convention IV of the Geneva Conventions relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War:

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Israel's massive collective punishment of the Gazan people clearly violates this article. Staunchly defending Israel's behaviour, as our government is doing, just as clearly puts this country in the position of condoning, indeed supporting, war crimes.

We might also keep in mind that the root cause of the crisis, Israel's refusal to allow the one million Palestinian refugees in Gaza to go home, is also in violation of international law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in Article 13(2), "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." Israel illegally denies the largest and most long-suffering refugee population in the world this basic right.

I am a law-abiding citizen of my country, and I expect my country to be a a law-abiding citizen of the international community. I am less than happy, therefore, when my government supports criminal behaviour.

The rocket attacks by Palestinians are also criminal, of course, but our government isn't condoning them. On the contrary, it has categorized Hamas as a terrorist organization as a result of such behaviour. While I wouldn't recommend condemning Israel as a terrorist state, even though it has committed far more egregious acts than firing Qassam rockets, we should certainly be calling it to account for its crimes. If we don't, we can hardly call ourselves a nation of law. At the moment, it seems, we are not.

Why we support Israel

The tolerance of Western politicians and media for Israel's crimes in Gaza is remarkable. The inmates of Gaza include almost a million UN-registered refugees -- victims of Israeli ethnic cleansing. Their response to this incarceration -- firing off ineffectual rockets -- well illustrates the hopeless state they have been reduced to. Nonetheless, they are cruelly punished for their sorry protest as Israel launches a reign of terror, complete with reckless assassination and mass murder. The West reacts with at most cushioned criticism or even support for the brutality. North Americans in particular seem to place Israel above serious censure regardless of what it does. There are commanding reasons behind this bias:

The most common justification for unequivocal support of Israel is its status as the only democracy in the Middle East. Certainly this creates both a powerful tie to its fellow democracies as well as a powerful responsibility to defend that democracy. The tie isn't only democracy of course. Israel's Jews are essentially a European people with a long European history and a European sensibility. They have in fact contributed disproportionately to European culture -- in the arts, sciences, business and politics -- and remain a major part of it. This common experience quite naturally creates a bond with their fellow Europeans as opposed to the more alien Arab/Muslim culture of their neighbours.

A second reason is the massive burden of guilt that Europeans feel for centuries of mistreatment of the Jews culminating in the ultimate atrocity, the Holocaust. It is the Palestinians bad luck they have to bear the brunt of this guilt.

North Americans were not responsible for the Holocaust, so it is somewhat puzzling they should feel guilty about it, but anti-Semitism has invaded our shores, too, and like any infection creates a reaction. In any case, North Americans have another bond with Israel. We, too, stole our countries from the native inhabitants. As fellow colonizers, we feel an empathy with the Israelis as they build their settlements among hostile natives. Winston Churchill, a strong supporter of a Jewish state in Palestine, once declared that like the "Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia," the Palestinians would be replaced by "a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race."

And then there is the power of the Israeli lobby in North America. Dominated by hard line organizations such as the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and fundamentalist Christian groups, this highly influential American lobby consistently supports an expansionist Israel. Here in Canada, one intensely pro-Israel family controls almost half the private mass media. Courageous would be the politician or political party that would brave the wrath of the Asper family's media empire. On top of all this is Israel's own highly-sophisticated propaganda machine.

The result of the above is an overwhelming bias unrelentingly in favour of Israel. Western, particularly North American, politicians are so terrified, so abjectly terrified, of being accused of anti-Semitism, one almost wonders if they are capable of contributing to peace in the Middle East.

So as Israeli soldiers march into the ghettos of Gaza to have their way with the Palestinians, the Western world either tut-tuts a modest disapproval or clucks consent. The victims of Israel's ethnic cleansing and its apartheid mentality now endure collective punishment. In the Old Testament, Moses (or was it Charlton Heston) said unto Pharaoh, "Let my people go" and, after Egypt suffered ten plagues, Pharaoh did indeed let them go. The Palestinians could use a Moses with his ten plagues (or at least better rockets). Or a fair hearing from the West.

NAFTA fails Mexico

While Canadians continue to debate what the North American Free Trade Agreement has done for us -- or to us -- we pay rather little attention to how it's affecting our two partners. A recent article in the Guardian discusses how it has affected Mexico and the verdict is not good. I strongly recommend reading the article; however, a few points are worth emphasizing here:

• While exports to the U.S. increased sevenfold, much of it in manufacturing, and foreign investment increased fourfold, the Mexican economy grew more slowly than before NAFTA. It also grew much more slowly than the economies of other developing countries such as China, India and Brazil. These countries follow policies that would be illegal under NAFTA.
• Mexico gained about 600,000 manufacturing jobs after NAFTA took effect, but lost at least two million agricultural jobs, as cheap imports of heavily subsidized products such as corn flooded the now liberalized market from the U.S. This at a time when the country's baby boom has about one million young people entering the work force each year. Not surprisingly, twice as many Mexicans are crossing the border into the U.S. each year as before NAFTA.
• The wage gap with the U.S. has increased, and about half the population can't find formal employment. Poverty rates and inequality are down slightly, but in part at least because of increased remittances from the additional Mexicans who migrated north.

