Here's an idea: tax marijuana

California is in deep financial trouble. Like many states across the U.S., its coffers are almost empty. State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano has a solution. He has introduced legislation in the California legislature that would legalize and tax marijuana. He would have growers and wholesalers charged a $5,000 franchise fee with a $2,500 annual renewal fee, and would levy a $50 per ounce fee on retailers. He estimates this would contribute $13-billion a year to the government's revenue. "It is simply nonsensical that California's largest agricultural industry is completely unregulated and untaxed," said Marijuana Policy Project California policy director Aaron Smith. The bill probably won't pass, even if it gets out of the committee stage, but what an idea. And proponents haven't even included the huge costs to the justice system that will be saved by legalizing the drug.

Canadians should take note. Marijuana is B.C.'s biggest cash crop, making up over five per cent of the province's GDP and employing around 100,000 workers in full or part-time cultivation, distribution, smuggling, and retailing -- almost double the employment in logging, mining and oil and gas combined. Estimates suggest that in Nelson as many as 30 per cent of households are involved in grow ops. I doubt many of these citizens are reporting their pot revenue on their income tax.

Here's an opportunity for Canadian governments to jack up their revenues in these deficit days. Think of what B.C. could do with franchise fees, retail licenses, and income and business taxes on an industry that makes up over five per cent of its GDP, while at the same time relieving itself of the major legal expenses of prosecuting marijuana crime. These are times for innovative thinking on the economic front. So come on Canadian legislators, Assemblyman Ammiano has offered you an idea. Go for it.

Reining in the rogues: Europe calls for global financial reform

Let's face it. The world's financial system is a mess. Unencumbered by appropriate regulation it has run amok for years. It has finally crashed and taken the economy down with it. Europe's leading nations are now serious about fixing it.

A few hundred international currency traders, including big banks, mutual fund managers and other investment dealers, shift trillions of dollars around the world every day enabled by the modern miracle of telecommunications. Their influence is impressive. In 1992, one trader, George Soros, almost single-handedly drove down the British pound, forcing it out of the European Monetary System. The British public’s respect for their government went down with it. The power of money traders is on a par with nations. Soros himself has said, “The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat.” He predicted a global system dominated by finance would disintegrate. He was right.

These transient trillions are primarily speculative. Only a small portion of foreign-exchange transactions go into world trade. We have become captive to the vagaries of the world’s largest lottery. Quite aside from its inherent arbitrariness and instability, it is tailor-made for gangsters, money launderers, terrorists and tax evaders.

Other observers than George Soros have recognized the need for action. James Tobin, a Nobel Prize-winning American economist, has suggested a one per cent tax on all foreign currency exchange transactions. When Paul Martin was Finance Minister, he pushed finance ministers in other countries to give the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank greater supervisory powers over international financial markets. He observed, “I’ve felt we had to go much further in terms of supervision and international regulation and that has been borne out by the Asian crisis.” Germany has for years attempted to tighten controls on hedge funds but has been stymied by Great Britain and the United States.

It is now clearly time governments reined in the rogues of finance. Government’s right, if not obligation, to regulate markets has been recognized even by free-marketers back to Adam Smith. If we can extend this right to negotiate a world-wide General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, we can negotiate supranational regulations for financial markets. This, the Europe Union's most influential nations plan to do. Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Luxembourg have issued a joint statement that they will push for international standards requiring banks to hold larger reserves, requiring market participants to exercise greater transparency, and allowing international authorities to clamp down on tax havens.

The Americans, whose inclusion is essential to such a plan, may resist. They are ambivalent about international financial regulations. They would like to track the financial arrangements of terrorists, gangsters and tax evaders, but on the other hand they are reluctant to interfere with their own investors and havens for shady operators -- Dubai, for example -- are helpful to the U.S. for other reasons. Needless to say our government, still largely driven by its neocon ideology, will support the Americans in any opposition. But the U.S. has a new man at the helm, a man of progressive persuasions, and the crisis is dire indeed, so perhaps good sense will prevail and global finances will finally be subjected to transparency and responsibility.

