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.

Minority government: lucky for us, lucky for Stephen Harper

The failure of the neoconservative ideology in the United States, in affairs both domestic and foreign, represents the biggest collapse of a political and economic philosophy since the fall of Communism. The edifice lies in ruins. The collapse of the American financial system will harm us as well to some degree, of course, given our interdependency, but less than it will affect many other countries in the world simply because we better resisted the blandishments of the neocons.

At the core of the domestic failure in the U.S. was deregulation of their banking system. For years, the Americans, and the British, pressured us to follow their lead in deregulation. According to Paul Martin, when he was in office "You couldn't go to a G7 meeting or IMF meeting without it coming up. ... We were under tremendous pressure to 'loosen up Canada.'" Martin said no, and for that we owe him yet under debt of gratitude. Canada went its own way, actually tightening lending rules in some respects.

If Stephen Harper had won a majority in 2006, or even in 2004, it may have been a very different story. Harper is very much the neocon himself, a believer in small government. One suspects he wouldn't have resisted the pressure for deregulation, indeed would have been more likely to embrace it, and we could have been well on our way toward a U.S. style financial system and the consequent collapse.

We were fortunate the Conservatives, newly reinvented under Harper, lost in '04 and only got a minority in '06. And Harper may have inadvertently caught a break, too. If a majority had freed him to institute the failed policies of the U.S. and Britain, he would have had to take the fall for the results. As it happened, he never got more than a minority and was, therefore, confined to moderate measures that just may have saved him from facing a very angry electorate. Saved, you might say, from his own folly.

The collapse of neoconservatism, combined with minority government, should confine Prime Minister Harper to moderation for the next few years. A small blessing, at least, for those who do not look forward to Conservative government.

Is Howard Ruth reincarnated?

Watching the World Series and seeing the Phillie slugger and 2006 National League MVP Ryan Howard in action, something odd struck me. He's the spitting image of the great Babe Ruth! OK, he's black and Ruth was white but take a look at them. Check the facial features. Check the body. They're both superstar power hitters. Ruth held the Major League home run record for over 40 years and Ryan hit 100 home runs earlier in his career than any other player in Major League history. Is reincarnation alive and well in baseball?

Why I am drifting away from the NDP

I confess. I voted Liberal on October 14th. As someone who has been a life-long member of the NDP, this is something I haven't do very often. It is, however, becoming easier. Not because my philosophy is shifting, but more rather because of specific issues.

I voted Liberal because I am a strong supporter of a carbon tax as a fundamental component of the struggle against global warming. I don't like single-issue voting normally, but as this issue overrides all others, it wasn't difficult to make an exception. In fact, although I say this with some reluctance, I would vote Liberal in the next B.C. election and for the same reason: the Liberal government brought in a carbon tax and the NDP oppose it. It wouldn't be easy voting for a party that often seems more conservative than liberal, but again, the issue involved is sufficiently important to overcome any reluctance.

A second issue is proportional representation (PR), another favourite of mine. I distinctly remember Jack Layton promising that the price of co-operation with Paul Martin's minority Liberal government would be a referendum on PR. Well, the NDP co-operated, at least for a while, but Jack apparently forgot all about PR. It wasn't breaking a promise that bothered me -- politicians have been known to do that on occasion -- it was the sheer stupidity of it. Nothing the NDP could do would boost their strength in the House of Commons more than bringing in PR. It would increase their number of seats by 50 per cent in one fell swoop. I began to wonder at the time whether I should be supporting a party that was too obtuse to see that. I've never quite gotten over it.

A third issue is the NDP's increasingly tiresome insistence on increasing taxes on corporations. This is a self-defeating policy if ever there was one. Who, after all, pays corporate taxes? The consumer does of course, just as we pay all the costs incurred by corporations when we buy their goods and services. All taxing corporations does is reduce their efficiency which in turn reduces their ability to create jobs, and it hardly makes sense for a "workers' party" to promote that. Politically, it taints the NDP with the musty odour of 19th century class war. The Swedes, despite having the highest income taxes in the world, have about the lowest corporate taxes and their economy prospers mightily (as do their corporations). This isn't a coincidence.

Taxation aside, capitalism remains a major problem for democracy. Seeking an alternative is an issue of the greatest importance for democrats and is therefore, deserving of serious discussion. If the NDP wants to join the discussion, and a social democratic party ought to be in the forefront, they could advocate policies that powerfully advantage co-operative enterprise over competitive capitalism. The co-op is an economic instrument that is not only thoroughly democratic but highly successful at the local, national and international levels. And it is perfectly compatible with social democratic ideals. The NDP could offer the mantra "We must co-operate in the global society" as a replacement for the tedious corporate mantra "We must compete in the global marketplace."

We have not reached the end of history. If the current economic crisis illustrates anything, it is that there is still lots of room for new approaches and fresh ideas in the world of economic policy. The left should be getting its dibs in. British Labour PM Gordon Brown certainly is. Jack Layton and the NDP, seemingly mired in old battles, are not. Being a member of the NDP used to offer a feeling of being at the forefront of progressive change. Now ... not so much.

The collapse of neoconservatism

With the election of George W. Bush in 2000, Americans neoconservatives must have felt they had entered the Promised Land. Not only did they have a right-wing president, they had a weak president who had leaned on others all his life. He would be putty in their hands. And indeed he was, and they guided the poor, benighted man into the worst presidency in modern history. Everything for the United States, domestic and foreign, is worse, much worse, than it was eight years ago.

First was foreign policy and the neocon dream of thrashing Saddam Hussein as a way to impose American values and interests on the Middle East. If the 9/11 cloud had a silver lining, it was providing them with the national mood and justification for invading Iraq and they took full advantage, abandoning truth and sound advice as necessary. The result was one of the biggest U.S. foreign policy blunders in the country's history. Overnight the international sympathy and support for the United States generated by 9/11 was transformed into frustration and hostility. As Colin Powell, former Secretary of State in the Bush administration, recently stated, it will be up to the next president, “to fix the reputation that we’ve left with the rest of the world.” That will be a challenge indeed.