In summary, those who benefit from increased trade and investment have prospered; the people at large have not. This isn't surprising. NAFTA was always about trickle down: make life better for investors and some of the benefits will trickle down to the toiling masses. Well, there's been damn little trickling in Mexico.

Terror in Gaza: comment by cartoonist Mazen Kerbaj

Is consumerism always the answer?

The consensus of economists, business leaders and politicians seems to be that the solution to the current economic mess is for everyone to just go shopping. The same advice that George Bush offered to Americans after 9/11. More consumption, one might conclude, is the answer to every crisis from terrorism to economic collapse. And maybe, in the short term, it is. In the long term, I wonder.

Unless people see an increase in their incomes, buying more means running up more debt and excessive debt caused the financial meltdown in the first place. It is hard to see a long term answer here.

Then there's the overarching environmental threat. Are we not depleting the Earth's resources fast enough? Are we not polluting it sufficiently? Buying ever more stuff is a race to ecological catastrophe.

And consider those wise folk who handled their money responsibly and saved rather than going into debt. Central bankers are encouraging borrowing by lowering interest rates, thus punishing those cautious individuals who invested in instruments like GICs.

There is something fundamentally wrong here. For long term stability in the economy, we need better advice than shop until we drop. Advice, for example, like that contained in the posting by Mike Whitney "Wages, it all gets down to wages" on Another Point of View which suggests we need to create demand "predicated on wage increases instead of asset inflation." It is unlikely, however, the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance will hear this kind of advice from their new Advisory Council. Having surrounded itself with a firewall of capitalists, the government has no ear for voices sympathetic to labour.

Nor, I suspect, will they or their council be interested in the possibility that the answer lies not in consuming more, but in consuming less and ensuring a more equitable distribution of that consumption. Yet this may very well be what the environment demands if the economy is to prosper or, indeed, to survive. To borrow Mies van der Rohe's architectural aphorism, sometimes less is more.

Flaherty's partisan panel

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's newly-appointed Economic Advisory Council looks at first glance like, as Chairwoman Carole Taylor puts it, an attempt to "reach out." A second look reveals that it doesn't reach very far. True, Taylor is a distinguished Liberal and Power Corp. chairman Paul Desmarais Jr. has Liberal connections, but sectorally the Council hardly reaches past the business community. The only non-business members are Taylor and right-wing academic Jack Mintz from the University of Calgary. After that, it's all corporate chairmen, presidents and CEOs.

We would, of course, expect majority business representation on a panel set up by a Conservative party, but no labour representatives? Not even a labour economist? Only one academic economist? And, strangely, at a time of financial chaos, not even one banker. The absence of labour representation is particularly egregious. The Canadian Labour Congress, the largest democratic organization in the country, represents over three million workers. Its presence should be a given.

Considering the current economic crisis was precipitated by interests that place excessive faith in free markets, heavily weighting a panel with those interests would seem less than wise. Free market thinking got us into this mess; we need a much broader range of ideas to get us out of it. This council clearly doesn't provide that range.

Jean Charest's exemplary cabinet

Once again, Jean Charest has set the standard. Acting on the precedent he set in his last cabinet, half of the 26-member cabinet forming his new government will be women. "A year and a half ago I created a precedent," said Mr. Charest. "Today I hope to have created a tradition.”

He has not only created a gender-equal cabinet, he has given the woman members powerful portfolios. Monique Jérôme-Forget will continue as finance minister, with responsibility for Quebec's major infrastructure program, and Nathalie Normandeau will remain as municipal affairs minister and deputy premier. As President of the Treasury Board, former international affairs minister Monique Gagnon-Tremblay will face the challenge of controlling spending as revenues decline. Rookie Kathleen Weil becomes Minister of Justice.

The shortage of women in our legislatures and cabinets manifests a fundamental problem in our political system, a fundamental injustice, an injustice that denies women equal opportunity and denies all of us the fullness of the intelligence and wisdom available to our governance. Mr. Charest has acted strongly to deal with this injustice. It's time for other political leaders to step up and follow his example. We will all be the beneficiaries.

Atheism on the bus

As an atheist I've never felt much inclination to proselytize. It has simply never mattered much to me what people's spiritual beliefs are. How they behave, how they treat other people, has always seemed rather more important. In fact, I've always thought that there really shouldn't be an ism in atheism. Ism seems to suggest a practice, a set of beliefs, a dogma, a guiding book like the Bible or The Communist Manifesto, but atheism just means one simple, little fact -- you don't believe in a god. Period. Nothing to make a fuss about.

Recently, however, some atheists have been making quite a fuss. Prominent thinkers such as Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have written books that trashed God and religion generally while becoming bestsellers. Although I've sometimes wondered if it's really worth the effort, I have to admit religion continues, as it always has, to cause great mischief in the world. Hitchens et al. have a valid point to make.