Will we ever see environmental leadership in this country?

"[The oil sands] massively increases Canada's geopolitical importance, above all, to the United States. ... This is a very important partnership and they should balance their legitimate environmental concerns with an understanding of just how important the oil sands are to the future of the American economy."

This is not Prime Minister Stephen Harper extolling Canada as a world energy power, it is Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff extolling the value of the Alberta tar sands. Ignatieff goes on to say, ""The stupidest thing you can do [is] to run against an industry that is providing employment for hundreds of thousands of Canadians." So there, Stephane Dion. It would appear Ignatieff has set aside follies such as a carbon tax and embraced the Conservative environmental policy, which can be summarized as "protect the tar sands at all costs." Ignatieff reinforced Liberal acceptance of the Conservatives' cavalier approach to global warming with his support for their budget which ignored a huge opportunity for a major green shift.

We can appreciate the politics of Ignatieff's position. He sees pandering to the energy industry as the political reality of rebuilding the Liberal party in the West. Unfortunately, in this instance political reality and environmental reality may simply be incompatible. Environmentally, the reality is global warming and the tar sands are a major contributor to global warming.

During Obama's visit, Harper made the odd comment, "The fact that we have a President and an administration that wants to see some kind of regulation on this is an encouragement." So it's all George Bush's fault that Canada doesn't have a meaningful policy on global warming? We Canadians are incapable of developing a policy ourselves? Not very convincing when you keep in mind that, despite Bush, the Americans have reduced greenhouse gases more than we have over the last eight years.

Harper is right about Obama, though. Expectations for Obama generally are probably running much too high; nonetheless, he has moved firmly in a green direction with his stimulus package. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act invests heavily in renewable energy, energy efficiency and green transportation. "We've never had a jobs program before in American history where the heart and soul of it was a commitment to clean energy," remarked former president Bill Clinton.

As for us, apparently we will continue to do next to nothing while the two governments explore ways to co-operate. And how optimistic can we be about that? Obama has said he wants to work closely with Canada to come up with a new strategy to reduce emissions. That may or may not be a good thing. If it means he will take Michael Ignatieff's advice and accept our tar sands friendly policy, either because of American lust for oil or because he wants to be nice to us, the new strategy may be full of holes. We must hope he will cleave to what appears to be a solid commitment to a greener future and drag us willy-nilly along. Sadly, when it comes to dealing with global warming, the great challenge of our age, we have little to offer.

Looking forward to CanWest bankruptcy

I hate to wish anyone bad luck, but I'll make an exception for media giant CanWest as it plunges into a debt crisis. CEO Leonard Asper is desperately seeking financial help as the family-run media empire inches toward bankruptcy. The good news is that even if he gets it, the financial benefactors may demand he step down as CEO and the family eliminate the dual-class share structure that allows them to control the company. That one family can control over a quarter of the daily newspaper circulation in the country, along with a host of other media outlets, is an insult to democracy. Indeed it isn't democracy, it is plutocracy, or oligarchy if you prefer. To a democrat, the Asper empire's financial problems are promising news. The icing on the cake would be to see the empire broken up into a number of smaller media companies with a variety of editorial positions.

The power of such a vast media network has corrupted political debate in this country. Middle Eastern coverage serves as an example. CanWest's unequivocal support of Israel combined with the extensive reach of its propaganda makes criticism of Israel a dangerous business for politicians aspiring to high office. The result is a highly one-sided debate.

I would not of course wish ill to any employees of the empire as it suffers through the crisis. I wish them all gainful employment in the reincarnation whatever that may be, although columnists with a broader range of philosophies would be welcomed.

CanWest may very well fall into the hands of yet another right-wing media baron, of course -- certainly no one on the left has the necessary cash to buy a daily newspaper, much less a chain -- but it's hard to imagine a more stifling media presence than the Aspers.