Then there is the economy. Years of dogma-driven deregulation, starting well before the Bush era but enthusiastically embraced by the president, have finally led to the inevitable misbehaviour of capitalists and the collapse of the U.S. financial system. American greed and recklessness has dragged the rest of the world's economies down as well and this, too, will require bridge-building with the international community.

So the neocons have had their star turn on the world's biggest stage and it has exposed their philosophy to be as destructive as it is self-righteous. It lies in ruins. Only moments it seems after the collapse of Communism, we see yet again the folly of allowing ideology to triumph over good sense.

We are all socialists now

The British government is purchasing major stakes in Britain's banks at a of cost of four per cent of the annual economy, more than was spent nationalizing companies after World War II. Following Britain's example, George W. Bush's America, led by its most conservative president ever, is buying shares in American banks. The developed world as a whole is following Britain's lead. A Labour Party leader has become the guru of international finance.

This socialist surge is not into just any old industry; it goes to the heart of the economy -- the financial system. Actually it isn't so much socialism as it is a return to good sense, all too long neglected in favour of neo-con excess. For the past couple of years, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson has been running around the world telling the leaders of China, Russia, and anybody else who would listen, that the path to prosperity lay in adopting the American model for their financial systems. A money marketplace liberated from government regulation would lead to economic nirvana. Now the American financial system lies in ruins and poor old Henry is advising his president to buy shares in banks. He has been brought up short by reality.

That reality is that capitalists are like children. Children can be a joy when they are well-behaved, but they don't get that way automatically. Parents must impose a modicum of discipline, they must set limits. If they don't, the kids will wreck the house. Well. the financial capitalists have wrecked the house. We have been bad parents. To get the house back in order, we will have to set limits, we will have to regulate these over-sized kiddies into responsible behaviour. The Europeans are suggesting that nothing less than a whole new financial house will do. Having agreed to follow British P.M. Gordon Brown's plan for buying major shares in banks, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have now concluded a new world financial system is required with an international watchdog to supervise the world's economies. A global parent, no less. Takes your breath away.

Canadian-born economist John Kenneth Galbraith spent a lifetime writing and lecturing about the dangers of capitalist excess and in recent times has been increasingly ignored. It turns out this common-sense Scot was right after all. As the world struggles to recover from the economic turmoil, we will hear more about yet another economist too often neglected of late, John Maynard Keynes. Close attention will be paid to his prescription for government behaviour in difficult economic times. Note for example that our own prime minister, Mr. Harper, is now hinting at deficits, supported by that sterling voice of business, The Globe and Mail. The Globe excoriated deficits for years but has now changed its tune and reluctantly admits they may be necessary.

There's really nothing here to have old Karl Marx chuckling in his grave; nonetheless, one suspects he might be smirking a little.

Bill Ayers: sounds like my kind of guy

The Republicans have been making much of Barack Obama's association with former member of the Weathermen, William Ayers, who they delight in referring to as a terrorist. Obama and "the terrorist" once lived in the same neighbourhood in Chicago and their paths crossed from time to time. Both have worked on education reform and they served together on the board of the Woods fund of Chicago, a community anti-poverty group. Ayers has also contributed to Obama's political campaigns. The New York Times, however, has reported the relationship is not close.

Ayers was a founding member of the Weather Underground, a radical group that carried out bombings of public property during the Vietnam war. The Weathermen took great care to avoid harming people with their bombings, and they were successful. The only people they harmed were themselves when three of them died making a bomb. They were accused by detractors of a bombing in San Francisco that killed a policeman; however, they never claimed credit for it nor has any verifiable evidence connected them to it. They were generally quite specific about what they bombed and why. A Brinks robbery in New York in 1981 that resulted in the deaths of two policeman and a security guard is sometimes erroneously attributed to them. The attack was, however, carried out by another group which included three ex-members of the Weathermen (but not Ayers) well after the Weather Underground had disbanded.

As for Bill Ayers, he put all this behind him and went on to a highly successful and productive career. He is now a Distinguished Professor at the University of Illinois, an expert in elementary education and a winner of the City of Chicago Citizen of the year Award. That he rose above his youthful foolishness, became an exemplary citizen, and has contributed significantly to his community, makes him a man worthy of respect and admiration, a man I would be honoured to have as a friend.

Will the political class get the message?

In 2004, Canadians elected a minority government. In 2006, we elected another one. A perceptive observer might conclude we were sending the political class a message. We didn't trust any of the parties to govern us alone; we wanted them to work together. The message was reinforced by poll after poll after poll. The politicians, particularly Prime Minister Harper who acted seemingly on a whim, did not give a damn what Canadians wanted and called yet another election. So we have had to send the message again. That's three times now, quite aside from the polls. Politicians are by and large intelligent people. Surely after being sent the same $300-million message in a row, it will sink in.

I know it won't be easy. Political parties are all about power and they hate sharing it. And the political class thrives on campaigning. But dammit, the people want them to co-operate and the whole point of democracy is serving the people ... isn't it?

It's not as if minority governments can't work. Lester Pearson never had a majority in his entire time as prime minister, yet he presided over the most productive parliaments we have ever had. They brought in Medicare, the Canada Pension Plan, the Auto Pact and a new flag. They instituted the 40-hour work week, two weeks vacation time and a new minimum wage. Pearson established the world's first race-free immigration system. He set up royal commissions on the status of women and on bilingualism that contributed to legal equality for women and introduced official bilingualism (not bad for a unilingual prime minister). He also, no small matter, resisted American pressure to participate in the Vietnam War.

Pearson was a diplomat and diplomacy is exactly what's required to make a minority government work. Harper unfortunately is not, but, if as The Globe and Mail insists, he is growing into the job, then here is the challenge for further growth.