We were reminded of that point during the recent American presidential election when oppressive Christianity saturated the proceedings like a fog. Not only did the candidates have to constantly trot out their Christian credentials but Obama had to defend himself against accusations -- yes, accusations! -- of being a Muslim. A black man can now run for president, but an atheist ... forget it. (Does this make atheism the new black?)

So I was delighted by an advertising campaign underway in Washington DC conducted by the American Humanist Society. Inspired by a similar project in Great Britain, they are putting up posters in city buses carrying the slogan "Why believe in a God? Just be good for goodness' sake." My sentiments exactly. The campaign has a lighthearted flavour about it that I like. Stating your message with creativity and wit without bashing the other guys is an approach I appreciate. So keep on truckin', American Humanist Society, and a merry Xmas to you.

What's behind the coalition shock?

Judging by the tortuous arguments being raised against the NDP/Liberal agreement, many Canadians seem to be suffering from coalition shock. This is to some degree understandable in that we don’t do coalitions very often. In most democracies, they are commonplace. Israel, a thriving democracy, has never had a government that wasn't a coalition.

But then most democracies wouldn’t entertain the idea of a political party that only had the support of 38 per cent of the electorate forming a government. Canadians do, even thought it is clearly undemocratic, largely because of our corrupt "first-past-the-post" voting system. This system routinely produces false majorities -- a majority of the seats in the legislature with only a minority support of the electorate. Elections are a democratic instrument, but in Canada they produce undemocratic results. Most democracies insist that elections reflect the will of the people, and they achieve this with proportional voting systems and coalitions. First-past-the-post has so inured us to unfair representation that we tend to be taken aback when we encounter an instrument, e.g. a coalition, that contributes to fair representation.

The arrangement crafted by the Liberals and the NDP more closely resembles the people’s will as expressed on October 14th and would therefore, with the support of the Bloc on confidence votes, form a fairer, more democratic government. It would, of course, be thoroughly constitutional.

Ideally, we might ultimately institute a proportional system of electing our representatives. We would then become accustomed to fair representation and would no longer be shocked by commonplace methods of achieving it.

Who's afraid of the big bad Bloc?

One thing that has particularly upset Canadians most about the Liberal/NDP coalition, is the arrangement with the Bloc Quebecois. This is due in large part to people seeing the agreement as much more innovative than it is. It doesn't bring the Bloc into government, it simply says they will support the coalition on confidence votes, nothing more. In effect, the Bloc will do for the coalition in this Parliament what it did for the Conservatives in the last Parliament. In the last Parliament, it supported the Conservative government on a number of bills including two budgets, i.e. confidence votes. In other words, for the Bloc it's business as usual but with a new partner. The Conservatives had no problems with Bloc support then, but now ... well, they're separatists, you know.

So much for Conservative hypocrisy. But should progressives fear the Bloc?

The Bloc exists to promote the interests of Quebec as they see them, but then so do Liberal or Conservative MPs from Quebec, just as MPs from Alberta promote the interests of Albertans. That's what they're elected for, and that's what they get paid for. Bloc MPs also support the separation of Quebec, but that is largely irrelevant to the business of the House of Commons. House business generally concerns itself with environmental policy, Medicare, the economy and a host of other issues that have little or nothing to do with separation.

And on most of those issues, the Bloc's position falls somewhere in the liberal-left range of the political spectrum, essentially where most Liberal and NDP positions fall. There is a happy confluence of views. It means the Bloc should find it relatively easy to support coalition legislation, and it means the coalition should have to make little effort to gain that support. On issues such as the arts and youth crime, which hurt the Conservatives badly in Quebec in the October election, the coalition should encounter no problems. This is quite different from the last Parliament when the Bloc kept the Conservatives in power. I wouldn't dream of suggesting the Conservatives made back-room deals, but there could be no doubt they had to make more effort to get the Bloc on side.

Finally, a word about the separation thing. The Bloc position is, after all, perfectly legitimate. They want a separate country and they sincerely believe we would all be better off as two countries rather than one. I strongly disagree but, who knows, they could be right. In any case, this isn't some kind of betrayal of Canada. Splitting a country is fraught with danger, but some have done it with both sides agreeing they are better off. The former Czechoslovakia comes to mind. And Quebec separatists aren't threatening violence, just a democratic referendum and civilized negotiation.

There is little for progressives to fear from the Bloc Quebecois as supporters of the coalition on confidence votes. The Conservatives got their support in the last Parliament, and if there's no coalition, they may very well be seeking it in this one. Nothing new here.

Mme. Jean's difficult, but correct, choice

So ... did our Governor General do the right thing?

The optics, as they say, are not good. To begin with, a democrat might cringe at the very idea of an unelected head of state shutting down our parliament. The Crown shuts the people out of their own house, you might say. We don't really have too much to complain about, however. We put her in the job, so we can hardly complain when she does it.

The real question is whether she should have prorogued Parliament to save the skin of one party, or rather, given the Conservative Party is a one-man show, to save the skin of one party leader. That is unsettling indeed. We can only hope that, as the constitutional experts seem to suggest, it isn't a precedent.