Crime: prevention or punishment?

With the recent spate of gang shootings in Vancouver, the hue and cry for tough measures is in full force. One is hard pressed not to join the chorus. When shooting people in broad daylight seems to be turning into a street sport, forceful action is called for. More police might be a good idea. The mayor of Vancouver, Gregor Robertson, has pointed out how understaffed his police force is compared to Toronto and particularly to Montreal.

The federal government focuses on stricter laws. Ottawa has already introduced mandatory minimum sentences for weapons offences. Public Safety Minister Perter Van Loan would now like to go further and introduce mandatory minimums for drug crimes, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the major contributor to drug violence is the illegality itself. Just how much tougher sentencing will help is moot. The United States incarcerates seven times as many people as we do, mostly because of drug offences, and Americans are hardly safer because of it. The only result is the world's largest prison bill.

Ultimately, the solution is prevention, dealing with the roots of criminal behaviour. Essential to that is understanding those roots. Here surprisingly, the federal government is reducing its efforts. One of Canada's top researchers in identifying why children develop serious behavioural disorders, McGill University's Michael Meany, has seen his federal funding dry up. Meany is recognized as a a world leader in investigating the interaction between genes and the environment. His research, investigating why some children survive impoverished, stressful childhoods unscathed while others develop serious problems, should ultimately be able to determine the conditions that lead to psychopathological behaviour, i.e. to crime. Meany has recently been asked to set up a similar program in Singapore, for which he will receive eight times the funding he received here, funding that has now been discontinued.

This kind of knowledge won't prevent gang shootings on the streets of Vancouver today. It will, however, assuming it's acted upon of course, provide solutions in the long term. But the long term begins today. Unfortunately our federal government seems reluctant to take the first step.

On commemorating folly

The battle about the battle is over. The plan to reenact the battle of the Plains of Abraham has been canceled, announced Andre Juneau, head of the National Battlefields Commission. While the idea quite naturally outraged many Quebecois, the organizer of the event, Horst Dresler, who has been involved in a series of reenactments of battles of the British conquest of North America, claims the motive of the organizers was innocent. "We're just celebrating history," he insisted, "We're not actually celebrating who won, who lost, whatever. It's to commemorate and honour the people who were there." Mr. Dresler, now a resident of Vermont, was born in Quebec and should have understood the sensitivities involved.

But there's a bigger question here. Why on earth was celebrating this battle considered seriously in the first place? Is war not the bottom of the barrel of human behaviour? And the British and the French killing each other over a continent that didn't belong to either of them certainly wasn't one of humanity's finer moments. Not that I'm suggesting we forget our history. On the contrary, it's important we remember the foolish things we do so we don't do them again. But how do we avoid repeating our stupidity if we commemorate war and honour the men who engage in it?

The planned restaging was apparently canceled because of a fear that demonstrations at the event might turn violent. A celebration of violence canceled because it might turn violent -- now there's irony.

If Mr. Dresler and his merry band of reenacters want to pursue their hobby privately, that's their business, but it should not involve public expense. The cancellation was most appropriate. On the other hand, if they want to conduct a memorial to the pointless deaths of foolish men and to the suffering of their innocent victims, that's a different matter.

Less globalization? More self-reliance? More Keynes?

John Maynard Keynes, commenting on internationalism, once said, “Ideas, knowledge, art, hospitality, travel — these are the things which should of their nature be international. But let goods be homespun whenever it is reasonably and conveniently possible; and, above all, let finance be primarily national.” Keynes was talking about the conservative value of self-reliance. Let us be open to the world, but let us take care of our own needs. Self-reliance now seems almost quaint in light of international currency trading, global corporations, the NAFTA and the WTO.

We are, however, paying a price for the globalization of goods and finance. Some gross irresponsibility takes place in the United States -- the lending of money to people who can't afford to pay it back -- and the world economy topples into free fall. If Keynes advice had been heeded, and finance kept national, a global collapse would have been unlikely.