The beauty of a minority government is that it involves most Canadians in making their laws. This is a far more democratic beast than one in which only 40 per cent are involved, as is commonly the case in this country. At least Canadians seem to think so at this point in our history. The people have spoken (and spoken, and spoken) and should be heard. Will the politicians listen?

The Globe goes gunning for Heather Mallick

Whoa! What's with The Globe and Mail's nasty little assault on their former columnist, Heather Mallick? Not only did they sic Margaret Wente on her but they added an indignant editorial for good measure. Mallick really seems to have gotten up their nose. The source of their ire is Mallick's recent article on the CBC website trashing Sarah Palin. Mallick did go over the top, as she tends to do, and it is to be expected that the raging right at the National Post and their execrable American companion Fox News might be furious, but why is The Globe getting its knickers in a twist? After all, the CBC withdrew the column and apologized (and that's yet another story), so relax, folks.

I don't much like writers as rude as Mallick tends to be, yet when her column was appearing in The Globe and Mail, I never missed it. She is just so damn funny. It's rather like watching South Park and its potty-mouthed little characters. You feel you really shouldn't be watching this stuff but you're laughing too hard to change channels. She is a guilty read, in other words. I wasn't surprised when she and The Globe parted ways. Her contempt for the American Empire didn't fit with the Globe's pro-Americanism, certainly not in the way Margaret Wente's snide anti-Canadianism does. Mallick now keeps better company, writing for the CBC and the Guardian.

The Globe editorial concludes with a cop-out, insisting the CBC must not run "biased commentary," but "privately-run newspapers or broadcasters are free to run whatever points of view they wish, with or without balance." Fair enough that the CBC should be balanced, but the rest of the mass media, all corporate controlled, should be free to monolithically indoctrinate us in their conservative agenda? How convenient for the right. And yet another reminder how badly we need a more varied and democratic media.

YWCA calls for more women in the House

Politicians hot on the campaign trail will receive a report this week they should pay close attention to. I refer to the YWCA's Report on the Status of Women in Canada which they are sending out to all parties and candidates. Among other things, the report calls for an increase in women’s representation in politics. Nothing new in that, of course, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women made the same recommendation almost 40 years ago. Unfortunately, women are still nowhere near political equality. When the election was called, they made up only 21 per cent of the MPs in the House of Commons, and with the polls suggesting an even larger contingent of Conservatives, there isn't much hope for improvement.

The report gives Canada a failing grade when it comes to the status of women. Representation in our legislatures supports that claim. Compared to our paltry 21 per cent, women now hold a majority of the seats in Rwanda's lower house, the Chamber of Deputies. Including the seats they are constitutionally guaranteed, they now hold 55 per cent of the total seats. Women in Sweden are at near parity with 47 per cent and in Finland with 42 per cent. Looking at what other countries achieve, our failing grade is clearly deserved.

The fundamental reason for our pathetic performance is forcing women to compete in a system created by men for men, a system biased toward the competitive, combative individualistic world of males. A macho world that reveals itself all too sadly in behaviour in our legislatures, behaviour once described by a woman member of the British House of Commons as “very public-schoolboy primitive." Former MP Jan Brown once stated that party politics creates, “an unnatural and combative setting that does not support positive relationships. A place where power and gamesmanship determine the rules.”

If women are to share equally in the political process, the rules and practices will have to change to encourage, or at least tolerate, a much more respectful, caring and co-operative politics. According to Jan Brown, “Validation of the feminine in the political domain would open up new paradigms of leadership, including joint problem-solving that emphasizes win/win rather than lose/lose situations."

Our battling politicians have a lot to think about in the midst of this election campaign. They could do worse than include a few thoughts about ensuring women an opportunity to participate equally in the decisions that affect their lives. A good start would be digesting the YWCA report.

Why are Quebeckers more compassionate to their youth?

The Conservatives' tough on crime policy for teenagers is generating enthusiasm across the country. According to a Strategic Counsel survey of hotly contested ridings in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, 73 per cent of Ontarians and 67 per cent of British Columbians support lowering the age for life sentences to 14. Even 61 per cent of Liberal voters supported tougher sentences. Quebeckers, however, strongly disagreed. Fifty-nine per cent opposed the changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

For years, Quebec has emphasized prevention and restorative justice for their young people while English Canada has inclined to the siren song of punitive justice. While grass roots victims' movements outside Quebec angrily demand stronger penalties, victims' groups in Quebec tend to be more interested in bringing the interested parties, including victims and the police, together. Quebec's more humane approach to juvenile crime is supported by child-care professionals in other provinces as an example of how the system should work.

Why the diifference between the two solitudes? Is it because Quebeckers feel a stronger sense of community, and thus a stronger sense of communal responsibility for their children? Has their Catholic tradition left a stronger sense of mutual responsibility than the Protestant tradition of individualism in English Canada? Or is it simply because the more humane approach works?

Quebec incarcerates far fewer teenagers than the rest of Canada, yet its youth crime rate is the lowest in the country. In 2006, rates varied from a low of 3,765 for every 100,000 youth in Quebec to a high of 19,939 in Saskatchewan. It appears emphasizing prevention is much more successful than emphasizing jail time. As the U.S. experience has shown, the Conservative reliance on more police, more courts, and more prisons is a failure. A very expensive failure.

How unfortunate, then, that the Conservative approach is so popular. It means the streets will be less safe, the justice system will cost more, and more young men will be alienated from society. If that isn't what we want, we should take a closer look at Quebec. Compassion, it seems, pays.

Debunking the Muslim "threat"

Normally I rely on my own writing to express my opinion rather than simply referring to someone else's. Occasionally, however, I encounter such a superb exposition of an issue, I feel bound to defer to it. This is the case with Doug Saunder's column in Saturday's Globe and Mail "Baby-booming Muslim hordes take Europe? Rubbish!" which brilliantly debunks the fear-mongering of anti-Islamists such as Mark Steyn about a Muslim population explosion in Europe soon leaving that continent at the mercy of an Islamic horde. Saunders neatly outlines how the facts explode this nasty little fantasy. The toxic scribblings of Steyn and his ilk are reminiscent of anti-Semitic garbage such as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" which attempted to stir up fears of a Jewish plot to take over the world. All that has changed is the scapegoat. Fortunately we have writers like Doug Saunders to sweep the garbage up.