Nonetheless, there are some strong arguments in favour of the lady's decision:

First, it will allow things to cool down a little. Tempers are flaring across the county (not a bad thing in itself -- I haven't seen Canadians so passionate about things political for years) and looking at the whole affair from a bit more distance might clarify our vision. Of course, the increasing numbers of unemployed might not be so keen to have economic decisions put on hold for two months.

Second, it will test the coalition. If the coalition is solid, it will comfortably endure two months of waiting. If it isn't, better we find out before it forms a government. It has lots to do: firming itself up, gaining the support of Canadians, preparing a sound economic policy for the global recession, and (dare I suggest) finding a competent leader. It can spend this time productively ... or fall apart.

Third, Mme. Jean's decision guarantees her complete independence if the government falls to a vote of confidence in the new year. She will owe Harper nothing, having done him a very big favour this week. She will carry no baggage in offering the coalition its chance to govern.

I say all this with no sympathy for Mr. Harper. I believe he created this confrontation, I think he's bad for Canada and I would be delighted to see him replaced by a government that represented most Canadians. It would also be refreshing to see political parties working together for the good of the country. But allowing a thorough discussion of the whole issue is a good thing, too, particularly with the extensive misunderstandings about our political system that have revealed themselves to date.

This is very important stuff. It has to do with how we govern ourselves, and very little is more worthy of thorough deliberation than that.

Stephen Harper blew his chance at statesmanship

Stephen Harper had a chance to be a statesman. He indicated he would be. After the election, he told Canadians he would work with the opposition to deal with the economic crisis. He sounded like he truly wanted to be leader of all the people. Then he blew it. The first thing piece of legislation he brought in had nothing to do with the crisis and everything to do with undermining the opposition parties. The real Stephen Harper, the us and them, firewall-building Stephen Harper, couldn't resist an opportunity to shaft his enemies.

The master strategist must have thought he had them over a barrel. If they defeated his legislation, he would claim it was a vote of confidence and call an election. The Conservatives, being in by far the best financial position, would win their majority. If, on the other hand, the opposition supported the legislation, they would cut their own financial throats. They would have been at a huge disadvantage in the next election, which we can be sure would not have been too long in coming. It was a sleazy tactic, but it seemed win-win -- too good an opportunity to miss. What the master strategist didn't count on was the opposition calling his bluff.

The Conservatives are crying foul, of course, claiming the leader of the coalition, Stephane Dion, was not elected prime minister as their man Stephen was. But he wasn't. There is no prime ministerial election in this country. We elect representatives for our constituencies, and traditionally the prime minister is that party leader who can command the most representatives in the House. If that is the leader of the Conservatives, then Stephen Harper becomes prime minister; if that is the leader of a coalition, then the prime minister is ... well, whoever the coalition chooses.

I admit I was beginning to think a new Stephen Harper was emerging. Earlier in the year he talked about the Conservatives moving toward the centre if they hoped to become the natural governing party. The Globe and Mail supported him during the election, saying he was growing into the job, and I felt maybe they were on to something. Obviously I was as naive as the Globe. I have, however, been relieved of any disappointment by the possibility of a government that actually represents most Canadians. Who would have thought? But with the coalition, that's exactly what we would have. And we wouldn't have another election for at least 18 months. My cup runneth over.

Giddyup, Alberta!

Oh my. Here in the pollution province we have enough trouble convincing the "others" that we are a modern society with a modicum of sophistication and now we have our elected representatives supporting a measure that would brand us as a bunch of rubes. On Monday, Liberal leader Kevin Taft's motion to make rodeo the official provincial sport was passed by the legislature. "Rodeo is so much more than an athletic event or tourist attraction. Rodeo reminds us of our western heritage," exulted Mr. Taft. Debra Probert, executive director of the Vancouver Humane Society, is less rapturous and more analytical about rodeo: "They're exploiting the reaction of the animal to pain, fear and stress. They harass them, they kick them, they goad them ... they harass them into acting like wild animals." They are both right, of course. Rodeo does remind us of our western heritage, just not the more respectable parts.

What got into the Liberal leader is puzzling. He will soon be stepping down, so maybe this was his attempt at leaving a legacy. Considering the Liberals have been reduced to a rump in the legislature, he has precious little else to leave.

Although both Conservative and Liberal legislators voted for the motion, the more sensible comments came from the Conservatives. Jonathan Denis, PC MLA for Calgary-Egmont, suggested, "If we are to adopt an official sport, we should at least adopt a sport that most Albertans participate in." Meanwhile, Edmonton MLA Thomas Lukaszuk wondered if there weren't more important issues to be spending their time on. One could certainly think of a few. Culture Minister Lindsay Blackett opined that a province doesn't need a provincial sport. Mr. Blackett might have added that imposing a rural "sport" on an overwhelmingly urban population doesn't even make sense.

