The UNESCO vote and the decline of American influence

Following the vote Monday to admit Palestine into UNESCO, Hamas official Ahmed Yousef said it "shows that Israel and America are not dictating politics to the world anymore." Hamas's view carries its own bias, nonetheless Mr. Yousef has a point. U.S. opposition to the vote does indeed serve as another example of the empire's declining influence in the world.

In the U.S.'s own backyard, once secured by the Monroe Doctrine, South American nations are increasingly drifting left and away from American political and economic policies. If they have an exemplar at the moment it is Brazil. Only Colombia remains a loyal ally.

In the far east, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is expanding both its membership and its agenda and seems intent on squeezing out the influence of both NATO and the United States in that part of the world. With China and Russia as members, and India and Pakistan likely to join, that seems a reasonable ambition. The United States applied for observer status in 2005 but was rejected.

In the Middle East, the Americans have almost become spectators to rapidly evolving events. They watched helplessly, and seemingly in confusion, as the Egyptian people overthrew Hosni Mubarak. Egypt is the most important country in the region and the U.S. had invested billions in the Mubarak regime, an investment now down the toilet. In Libya, the Americans participated only as followers and seemed content to be relegated to that unfamiliar role.

Even in Europe, American policies are often looked at askance. When the U.S. insists that the Europeans do more in this or that war effort, it often receives a Gallic shrug. And surveys show that majorities in most European nations believe China either will replace or already has replaced the United States as the world's leading superpower.

China steadily advances on American economic primacy and takes an increasingly assertive approach in international affairs as it does. The BRIC bloc—Brazil, Russia, India, and China—is also assuming a greater presence on the world stage. The financial and economic collapse of 2008, triggered by American malfeasance, did nothing to enhance the U.S.'s financial reputation.

The U.S. remains the world's largest economy and is the only country with global military reach. It possesses the world's reserve currency, superb universities, powerful corporations and an ability to bounce back from adversity. Yet its reputation is dragged down by a bellicose foreign policy, a widening gap between rich and poor, a massive debt and balance of payments deficit, excessive energy use and high levels of violent crime.

Its UNESCO vote against Palestine and its withdrawal of funding only made it look like a bully. Indeed, the 107-14 vote in itself illustrated the decline of its ability to influence other nations. Latin America, Africa and Asia strongly supported Palestinian membership. The BRIC bloc all voted for. As did France. So, interestingly, did Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait and Libya. Even America's most important friend and ally, Britain, abstained. The American empire seemed just a little less on Monday.

Congratulations to the Palestinians ... and UNESCO

Allow me to add my cheer to those that went up at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 36th General Conference after delegates approved Palestinian membership. The move was particularly courageous considering the United States will now punish the organization by cutting its 22 per cent contribution.

The Americans claimed they opposed the move because it could harm Mideast peace efforts. This is nonsense. These "peace efforts" have been going on for decades, have achieved nothing and are going nowhere. They could hardly be harmed. It is well past time that efforts to achieve justice for the long-suffering Palestinians was pursued by other means—peaceful means of course. Indeed, this action may jolt Israel and the U.S. into getting serious about their peace efforts.

In any case, UNESCO's move is perfectly consistent with what Israel and the United States, and Canada and just about every other government in the world, have claimed all along is the ultimate goal—a two-state solution. Fully accepting the Palestinians into the United Nations will be an inevitable result of that goal, so why not start on it now? With the discredited peace negotiations going nowhere, why not at least do what we can? It is simply churlish to deny the Palestinians any progress at all.

Although we are no longer relevant in the Middle East, I should mention that our government joined Israel and the U.S. in voting against the Palestinians. Not, as they say, one of our finer moments.

Six more MPs for Alberta—not good news for this Albertan

I admit to ambivalence about the government's announcement that under the proposed Fair Representation Act the country will gain 30 more MPs. It is a good thing, of course, to strive for more equitable representation and that's what this Act attempts to do. My province, Alberta, will receive six more seats to bring its representation closer to its share of the population.

That will be a good thing for most Albertans—but not for me. In the last election, the Conservatives won 27 out of Alberta's 28 seats in the House of Commons. The party I support, the NDP, won only one even though they received 17 per cent of the vote. The 17 per cent should have earned them five MPs, not one. Given the idiosyncrasies of our voting system, the odds are that the six new seats will also go Conservative which means representation for Alberta social democrats will be reduced even further below its current meager level. So, ironically, the Fair Representation Act may result in less fairness for citizens like me.