Yankee go home !!!!!!!

The colonies are in revolt. The Bolivians have expelled the U.S. ambassador, accusing him of instigating violent protests against their government. The Venezuelans, not to be outdone, have not only ordered the American ambassador out of the country, they have withdrawn their ambassador from Washington and threatened to cut off oil supplies, on the grounds the Americans have been fomenting a military coup. Now Honduras, in support of Bolivia and Venezuela, is indefinitely postponing accreditation of the U.S. ambassador.

"That's enough shit from you Yankees," proclaimed Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's charismatic president, stating relations would be restored when the U.S. had a new government that respected Latin America. The U.S. has defended its "fine ambassadors" from the assorted charges and dismissed the Latins' accusations as a sign of "weakness and desperation."

The Americans' dismissal of the charges as smokescreens may be largely correct. Chavez seems to rail increasingly at the U.S. as his own problems multiply. And his threat to cut off oil to the U.S. is hollow: as badly as the Americans need the oil, the Venezuelans need the money a lot more.

The Latin leaders' suspicions are not, however, entirely unjustified. The disturbances in Bolivia are not unlike those fomented by the U.S. prior to its support for the overthrow of the democratically-elected Salvador Allende in Chile. And the Americans supported an attempted coup against Chavez in 2002. Perhaps not so coincidentally, Chavez's accusations fell on the 35th anniversary of the CIA-backed coup which overthrew Allende.

In any case, the actions signal a hemisphere increasingly uneasy with American domination. The Empire is being challenged on its own turf. Perhaps it has been focusing too much on its wars on the other side of the world, to say nothing of its "war on terror," allowing the neighbourhood to get out of hand. When the cat's away and all that.

Restorative justice advances in B.C.

Restorative justice, the approach to crime that strives to restore the offender to society as a responsible citizen, while providing restitution to the victim and the community, has taken a step forward in British Columbia. Restorative justice contrasts with the traditional retributive or punitive justice which seeks principally to punish the offender.

The B.C. government has established the Downtown Community Court in Vancouver to deal with minor crimes such as theft, assault, public mischief, aggressive panhandling and drug possession. Although minor, these crimes constitute up to 80% of offences. Offenders may choose to go through the regular system or through the community court. If they choose the latter, they may be spared jail time and instead perform community service while participating in programs that help them with their social or health problems. The court has social workers, drug counselors and other experts available as triage teams to develop treatment plans.

According to Judge Thomas Gove, who will preside over the court, "This is not a social service agency, ... you're here because you committed a crime. And you might have to do something you don't want to do, like go to jail, or do community service. But if you come before this court, everyone you meet -- from your defence lawyer who works in the court, through the triage team, the prosecutor and the judge -- we are all interested in helping you improve your life."

The court is modeled after community courts in the United States which contributed to the dramatic reduction of New York City's street-level drug trade. Similar courts now operate in England, Ireland, Australia and elsewhere. Community courts not only offer rehabilitation rather than punishment but offer much greater efficiency in handling cases.

Although the court does not apply a full regimen of restorative justice, where victims are involved in the process and receive restitution, it is a major step in helping people who are often beset by addiction, mental illness, homelessness and poverty, to gain a productive role in society rather than simply discarding them to jail. According to Vancouver Police Department spokesperson Constable Tim Fanning, "Everybody who works down there knows that the lack of drug treatment and the lack of care for people with mental health issues is the issue."

Ensuring that care is available will determine the success of the court. As Judge Gove emphasizes, "We have to have our government continue its stated commitment to providing supportive housing, as well as other housing for people who happen to be poor but don't need the support. We have to have more addiction treatment programs, along with better ways of dealing with the mentally disordered."

If the court is deemed a success, the B.C. government may set up similar programs in other parts of the province. Let us hope other provinces are paying attention.

The Afghan death toll we should be most concerned about

This week, the death of yet another Canadian soldier occupied the front pages of our daily press. Meanwhile, the deaths that should be of most concern to us are relegated to the inner pages, if they are mentioned at all. I refer of course to the deaths of Afghan civilians. Almost 100 members of our military have died in this forlorn war. Nearly that many Afghan civilians, including 60 children, died in one attack in Herat province recently, an attack carried out by a combined American/Afghan force. Film of the aftermath showed rows of babies and children lined up in a makeshift morgue.

Canadian soldiers volunteer to kill or be killed. Afghan women and children don't. If you choose a vocation that involves shooting people, even "scumbags," you must expect them to shoot back.

In Afghanistan, the innocent are dying in ever increasing numbers. Over 1,000 civilians have been killed in U.S. and NATO attacks since the beginning of 2006, with the deaths from air strikes tripling over the past year. Many more civilians have lost their lives than U.S. and NATO soldiers, even by conservative estimates. Taliban attacks, including suicide bombings, have killed about twice as many as U.S. and NATO forces have; however, we are not entirely innocent of these deaths either. They are, after all, a response to our presence. So, for that matter, are the deaths of insurgents.

Deaths of civilians are often referred to as collateral damage, an unfortunate side effect in the greater cause. But in modern war, civilian deaths are unavoidable. Going to war is a conscious decision to kill innocents, and in making that decision one is hardly less guilty than a terrorist who decides to set off a bomb in a marketplace. The terrorist may be less specific but he is no more deadly. Our intentions in Afghanistan may be noble, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with. The American war in Vietnam, in the noble cause of saving the benighted Vietnamese from godless Communism, left three million dead in its wake. In the not-so-noble conquest of Iraq, the death toll is now estimated to be over a million. These are the kinds of numbers we should ponder first when we consider military adventures, not the deaths of soldiers.