Fortunately, the motion isn't binding on the government, so hopefully they'll ignore it. If not, they will in the not too distant future be proclaiming that Albertans preferred outdoor activity is tormenting animals. Please don't do it, Premier Stelmach. Ducks dying in our tailings ponds was more than enough. Flaunting animal misery would put us beyond the pale.

The human rights museum, the portrait gallery, and the Asper influence

One can be nothing less than overwhelmed at the federal government's extraordinary generosity toward the human rights museum proposed for Winnipeg. Ottawa is prepared to lavish $100-million on constructing the thing and $22-million a year thereafter to operate it. In addition, the Province of Manitoba will put up $40-million and the City of Winnipeg $20-million in the form of cash and in-kind donations. The proposed museum is depicted in all its gauzy glory in the adjacent photo.

Emphasizing the generosity of the federal government is its recent cancellation of plans for a national portrait gallery ostensibly to save money, even though the gallery would have cost a fraction as much as the human rights museum and a building was already available in Ottawa. And, unlike the museum, the portrait gallery would have focused on Canadiana -- a more appropriate spending of our tax dollars.

What, one wonders, is it about this proposed museum that so taps into the generosity of politicians? Is it their commitment to human rights? Do they just want to do something nice for Winnipeg? Possibly both of these things, but I suspect it has more to do with the fact it is a project of the Asper family who happen to own almost half the private mass media in the country. I suspect that as much as anything it reflects the power of media ownership.

Let's talk practical politics here. Could any party hope to assume power in Ottawa if it got on the wrong side of the owner of half the country's mass media? Not bloody likely. We saw Asper power in action when they bought out Conrad Black's Canadian media empire. The Aspers, it is well known, are ardent supporters of Israel and not hesitant in using their media to promote its interests. This affected Jean Chretien very little as he was a friend of Izzy Asper, but Paul Martin wasn't and when he became prime minister, the federal government hastily shifted gears on its Palestine policy, from a balanced approach to unequivocal support for Israel.

Justifying cancellation of plans for a national portrait gallery, Heritage Minister James Moore announced, "In this time of global economic instability, it is important that the federal government continue to manage its own affairs prudently and pragmatically." Who can doubt that it is anything less than "prudent and pragmatic" for the Conservative Party to curry favour with the Aspers.

McCarthyism redux -- Islam as America's new Communism

One of a number of disturbing phenomenon in the recent U.S. presidential election was the constant undertone of anti-Islamism. Obama was "accused" of being a Muslim and had to pointedly deny the charge. To his credit, he upheld Islam as a great world religion; nonetheless, the fact being Muslim was something he had to defend himself against is unsettling.

It echoes that dark period in the 1950s when a variety of demagogues, epitomized by Senator Joseph McCarthy, ran roughshod over American civil liberties, to say nothing of common decency, in the pursuit of a Communist threat that was more phantom than real. As a result of the witch hunting, many Americans -- particularly government employees, people in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists -- lost their jobs, saw their careers destroyed, and were even imprisoned.

The politics of fear is very much alive in the United States today and a new McCarthyism is feeding off it just as the old McCarthyism fed off fear in the 1950s. Fear is the enemy, not Communism then or Islam now. Communism never posed a serious threat inside America; it did however provide a convenient catchword for demagogues. And Islam poses no serious threat to the American way of life today, but it too has become a convenient catchword for demagogues. And the demagogues are legion, catalyzed by the Bush administration which has thrived on fear, and include as a major perpetrator Fox News network. Bush and his outlaws will soon be gone, but Fox will persist with its mischief. Some with good reason dismiss Fox pundits as a bunch of clowns, but McCarthy was a clown and still managed to ruin a lot of lives. Demagoguery is a formidable weapon.

If an Obama presidency calms the fear, offering confidence and hope in its place -- "Yes, we can," and so forth -- it will do the nation a great a favour.

Congratulations to Amal Soliman, world's first mazouna

In another step forward for women in this still far too masculine world, Amal Soliman, a 32-year-old Egyptian, has become the Muslim world's first mazouna, or female marriage registrar. Soliman, who holds a Master's degree in Sharia law, broke into the formerly men-only club in September and conducted her first marriage ceremony on October 25th.

It wasn't easy. When she applied for the job, the clerk laughed and refused to accept her application. But she persisted. As a student of Sharia law, she knew the position was an administrative one and therefore religiously acceptable for women. She consulted both religious and lay authorities to gain support. Finally, Khaled el-Shalkamy, the head judge of the local family court, accepted her application over 10 other candidates, all men, as being the most qualified.

Her appointment still had to be authorized by the Egyptian minister of justice. The all-male Committee of Egyptian Mazouns challenged her application claiming the job would be inappropriate for a woman. Some journalists wrote that she was a threat to Islam and should even be punished for applying. Opponents claimed she couldn't perform marriages because of menstruation (women are not allowed to pray or enter a mosque during their monthly cycle), and that it was inappropriate for a woman to sit amongst men during the signing of marriage certificates.