In fact, the system is so perverted, I have given up voting in federal elections altogether. In my constituency, Calgary Centre, the Conservative candidate routinely wins by 15-20,000 votes. The result is a foregone conclusion. My vote for the NDP counts for nothing. Under a proportional representation voting system, it would count toward electing an Albertan who truly represents me, but we don't have such a system. Casting a vote that counts for nothing strikes me as participating in a fraud, so I abstain.

To those who will benefit from the proposed redistribution, enjoy! The rest of us will have to wait for a Fair Representation Act that is fair to everyone.

The "climate change caucus"—good news on two fronts

An initiative championed by Liberal MP Kirsty Duncan has borne fruit in the House of Commons. Dr. Duncan proposed a "climate change caucus" consisting of members of all parties, and it has now been formed. In addition to Duncan, the caucus consists of Conservative MP Michael Chong, NDP MP Denise Savoie, Bloc Québécois MP Maria Mourani and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May.

According to Savoie, "The climate change all-party caucus provides a space for meaningful discussion on the defining issue of our generation—in a forum without talking points or media." The group plans on staging events to engage other MPs “regarding the climate crisis,” including climate and faith; the lead-up to the next international climate change summit in Durban; extreme events and disaster preparedness and economic impacts of climate change and clean technology.

The caucus is well credentialed for their task. Kirsty Duncan has taught medical geography at the University of Toronto and global environmental processes at Royal Roads University, and served on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Michael Chong is one of the few Conservatives who is passionate about action on climate change. He has encouraged his government “to accelerate its efforts through the clean energy dialogue with the United States and at the climate change talks in Cancun, Mexico.” Both Savoie and Mourani have echoed Chong's call "to act quickly and ... to act now." As for Elizabeth May ... well, this is primarily what she's in politics for. An impressive group.

Not only are they dealing with what Duncan refers to as "perhaps the defining issue of our generation," but they serve as an excellent example of how politicians can work together on important issues regardless of political affiliation. Good news on two fronts.

Convincing this government to "to act quickly and ... to act now" on climate change is a huge challenge, and Michael Chong has not always endeared himself to Mr. Harper, but formation of the caucus suggests all hope is not lost. These days, even that is something.

Capitalists really do run the world—science says so

Science, it seems, is confirming the Occupy movement's concerns about capitalists running the world. A trio of complex systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology combined the mathematics used to model natural systems with comprehensive corporate data to map ownership among the world's transnational corporations (TNCs). They discovered that less than one per cent of the corporations controlled 40 per cent of the wealth in the system.

Starting with the world's 43,060 TNCs, they constructed a model of which corporations controlled others through shareholding networks, combined with their operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power. The model revealed a core of 1,318 corporations with interlocking ownerships. Each had ties to at least two others with an average of 20. This group represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, but in addition they collectively owned the majority of the world's large blue chip and manufacturing firms, representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.

Further untangling the ownership web, the team found much of it tracked back to a "super-entity" of 147 even more tightly knit corporations that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. Most were financial institutions.

This may not represent a conspiracy, but it does represent a disturbing concentration of wealth and power. The group shares common interests and extraordinary means to influence governments toward satisfying those interests. Thus the democracy yields to the plutocracy, which is of course essentially what the Occupy movement is protesting.

The Pope supports a Tobin tax

In 1972, Nobel Prize-winning economist James Tobin suggested his now famous currency transaction tax as a way to manage the volatility of exchange rates. He believed that governments were not capable of adjusting to massive movements of funds across foreign exchanges without causing hardship to their people and sacrificing their economic policy objectives. By imposing a small tax (he suggested something around 0.5 per cent) on each exchange of one currency into another, volatility would be reduced as would the effects on national economies.

The idea of this tax was then seized upon as a means of providing revenue for dealing with poverty and environmental issues throughout the world. It appears that the Pope has become a supporter. In a document entitled Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of a Global Public Authority, released Monday by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, the Vatican recommends "taxation measures on financial transactions through fair but modulated rates with charges proportionate to the complexity of the operations." Pretty much what Tobin suggested 40 years ago.

The council went even further to recommend a central world bank that "regulates the flow and system of monetary exchanges" to help restore "the primacy of the spiritual and of ethics ... and, with them, the primacy of politics—which is responsible for the common good—over the economy and finance." These instruments would "nourish markets and financial institutions ... which are capable of responding to the needs of the common good and universal brotherhood."