Whereas our press publishes the name and picture of each Canadian soldier killed, the civilian victims are generally nameless, anonymous ... mere statistics. Perhaps we should publish the name and picture of each innocent Afghan victim on the front pages of our newspapers rather than those of soldiers. That would be much more revealing of the real nature of war.

Sarah and her dead bear

Looking at that picture of Republican vice--presidential candidate Sarah Palin sitting pertly on her office sofa accompanied by a very large and very dead bear, I'm not sure if the appropriate reaction is humour or despair.

It is impossible not to recognize a certain cartoonish quality to the juxtaposition of an apparently sophisticated lady, cocktail in hand, seated on a dead bear. There's a New Yorker cartoon here.

On the other hand, this was once a magnificent living animal (I'm referring to the bear here, not the lady, although she too is physically commanding) that was killed for what? A bit of fun? For a decoration? Its killing symbolizes the arrogance of humanity, the arrogance of a species that believes the Earth exists solely for its purpose, for its pleasure, including the pleasure of killing other species. This arrogance is particularly intense among fundamentalists, of which Sarah Palin is one. The notion other species may have a right to simply live their lives out is absent from an Old Testament mentality. Or from a frontier mentality, a mentality which is said to possess Alaskans. Ms. Palin is a true representative of her state.

Canadian author Ronald Wright describes two Americas: Enlightenment America, descended from such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson; and Backwoods America, descended from the frontier, clinging to fundamentalism and firearms as touchstones of the pioneering myth, of an autonomy the little man has lost.

With Sarah Palin, Americans have got the latter in spades.

What does Russia want?

With the recent flurry of concern in the West about Russia's muscle-flexing in Georgia, we might well wonder what is motivating Moscow's foreign policy these days. In a speech on Russian television last week, President Medvedev explained. He tells us Russia will found its international relations on five principles:

Russia will
1. observe international law.
2. reject United States dominance of world affairs.
3. seek friendly relations with other nations.
4. defend Russian citizens and business interests abroad.
5. claim a sphere of influence in the world.

One and three are reassuring, if Medvedev is serious. The Russian manhandling of Georgia would seem to contradict number three, even if Georgia's president, Mikheil Saakashvili, did his utmost to provoke the bear. As for number two, rejecting world domination by the United States will meet with no objection from those growing weary of the American empire.

Number four seems reasonable and natural, although it's the kind of statement that always sounds a little ominous coming from a nation inclined to empire. Russia justified their manhandling of Georgia as a defence of Russian citizens, however it seemed to be more a case of number five. One wonders if the American occupation of Iraq in defence of its oil interests isn't, in Medvedev's mind, a precedent that might be useful to Russia.

And number five is disturbing. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union's foreign policy was principally concerned with maintaining a shield of "friendly" countries to protect it from the West. Is this what Medvedev is talking about? Or something more expansive. His comments suggest the latter. Asked if he was referring to Russia's border areas, he elaborated, “It is the border region, but not only. ... Russia, like other countries in the world, has regions where it has privileged interests. These are regions where countries with which we have friendly relations are located.” His reference to "like other countries" no doubt means the United States. Indeed if four and five are combined, we get a pretty good description of American foreign policy.

Too bad the president didn't stop with the first three principles, or at least the first four. That last one is arrogant and unsettling, the principle of a would-be empire, not of a nation committed to international law and friendly relations with other countries.

Why election campaigns are for idiots and why attack ads work

Election fever stalks North America. The U.S. has been at it for months and now our prime minister desperately attempts to justify a trip to the polls. Soon we will join the Americans to be immersed in political campaigning. Political junkies will be in their element. But what's in it for the rest of us? My answer is not much.

Consider, for simplicity's sake, the electorate divided into two groups: those voters who are well-informed and those who are not. Most of the well-informed will have made up their minds about how they will vote even before the writ is dropped. Some will be committed to a particular party while those who are not will have had four, or in the current case, two years to observe the parties' policies, personalities and behaviour. Little will be added to their knowledgeable and thoroughly-considered views in the few weeks of electioneering.

That leaves the ill-informed. Some of these people will also be committed to a particular party, so their vote too is a foregone conclusion. The only group left to sell a message to during the campaign is an uncommitted, ill-informed minority. In other words, the idiot vote.

A minority it may be, perhaps quite a small minority, but often a critical minority. In the last federal election, the Conservatives won 36 per cent of the vote and were elected to a minority government. If they had won only three or four per cent more, they would probably have formed a majority government, three or four per cent less and they wouldn't have been able to form a government at all. In the last presidential election in the United States, George W. Bush won with an edge in the popular vote of less than three per cent. That's all it takes -- a few percentage points either way.

This is why attack ads work. They insult intelligent, well-informed voters, but they don't target intelligent, well-informed voters. Quite the opposite. They target the idiot vote, those people who can be sold by simplistic, simple-minded, sound bites. If attack ads capture this vote, they can win an election.

A candidate or party may be able to win enough votes to overwhelm the idiot vote, but if the election promises to be close they can't take the chance. This is why at election time, promises flow freely, attack ads proliferate, lawn signs sprout overnight like mushrooms, and politicians you haven't seen for four years knock on your door to explain in 30 seconds why you should vote for them. All to win the idiot vote. Such is the stuff political campaigns are made of.

Would an Obama presidency mean fair trade?

"Free trade" as we have come to know it is largely a mechanism for making the world safer for corporate exploitation, particularly of cheap labour. The admission of China into the World Trade Organization (WTO) serves as an example. The fact that China deprives its workers of fundamental rights, and the resulting cheap labour offers the country a major trade advantage, has not precluded China from membership. Coerced labour offers a trade advantage not only to China but also to global corporations, and that's the whole point.