But she fought back, seeking help from the National Council for Women. Al Akhbar, one of Egypt's leading newspapers, took up her cause, and the debate became national, then global. Soliman was grateful for the international attention and believes it catalyzed the process. Her appointment was finally confirmed. The United Arab Emirates recently followed Egypt's lead and appointed their first mazouna this month.

So ... a small but significant step for women in Islam. It will be a great day for Muslim women, and a much greater day for Islam, when women are accepted as imams and assume a full and equal role in the faith.

Ethnic cleansing in the graveyard

Israel's squeezing of Palestinians off their land now includes the dead. The Simon Wiesenthal Center has been given the OK by the Israeli Supreme Court to build a Jewish "Museum of Tolerance" in Jerusalem on part of a Muslim cemetery. Needless to say, local Muslims are not happy. The Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Mohammad Hussein, called the court's decision an "outrage" and "disrespectful of the dead," which would seem appropriate.

Rabbi Marvin Hier, representing the Simon Wiesenthal Center, referred to the land as "derelict," and said only that part of the cemetery that had already been turned into a car park would be dug up. The cemetery is not used for burials anymore; however, it is still considered sacred by Muslims and is visited by families of the dead. According to Mohammed al-Dejani, whose great-grandfather is buried in the graveyard, "Some of the warriors of Saladin are buried there and other great Muslim leaders from many years ago."

It doesn't help that the proposed museum is designed by prominent architect Frank Gehry. Typical of Gehry's work, it shows absolutely no respect for the architecture or history of the area, but imposes itself on the neighbourhood like an assortment of fancily-wrapped Christmas presents. The first challenge the Museum of Tolerance will pose for local Muslims will be tolerating the desecration of their dead, the second tolerating Frank Gehry's architecture.

Health care costs are outpacing GDP ... So?

The Canadian Institute for Health Information released its study on health care spending last week, predicting spending for 2008 of $172-billion, or 10.7 per cent of our GDP. This represents an increase of 3.4 per cent over last year after inflation and population growth are taken into account. The predictable panic ensued.

The Globe headline announced "Record costs threaten Canada's picture of health," and Brian Day, past-president of the Canadian Medical Association fretted about the sustainability of the system. A little arithmetic can easily put Mr. Day's sustainability worry to rest. GDP is so large, a small increase simply overwhelms a large increase in health care spending. Assume, for example, that health spending continues to rise at 3.4 per cent a year. Assume further that the GDP rises at only 1.6 per cent (the average over the past three years after inflation and population growth are accounted for). Run the numbers out for 20 years. If your math matches mine, you will find that annual GDP will increase from the current $1,607-billion to $2,207-billion and health spending will rise to $336-billion, or 15.2 per cent of GDP. Sounds disturbing, but it isn't. In 2008, we will have $1.435-billion (1,607 - 172) to spend on other things. Twenty years from now, we will have $1,871-billion (2,207 - 336) to spend on other things, i.e. 30 per cent more than this year. Spending on health can grow very fast for a long time yet leave lots more money for buying cars, homes and whatever.

Much of the increased spending on health care results from better medicine. For example, at one time cataract surgery was dangerous. It resulted in up to a week in the hospital and vision was minimally improved. Today, it's an hour-long outpatient procedure that restores the patient's sight almost entirely. Naturally, many more people are having it done. Spending, therefore, increases, but the cost of surgery has actually dropped significantly. We should be careful to distinguish between costs and spending when we talk about health care. Advances in technology in any area tend to reduce costs and, as a result, expand markets, therefore increasing spending. This is generally considered a very good thing.

Improvements in medicine have also contributed to longer and healthier lives for all of us. This, too, adds to spending, but surely it is also a very good thing.

And the health care industry has more to offer than a thriving population. It provides many hi-tech, well-paid, highly-satisfying jobs. And it is a clean, smoke stack-free industry. Its prosperity and growth should be a matter of applause, and we can be assured that if the automobile or construction or computer industries were enjoying similar growth, the financial pages of the Globe would be saturated with applause.

So, when growth outpaces GDP in this very desirable industry, why do we encounter these furrowed brows? Why the panic? The answer isn't economic, it's political. Because we spend most of our health dollar collectively, as a community, rather than individually, because Medicare is redistributive, it runs afoul of the individualistic, small-government philosophy that still pervades North America. And then of course there are the rich and virtually guaranteed pickings that are withheld from private enterprisers.

Of course we should pay strict attention to improving efficiencies in the system, as we should with any system, and undoubtedly there are significant efficiencies to be gained. Our dollars must be treated with respect. That being said, so what if we spend 10.7 per cent of our GDP on our health care, or 12 per cent, or 15? What better way to spend our national wealth than on longer, healthier, more vigorous lives?

Religious extremists -- theirs and ours

"Terrorist" has become, in the minds of many, a synonym for an Islamic extremist. As a result, we tend to overlook the extremists of other religions, even though they certainly have their share.

The history of Christianity is replete with extremists. John Calvin and his zealots' reign of religious terror in the theocracy they established in 16th century Geneva would have made the Taliban sit up and take notice. Fortunately, the West has largely dampened the ability of Christianity to intimidate populations in the way Calvin did, for the most part by diminishing the importance of religion generally. But Christian zealots still abound, particularly in the most powerful nation on Earth.