More and more, it seems, we must call on Keynes to understand our economic problems and to seek out solutions. Countries around the world have abandoned reliance on unrestricted free markets and adopted Keynes advice for governments to spend their economies out of recession. Now perhaps we should also consider his advice to "let goods be homespun" and "let finance be national," at least as best we can in an increasingly connected world.

This must not mean throwing up walls between nations. We are all aware that when the U.S. passed the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in June, 1930, the world was plunged into an international tariff war that dramatically reduced trade, contributing to the Great Depression. The last thing we want to do is completely crash the current system, dysfunctional as it may be. The first order of business is to restore it to working order. Then we can begin to work toward a more humane, more sustainable system.

We might start by entrenching in our collective minds the lesson that unfettered capitalism is a recipe for economic disaster. Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board from 1987 to 2006, believed we could let a bunch of aggressive males run loose in the economy without binding them to strict rules and they would behave responsibly. The American government allowed him to guide their economy on that gravely flawed assumption. This sort of naivete we cannot afford to repeat.

Letting finance be primarily national, as Keynes suggested, is difficult in an electronic world, but we need at least to develop a system of international regulations that prevent currency speculation and irresponsible financial behaviour from wreaking havoc throughout the world. In short, we need to rethink the global financial infrastructure.

Letting goods be homespun involves a variety of issues. We should insist that homespun be at least able to compete fairly. This means building labour rights into trade agreements so that countries such as China can't profit from coerced labour. It means building environmental responsibility in as well to prevent nations using lax environmental laws to provide a trade advantage. Trade must be fair as well as free. Governments must be allowed to encourage local products and industry, including co-operatives. Trade agreements as we know them have been designed to advantage global corporations, particularly to provide them with cheap labour; trade agreements in the future should be designed to favour local and co-operative enterprise. And distributing the wealth fairly must be at least as important as creating it. The goal should be to create self-reliant communities within an open, tolerant and equitable global society. It means changing our emphasis.

We are social animals and we achieve things as societies, as communities. But we also want each member of the community to achieve a reasonable degree of self-reliance. This makes the community stronger because it has greater flexibility, greater resilience. A society that is too interdependent, too communal, is brittle. If one part breaks down, the whole community is threatened. This is what has happened with our global system. It has become too interdependent. One part, the American financial system, breaks down, and the entire global economy is in serious trouble. We have strayed too far from the optimum balance of interdependence and self-reliance.

Now is the opportune time to redress the balance. Strong, independent local communities are no more inimical to a healthy global society than strong, independent citizens are to a healthy local community. Independence and self-reliance won't weaken global society, they will strengthen it. They will create a more flexible, resilient, stable world, and we will all be better off.

Working less -- the overlooked solution

As the economy worsens and unemployment increases, it is time to take yet another look at an overlooked approach to work that will maintain high employment while improving quality of life. I refer to shorter work times.

Early in the 19th century, people worked on average about 3600 hours a year -- 70 or 80-hour work weeks. Since then, workers have struggled to reduce working hours to a level compatible with the increasing ability of machines to do our work for us, to 60 hours a week early in the 20th century and to 40 by the 1960s. Despite working less, we prospered more, by replacing manpower with machine power.

Since the 1960s, however, despite extraordinary technological innovation, the average work week has hardly changed at all. Indeed, we are working harder than ever. In 1960, 70 per cent of families consisted of two adults with one working full time outside the home, the other full time inside the home -- two people, two jobs. Today, in most two-parent families, even those with small children, both parents work outside the home. But the home work still has to be done, so the situation now is two people with three jobs, or in the case of single-parent families, one person with two jobs. And of course many people, particularly salaried people, work more than the standard 40 hours, often in fear of losing their jobs if they don’t.

Our challenge during the current crisis is to increase time for the overemployed and increase work for the underemployed to create a balance of meaningful work for all. In other words, share the work. We can do this in various ways. Longer holidays, reducing overtime, mandating a four-day work week, are all possibilities.