Barack Obama's talk of renegotiating NAFTA was quickly suppressed but his running mate, Joe Biden, has long been a defender of the American worker and advocate of fair trade. He insists that protection for workers and the environment be part of all future trade deals and has promised to renegotiate NAFTA. In his words, "The idea that we are not willing to take the prime minister of Canada and the president of Mexico to the mat to make this agreement work is just a lack of presidential leadership." Strong words indeed. Maybe Biden will be free to walk where Obama fears to tread, play the bad guy to Obama's good guy in trade deals. The current state of the American economy may certainly prompt a reappraisal of U.S. trade priorities.

Whether or not Biden will stick to his guns should he become vice-president is another matter. He has, after all, been accused of being an erratic pragmatist on foreign policy issues. Supporters of fair trade can only hope his pragmatism, erratic or otherwise, will apply to the interests of workers and the environment, and not to the interests of corporations. as has been the rule to date.

News Flash! The poor get poorer

Working Canadians are a little poorer today than they were a year ago. At least on average. According to Statistics Canada, while average weekly earnings from June, 2007, to June, 2008, rose 2.5 per cent, consumer prices rose 3.1 per cent. In other words, workers' purchasing power dropped 0.6 per cent.

Some industries did better than others. Workers in mining and oil & gas, for example, saw their earnings rise 8.2 per cent to $1,528.79 per week. Workers in retail trade, on the other hand, saw only a 1.6 per cent increase to $491.76. A classic example of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Particularly disturbing is that retail trade is Canada's largest employer with almost two million workers. The trend of fewer people getting more and more people getting less seems to continue. If the tide is rising, most boats are sinking.

Carol Huynh saves the nation

Carol Huynh. Remember that name. Etch it in your memory. Carol Huynh is the young woman who saved Canada from terminal petulance.

For the first week of the Olympics, Canadians fretted fearfully that they were to be deprived of gold. Like little boys who didn't get their Christmas toy, we were sulking about the house. Everyone else was getting gold, why not us? It just wasn't fair. Or at least this was the depressing picture offered by our daily press. Things looked very dark indeed.

Then Carol Huynh saved the nation. She won a gold medal in free style wrestling. Of course, few Canadians know what free style wrestling is, and wouldn't walk across the street to watch a match, but no matter, we had won gold. Our national honour would survive. The magnitude of the event was illustrated by leading headlines in our daily papers.

When a nation's honour, or at least when a nation thinks its honour, rests on a woman from Hazelton, B.C., whipping a woman from Japan in a competition that most Canadians normally haven't the slightest interest in, is this not pathetic? Or maybe just silly? Premier Campbell of B.C. would have us spend large sums of money to ensure we win lots of gold thingies in the future. "It's critical he said," as he lauded China for all the medals it has won. The fascist nature of China's sports program, reminiscent of the Soviet Union and East Germany, seems to have escaped his notice. The Olympic Games seem to hold some mystical power to distort normally sensible people's sense of values.

Anyway, thank God (and Carol Huynh et al.) we now have some medals. Canada will not crumble after all.

Great Power politics in the Caucasus

Poor Georgia. An ancient civilization now best known for being the birthplace of Joseph Stalin, it currently finds itself the target of two competing Great Powers while led by a president who recklessly gambles with the welfare of his people.

The American interest once again revolves around that dirty little three-letter word: oil. The U.S.-backed Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, carrying a million barrels of crude a day, runs through Georgia, allowing the West to reduce its reliance on Middle Eastern oil while, of great importance to the Americans, bypassing Russia and Iran. The pipeline carries oil from Azerbaijan's Caspian Sea fields which hold the world's third-largest reserves. The U.S. would very much like to have Georgia accepted into NATO thus obliging Western European countries to defend the pipeline.

Russia, on the other hand, has considered Georgia its property for centuries, under the czars and then under the Communists. Great powers do not yield their empires easily and the hostility of Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili has not helped. Consequently, Russia makes mischief where it can, i.e. in the two separatist-run provinces of Abhkazia and South Ossetia where it still has some influence.

Unfortunately, Russia can justify its muscle-flexing by a precedent the West established. We defended the Kosovars right to divorce themselves from Serbia (and accepted their declaration of independence with unseemly haste), so we can hardly deny the South Ossetians the right to independence from Georgia. So when Saakashvili decided to throw the dice, taking advantage of Putin's presence in Beijing and all the Olympic hoopla to bully South Ossetia back into the fold, Russia had ample justification in hand. As for the Americans' scolding Russia about invading other countries, their bluster lacks all credibility coming from a nation that's waging wars in two foreign lands and threatening a third.

In a perfect world, democracy would determine the status of all regions. People everywhere would determine their own futures whether it be South Ossetia, Chechnya, Kosovo, Tibet or anywhere else. Tragically, however, might is still often right, and the wishes of Great Powers must be taken into account. The future of South Ossetia will depend therefore not only on the wishes of the Ossetians but also on the whims of the Russians.

Georgia has a right to its independence and we should support its democracy, such as it is, but we shouldn't rub Russia's face in it. And that's what the United States has been doing -- using the country as a pipeline corridor, training and equipping its army, promoting its acceptance into NATO, and so on.

As for Georgia, it's going to have to live next door to Russia for a very long time. A tiny country with a giant neighbour, it might be advised to pursue a more astute policy than looking for allies afar and enemies nearby. And the world can well do without its president's provocative foolishness.

Unions unite

The meeting this week of United Steelworkers from locals across Canada and Brazil in Thompson, Manitoba, illustrates what workers must do if they are to have a voice in the global marketplace.

The unions, representing workers employed by the Brazilian-owned Vale Inco, the world's second largest mining company, gathered to support the Thompson local in negotiations with the company. The support stems from an accord signed by Vale unions around the world in Sudbury in 2007. It requires the unions to "work together cooperatively and strategically as global partners, to build the bargaining power of workers." That commitment is being fulfilled this week. “Brazilian Vale workers stand in solidarity with Steelworkers in Thompson,” said Eduardo Pinto, leader of the Sindicato dos Ferroviarios do Maranhoa-MA, CNTT.