Unlike Islamic extremists, they have much greater access to real power. Bin Laden and his colleagues have nothing to compare to being able to call up the president of the United States and have a chat, as Christian zealots in the U.S. have been able to do for the past eight years. These believers in Armageddon may be in no small part responsible for Bush's cavalier attitude toward global warming, the greatest threat facing all of us.

Such attitudes filtering into the mind of the most powerful man on Earth is a lot more frightening than a pack of bearded fanatics plotting in caves in the wilds of Pakistan. And then there's the man himself. President Bush insisted that God advised him to invade Iraq. Meeting with a group of Palestinians he told them, "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …' And I did." He did indeed, and the result is over a million dead, four million refugees and a country destroyed. The Christian God has guided Bush to inflict a great deal more pain than the Muslim God has impressed upon Osama bin Laden.

Christian zealots in the U.S. also form a major component of the Israel lobby which seriously deters the Americans from a balanced approach to Palestine. The resulting bias in favour of Israel is a major factor in precluding a peaceful settlement. As a result, that toxic situation continues to fester and contribute to mischief throughout the Middle East and beyond.

And on the subject of Israel, let's not overlook Jewish extremists. With their fanatic belief that God gave all of Palestine to the Jews, they too are a major roadblock to peace. One of them assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, thus derailing the Oslo peace process. Now, some observers believe they may be behind increased violence on the West Bank aimed at scuttling any efforts to limit continued Jewish colonization. According to Israeli human-rights lawyer Michael Sfard, "A new phase of settler violence, or Jewish terror, is about to start."

Ah, religion. Such a comfort.

Why did we fight?

As poppy day is once more upon us, I found myself pondering the question of why Canadians died in the two great wars of the 20th century. What were they about anyway?

There is a memorial in Calgary that would answer that question. In a grove of poplars along Memorial Drive a sign explains that the trees were planted to honour the men who died in WWI. It announces, "They died for your freedom." The truth of course is the war to end all wars wasn't about anyone's freedom. It was little more than an exercise in bloody-minded hubris by a collection of decaying empires. No great cause. Just pointless slaughter.

World War Two was also about empire. About those who had one against those who didn't but wanted one. Post-WWI, the British and French shared large parts of Asia, Africa and the Middle East. The Dutch had Indonesia, the Americans the Philippines, and so on. If you were a major power, you had an empire. It was de rigueur. Two major powers, however, Japan and Germany, did not. Naturally, they aspired to the status of their contemporaries.

There were, however, rules about empire. One, was that only white people could have one. Two, was that they could only rule over non-whites. In their quest for empire, the Japanese violated the first rule and the Germans the second.

Japan no doubt felt particularly hard done by. All those European powers occupying colonies in Japan's backyard, on its turf so to speak, while the Japanese were confined to their islands. Not surprisingly they found this offensive. They decided to correct this perceived injustice and create a Japanese empire in Asia. The Europeans could not, however, abide this ambition as it threatened both rule number one and their own empires. And they had the leverage. They had access to ample natural resources -- particularly oil, the life blood of the industrial state -- and Japan didn't. Japan's need to conquer a vast range of territory to guarantee itself access to oil and other resources resulted in an overreach which ultimately undid its dream.

The Germans, too, dreamed of empire. Hitler both envied and admired the British version, and mused at times about a kind of partnership, the British dominating Asia and Africa, and Germany ruling over Europe east to the Urals. In 1941, he referred expectantly to Russia as "our India." The Russians demurred, and with some help from their allies they buried Hitler's ambition in the rubble of Germany.

So what was Canada doing in these wars of empire? Not fighting for our freedom certainly. Nor anyone else's in WWI. We joined that war because of our association with the British Empire -- "ready, aye, ready" and all that. Not much of an excuse for wasting 65,000 Canadian lives. Some suggest it was our coming of age. How sad if we came of age by engaging in arguably the stupidest event humanity ever inflicted on itself. If we had courageously and sensibly refused to participate, now that would have been a meaningful statement of independence. The young men who volunteered probably did so out of misguided senses of nationalism and adventure, tragic victims of a lack of wise counsel from their elders.

Our involvement in WWII came in two parts. The war in Asia was purely a war about empire, the Japanese attempting to replace European power with their own. By defending British colonization over Japanese we fought for race, not freedom.

We did defend freedom in the European Theatre, however. We were OK with Europeans subjugating Asians and Africans, but we would not accept white people, certainly not our fellow Anglos, being subjects of an imperial master. Here, at least, we were on the side of the angels. Here, our sacrifice had a measure of justification.

All hail Obama ... and wish him lots of luck

The election of Barack Obama as president of the United States is a huge breath of fresh air after the stifling atmosphere of the Bush administration. Obama brings great promise to his country, for both its domestic and foreign policies, and therefore I suppose for the rest of the world as well. None can escape the power and influence of the empire.