The French, Germans and Scandinavians already work far fewer hours per year than North Americans do, yet enjoy a comparable prosperity. And of course they have more time for family, recreation, politics – whatever – to live fuller lives.

As far back as 1930, W. K. Kellogg, a truly visionary capitalist, went to a thirty-hour week by shortening the work day in his plants from eight hours to six in order to save jobs. Kellogg was later able to say, “The efficiency and morale of our employees is so increased, the accident and insurance rates are so improved, and the unit cost of production is so lowered that we can afford to pay as much for six hours as we formerly paid for eight.” Kellogg’s idea would be overdue today even if we weren't in the middle of an economic meltdown.

Everything to date in both the American stimulus plan and our federal budget has been about spending more – much, much more. And that may be necessary to keep as many people as possible employed. But we need also to hear about working less – much less – to keep as many people as possible employed. In the long run, this will be the best basket to put our eggs in.

Will the Taliban return to Texas?

While cruising the Web, I stumbled across a BBC article from December, 1997, that nicely illustrated what a fast-moving world we live in. The article, entitled Taliban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline, began with, "A senior delegation from the Taliban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan."

The company was Unocal, headquartered in Sugarland, Texas. A competitor, the Argentinian firm Bridas, was claiming it was close to signing a deal with Afghanistan to build the pipeline; however, Unocal thought it was still in the running and in fact was already training staff. It had arranged with the University of Nebraska to train Afghan men in the skills required for pipeline construction and was planning to train women in administrative skills. Surprisingly, the misogynistic Taliban had not objected to the latter.

Unfortunately, as Robbie Burns said, "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley." And these schemes did indeed "gang agley." Civil war persisted in Afghanistan, then came 9/11 and the Taliban haven't been invited to Texas since.

But can they look forward to an invitation sometime in the future? Don't count it out. Events in Afghanistan suggest a real possibility that they could form part of a future government. And their theological soul mates the Saud clan of Saudi Arabia are welcome in Texas any time. At the Bush ranch, no less. The Taliban's religious thuggery is offensive to just about every Western value, but oil and gas trumps principle every time. It certainly does for the Sauds. So, yes it's possible. Unocal may yet get its pipeline.

Why are MPs treated like children?

Michael Ignatieff is being criticized because he "allowed" his Newfoundland MPs to vote against the federal budget. "Allowed." As a democrat, I cringe at the word. The elected representatives of the people of Newfoundland are "allowed" to represent the people who elected them, and this is subject to criticism? Is that not the precise purpose of them being in the House of Commons? To represent their constituents?

Ignatieff explains: "I decided to permit them ... a one-time vote of protest." How nice of him to "permit" them to serve the Newfoundlanders who elected them in the legislature they were elected to. Are they children to be "permitted"? It seems so. One MP, Scott Andrews, said he had been prepared to be punished for his vote.

University of Calgary political science professor and former Stephen Harper mentor, Tom Flanagan, insists Harper would never have done anything similar. Harper, says Flanagan, would have told such MPs, "It's my way or the highway." Of course he would, he's an autocrat. I'm surprised he doesn't insist his MPs click their heels and salute when they approach him. He is not exactly an exemplar of democratic leadership.

This is all about caucus solidarity, of course. The tradition that MPs have their say in caucus and then proceed into the House where they are to be seen and only heard to mindlessly cheer on their egocentric leaders. It is long past time to get beyond archaic customs like caucus solidarity and allow MPs the respect due elected representatives of the people, to say nothing of the respect due adult human beings. The Newfoundland MPs were elected in part at least on the issue of equalization payments. How can their constituents judge if they are doing what they were elected to do if their views are buried in caucus?

What Ignatieff did, albeit with obvious reluctance, was respect democracy, freedom of conscience and the maturity of his MPs. A lot more of this would do democracy in this country a world of good.

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.