Unions represent democracy in the workplace, and if we are to have a fully democratic society, democracy in the workplace is essential. And that applies, of course, to the global society. When workers in China and elsewhere are free to associate with their brothers and sisters in the rest of the world, globalization will start to mean something more than cheap labour for corporations.

Why does the UK have nuclear weapons? or France?

While the nuclear powers, especially the United States, Britain and France, express great concern about Iran developing a nuclear weapon and while they issue threats of sanctions and even darker measures, an obvious question is being overlooked. Why exactly do Great Britain and France have nuclear weapons?

With nuclear neighbours to the north and east, wars being fought by nuclear-armed nations on its eastern and western borders, and its access to the sea prowled by the warships of a hostile, nuclear-equipped power, if any nation can justify a nuclear arsenal, it's Iran. Great Britain and France, on the other hand, are surrounded by friends and the only nuclear neighbours they have are each other.

Nonetheless, Iran claims it isn't developing a weapon and the United States' intelligence agencies concur. If it was, it would be in violation of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty which it has signed. But then all signatories to the treaty are committed to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control." We see sparse evidence that Britain and France, or the United States for that matter, are acting "in good faith" to achieve "complete disarmament."

So what's stopping Britain and France from doing their duty by setting an example? Why not adhere to the spirit of the treaty themselves and disarm their nuclear arsenals? We're waiting, Messrs. Brown and Sarkozy.

Someone might go further and ask why anyone has these insane weapons. Good question. One the nuclear powers might be asking themselves, and each other, even while they self-righteously condemn Iran.

Talking to the axis of evil

Throughout George W. Bush's reign as president of the United States, I can think of very little he has done that might be considered progressive. Almost everything in U.S. affairs, whether foreign or domestic, seems worse off than when he was first elected in 2000. He collapsed international respect for his country to its lowest level ever and will leave office with his country bogged down in two wars. Domestically, things are equally bad. The discrepancy between rich and poor has been expanded, individual citizens and government are both hugely in debt, and the economy sinks into recession.

Yet a bright spot appears on the horizon. In a remarkable about-face on foreign policy, the Bush administration seems prepared to talk to Iran. On the heels of their deal with North Korea regarding its nuclear capabilities, the Americans have dispatched William Burns, the under-secretary of state, to meet Iranian representatives in Geneva to discuss Iran's nuclear program. More importantly, the Americans have expressed interest in establishing a diplomatic office in Tehran, the first since the Shah, one of their favourite dictators, was tossed out in 1979. It appears the Cheney faction has been defeated as the U.S. abandons its position that it would only meet with Iran once it had suspended its uranium enrichment. The Pentagon apparently convinced the administration that the regional consequences of an air strike against Iran would outweigh the temporary benefits of delaying Iran's nuclear program. The cavalry to the rescue so to speak. Of course, Iran's recent missile tests may also have been an incentive.

If you want peace, it is said, you don't talk to your friends, you talk to your enemies. Certainly there won't be peace in the Middle East until the United States engages players such as Iran at a high level. A diplomatic mission is a good start. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, commenting on the Iran initiative, observed, "The United States doesn't have any permanent enemies." It might be difficult to convince Cuba of that; nonetheless, recent events elsewhere suggest the statement may hold promise. If so, Bush could end his reign on at least one high note.

Is satire dead?

As someone who has done a little cartooning myself, I feel obliged to comment on the now internationally famous (or infamous) July 21st cover of the New Yorker magazine which depicts Barack Obama and his wife as gun-toting, flag-burning, Islamic terrorists. The cartoon is obviously a satire on the buffoonery that Fox and other networks offer as news commentary on American television. For example, the buffoon who suggested if Obama is elected, the U.S. would have an anti-semitic, terrorist president or the one who suggested the fist-bump is a terrorist greeting. If anything is deserving of satire, it's this parade of idiocy.

Yet many Americans and others seem to have missed the satire entirely and take the cartoon as serious comment. I would have thought every literate person in the English-speaking world would realize how utterly unlikely that is given the editorial position and sophistication of the New Yorker. It is, after all, one of the U.S.'s most well known and respected magazines.

Journalists at least ought to be concerned if not outraged about the way their profession is being debased by Fox and others in the television world. They ought to be debating the object of the New Yorker cover, not the cover itself. But ... maybe the magazine erred in assuming its concern or its sophistication was widely shared. Maybe neither are. Reaction to the cartoon certainly suggests satire is beyond the ken of all too many commentators. And that in itself may indicate the level to which political commentary in the U.S. has sunk, ironically justifying the New Yorker's concern.

The German miracle

What country is the world's leading exporter? China, you say? Wrong -- China is number two. Then it must be the United States? Wrong again -- the U.S. is number three. Actually, it's Germany. This may have surprised you, it certainly surprised me. For a country with only 82 million people, compared to China's 1,325 million and the United States' 301 million, it is impressive indeed.

Yet something else is even more impressive. As Germany has become the world's leading exporter, it has also become a world leader in decreasing its greenhouse gas emissions. Between 1990 and 2006, Germany reduced its emissions by 18 per cent, highest among the G8 nations except for Russia. Russia, however, doesn't really count as its reduction came about largely from the collapse of its manufacturing. Britain was close to Germany with a reduction of 15 per cent. The United states on the other hand, the world's champion polluter, led in the increase of emissions -- up 32 per cent, followed by Canada at 22 per cent.

Germany's performance puts the lie to the argument that environmental responsibility may place the economy at risk, an argument trotted out ad nauseam in North America. Germany has recognized the challenge of global warming and answered it with innovation and conviction. We North Americans, it seems, are lacking in both.

The Catholic Church -- misogyny triumphant

So the Church of England has voted to allow women to be consecrated as bishops. Hallelujah! The heartland of the Anglican community has finally caught up to its brothers and sisters in Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Scotland.