We should not set our hopes too high, however. Obama will have to deal with appalling messes at home and abroad left by the infamous Bush. Once the financial mess is cleaned up, he should not have too great a difficulty improving things at home, starting with a decent medical care system for Americans and possibly even new and desperately needed fairness in broadcasting legislation. It is enormously encouraging that the three challenges facing his nation he identified in his victory speech included "a planet in peril," the greatest challenge facing all of us.

Other than the environment, it is in the realm of foreign policy that the rest of us will be most concerned. He has indicated a greater inclination to work with America's friends and negotiate with its enemies, so there is room for optimism. On the other hand, while he is in haste to get out of Iraq, he has indicated unequivocal support for Israel in Palestine, has promised to more ardently pursue the war in Afghanistan, and has threatened to raid Pakistan as he sees fit. He seems to see himself as commander-in-chief of the American Empire no less than his predecessors. And then, of course, the military-industrial-congressional complex is now nearly beyond challenge, almost making war inevitable.

So, a better America internally, fairer and more compassionate, but abroad .... well, we shall see.

Brown brings his begging bowl to the sheiks

How the mighty have fallen. Only a very short time ago, the U.S. and the U.K. were extolling the virtues of their deregulated financial markets and encouraging the rest of us to join the party. Now, as a host of countries face bankruptcy from financial collapse caused by that deregulation, the U.S. and the U.K., as they too plunge into debt, look to dictatorships such as China and Saudi Arabia to bail out the victims.

Over the weekend, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown went cap in hand to the Middle East begging "billions of dollars" to prop up the lender of last resort, the International Monetary Fund. Already Iceland, Hungary, Belarus and Ukraine are seeking IMF loans in order to stave off financial collapse. Others are lining up.

"The world is changing," said John Curtis of the Centre for International Governance Innovation, "This reflects the slowly changing balance of financial power." When the West starts begging the sheiks for a bailout, "change" is putting it mildly.

Discouraging democracy with attack ads

An Angus Reid survey before the October 14 federal election revealed that 11 per cent of Canadians had been dissuaded from voting as a result of the Conservative TV ads targeting Stephane Dion. Not from voting Liberal, but from voting at all. Comments on the ads included words such as "disgust," "lies," "unethical" and "unCanadian." Long-term pollster Andrew Grenville insists the attack ads were instrumental in producing the lowest voting turnout in history, saying they are "poisoning the well" of the Canadian political system.

If the 11 per cent had voted, the turnout would have been 69 per cent rather than 58 per cent, very close to the 72 per cent of the 1993 election when vicious attack ads made their debut into Canadian politics.

So will political parties take the high road in support of greater democratic participation and stop using attack ads? Not a chance. Why? Because they work. The survey indicated that 10 per cent of Liberal voters switched to Conservative as a result of the ads. Political parties are in the game to win. They are concerned about power, not democracy. Encouraging more people to vote at the possible cost of losing an election is not on the table.

The only way the standard of campaigning could be raised is if all parties agreed to drop the attack ads. That way the playing field would remain level. The parties wouldn't lose and democracy would win. And the chances of that? As one of the Angus Reid pollsters said, regarding the coming Liberal leadership convention, "[The Conservatives] are probably preparing their attack ads right now."

Harper improves approach ... but is it enough?

The new federal cabinet shows considerable improvement over the last. The number of women has increased from 23 per cent to 29 per cent. This should, one would hope, contribute to more humane governance. It still isn't close to the 50 per cent women deserve but it is, at least, a significant improvement. Women remain heavily disadvantaged in a macho political system designed by men for men, but that isn't Harper's fault.

It's always good to see an Aboriginal face at the highest levels of government, so appointing Nunavut's Leona Aqlukkaq as Minister of Health is a welcome move. An important portfolio at that and one she has experience in.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of the portfolio Minister of State for Democratic Reform. God knows we desperately need some democratic reform, starting with our electoral system. However, if the ministry is just a tool to implement an elected Senate, it will be largely a waste. Not that an elected Senate wouldn't be better than an unelected one, but reforming a redundant institution is hardly a priority. Must keep our fingers crossed here.

Appointing Jim Prentice Minister of the Environment indicates Harper is taking climate change a little more seriously. Not only was Prentice a star in the last cabinet, he's also a Calgarian. As such, he can tangle with the oil company chiefs without being considered an outsider, and that's of no small importance for an environment minister.

So the new government is not without its promise. However the big worry remains, and that of course is the environment. Global warming looms over us like the sword of Damocles, yet both Harper and Prentice still talk about "balancing" the environment and the economy, weasel talk that likely means they won't do what is necessary to adequately reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is no room for balance here. The only sensible approach is to ensure a healthy environment and then design the economy to fit into it.

But perhaps I'm too skeptical. Perhaps that is what the Prime Minister does mean by balance. If so, then the new cabinet may be a success. If Harper is willing to slacken his iron grip and unleash his ministers to do their jobs, and if he is willing to work constructively with the opposition, this minority government could do some good work.