Some 1,300 clergy opposed to the measure had threatened to leave the Church if safeguards they demanded, such as male "super-bishops" to cater for those who opposed the change, weren't implemented. One traditionalist, the Right Reverend John Broadhurst, Bishop of Fulham, declared, "I think a lot of us have made it quite clear if there isn't proper provision for us to live in dignity, inevitably we're driven out." All were disappointed. The women will be bishops equal to men, despite Reverend Broadhurst's dignity problem.

But the remnants of resistance to women's equality in the Church of England were topped by the reaction of the Catholic Church. The Vatican denounced the decision, stating, "Such a decision signifies a breaking away from the apostolic tradition maintained by all of the churches since the first millennium, and is a further obstacle for reconciliation between the Catholic church and the Church of England." Note the reference to "all the churches" -- so much for the Baptists, Presbyterians, United, etc.

The "apostolic tradition" the statement refers to is the notion that only men should be priests because all Christ's apostles were men. But weren't all the apostles also Jewish? So how to justify a German pope? This is nonsense. Women have been largely excluded from all positions of power from biblical times to very recently. The "apostolic tradition" is nothing more than an attempt to use historic prejudice to justify current prejudice.

What is it about women in power that offends, even frightens, priests? After all, it may have taken centuries but they eventually overcame their fear of heliocentricity and evolution. The equality of women shouldn't be that much more difficult. A little soul-searching on the subject might just open up a whole new world of possibilities for them.

Should Canada not be a leader on climate change?

The Harper government has decided to be a follower on global warming, specifically to follow the American tactic of refusing to get serious about the issue until China and India have committed to reduction targets. Our government has, in other words, committed us to following the follower.

Of course, China and India, with their massive economies must eventually agree to limits on greenhouse gas emissions, but why must we wait on them to do the right thing? Since when was what other people do the justification for moral behaviour?

We are one of the most technically advanced and prosperous nations on Earth. And, along with other industrialized nations, we have created most of the pollution and benefited the most from what caused it, so we ought to lead the way in cleaning it up. And there is no better way to lead than by example. As Anthony Cary, Britain's High Commissioner to Canada, has said, "The European Union, for its part, is clear that the best way of galvanizing the whole process is to act. Not only is that in our self-interest, but it is the path best calculated to bring in recalcitrant countries." Well said, High Commissioner.

It is embarrassing, pathetic even, to find Canada waiting upon developing countries to get on board before we take the action necessary to avert the greatest threat civilization has ever faced. We should set the targets scientists recommend and start meeting them. Now.

The times, they are a’changin … and so is Obama

So Barack Obama may "refine" his timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq. No kidding. The United States now has a major military presence at the centre of the largest conventional oil reserves in the world and they are going to walk away from that? Not likely. It was only a matter of time before someone tactfully explained that little reality to the senator. I suspect if he becomes president he will "revise" the word timeline right out of his vocabulary.

Some Americans are calling Obama a hypocrite, changing his policies for crass political advantage. Others are complimenting him for exercising flexibility, a quality greatly lacking in the current administration.

Flexibility, the ability to adapt to changing circumstances, is commendable in a leader. Unless of course he is simply changing his tune to suit his audience which, it seems, is what Obama is doing. One tune for confronting Clinton, another for confronting McCain. One for confronting fellow Democrats, another for confronting the American public. Whatever it takes. McCain is, of course, doing the same thing.

Be that as it may, a switch on Iraq was inevitable. Those Americans who believed otherwise simply weren't recognizing the reality of empire.

Will gas prices defeat our efforts to combat global warming?

In former British PM Tony Blair's report to the G8 Hokkaido summit Breaking the Climate Deadlock, he claims, "Most people no longer need persuading that the changing climate poses a serious risk to humankind. ... There is now agreement that we should shift our economies away from carbon dependence. Again, most people agree that a framework for national and international action is needed to incentivise, encourage and oblige such a radical shift."

Far be it from me to question Tony Blair, but do most people agree action is needed for a "radical shift"? According to a recent Strategic Counsel poll, when asked what the most important issue facing them today is, Canadians rated the environment number three, dropping from number one last year. It is now topped by concern over the economy and, no surprise, gas prices. Only one per cent of Americans named the environment as their most important issue. These numbers suggest that North Americans are willing to sacrifice to combat global warming right up to the point where they have to get out of their cars. And they aren't alone. Europe, which has shown a much more enlightened approach to climate change, has been racked with protests against higher gas prices, as have other parts of the world.

As for our leaders -- not much recognition for the need of a radical shift there. Ed Stelmach, premier of Canada's pollution province, dreams the dream of carbon sequestration while emissions steadily increase. Prime Minister Harper attacks Stephane Dion's plan for a carbon tax entirely on economic terms while coming up with no coherent plan of his own. And in the United States, the world's major polluter, the current president continues to suppress evidence of the crisis.

Our leaders may not even understand the problem. It isn't, as many think, a greenhouse gas effect. It is, as the scientists are trying to tell us, a runaway greenhouse gas effect. Global warming is progressing geometrically, not linearly. As the Earth warms, other phenomena kick in which add to the warming. For example, as the Arctic Ocean ice cover shrinks due to warming, we lose a major reflector. Instead of being reflected back into space, sunlight is absorbed by the darker ocean, warming it further. The same effect occurs on land as the the snow cover declines each year. And warming up the north will melt the permafrost, releasing billions of tonnes of methane, a greenhouse gas over 20 times as potent as carbon dioxide. And so it goes.

Tony Blair says in his report, "If we are not radical enough in altering the nature of our economic growth, we will not avoid potential catastrophe to the climate." Well said. But then he adds, "If we are not realistic enough in setting a framework to get there, we will fail to achieve agreement." I fear our political and business leaders, and perhaps even more importantly a gas price-obsessed population, have a concept of "realistic" that lacks the urgency scientists have recognized. The truth may be, as Al Gore would say, just too inconvenient. After all, business leaders' first priority is profit, political leaders' first priority is winning the next election, and the public's first priority seems to be the price of gas. Only scientists' first priority is the truth. They, however, are not the ones with the power.