So will we find Benedict XVI camping out with the Occupy movement? Probably not, but his heart seems to be with them.

Measuring social progress—the Canadian Index of Wellbeing

Released last Thursday, the Canadian Index of Wellbeing (CIW) illustrates yet again the folly of using the GDP as a measure of social progress. The GDP is, after all, simply a measure of how much stuff we buy and sell. It doesn't cover areas of our lives such as community vitality, democratic engagement, education, the environment, health, leisure and culture, and time use, all of which are included in the CIW, along with living standards.

The overall trend is quite different from that of the GDP as shown in the attached graph. While our GDP has increased 31 per cent over the period from 1984-2008, our quality of life has increased only 11 per cent. Although our wellbeing improved in a number of areas, we lost ground in other areas including the environment.

Furthermore, the GDP hides some disturbing trends. For example, while Canadians are on average better off in terms of income and wealth, inequality of both has increased.

The CIW is discussed in detail in the report "How are Canadians Really doing?" which can be found here. If you are interested in a comprehensive picture of the trends in Canadians' overall quality of life, the report makes for an intriguing read.

As the CIW website says, "For the first time in our country’s history, we have a transparent picture of how our quality of life—in all of its many dimensions—is changing." Here is a powerful instrument to inform social and economic policy. We will be foolish if we don't take advantage of it to improve Canadians lives.

Public transit blossoms in Calgary

When Calgary's GoPlan, the blueprint for the city's transportation development for the next 30 years, was created in the mid-1990s, it predicted that by 2024, 50 per cent of commuters would be using public transit to get downtown to work. Only 33 per cent used public transit at the time. Critics said the plan was optimistic, even unachievable.

It has turned out to be wildly pessimistic. Thirteen years sooner than expected, half of rush hour commuters are now taking transit into downtown while only a third are driving. The C-Train, Calgary's light rail transit (LRT) system, now handles 270,000 trips every weekday.

Various factors are thought to have contributed to the change. First is the improved transit system. The city has continually increased transit hours, extended LRT lines and added more bus service to keep up with growing demand. Secondly, while the city has spent millions on improving its road system, it has not built freeways into the downtown. And then there is parking. Limited parking downtown has resulted in some of the highest monthly rates outside of New York.

So it can be done. People can be shifted from their cars to public transit in major ways and surprisingly quickly. If it can be done in the car-loving oil capital of Canada, it can be done anywhere.

Welcome to the new Supremes

Finally, the Prime Minister has filled the gaps in the Supreme Court and seemingly with good choices: Justice Andromache Karakatsanis and Justice Michael Moldaver, both from the Ontario Court of Appeal. Politically, the two justices are considered small-c conservative, not surprising for a Conservative Prime Minister.

Justice Karakatsanis, called to the bar in 1982, has practiced criminal, civil and family litigation. She was appointed a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in 2002, presiding in all areas of the work of the court, and a judge of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in 2010. Before becoming a judge she gained considerable experience in the public service, not a bad field of expertise to bring to the Court. Her various duties for the Ontario government included serving as Deputy Attorney General, as Secretary of the Ontario Native Affairs Secretariat, and as Chief Executive Officer of the Liquor Licence Board.

Justice Moldaver, a Gold Medalist graduate of the University of Toronto, was appointed to the Supreme Court of Ontario in 1990 and to the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1995. He has lectured at the University of Toronto Law School and has held a variety of other prestigious positions in the legal and academic communities. One quibble about Justice Moldaver may be that he doesn't speak French.

The selection process was thorough. The Prime Minister and the Justice Minister consulted with the legal community to draw up a list of candidates which was then scrutinized by a selection panel that included MPs from all parties. (In accordance with the Supreme Court Act, the Prime Minister may only appoint a person who has either been a judge of a superior court or has been a barrister or advocate with at least 10 years standing at the bar.) The panel, which reviewed past judgments by the candidates and consulted with prominent members of Ontario's legal community, drew up a short list of six candidates for the Prime Minister's final selections. Apparently, the panel's short list was unanimous among all parties.

The Prime Minister has also maintained the gender balance on the court, not a bad thing either. Altogether, two worthy choices.

Calgary's main attraction

What is Calgary's most popular attraction? The Calgary Stampede, you say? Flames games, perhaps? The Calgary Zoo? Wrong, wrong and wrong.

According to an article in Fast Forward Magazine, in 2010 the Calgary Public Library system "had more visits than the Stampede, Calgary Zoo, Heritage Park, Science Centre, recreation arenas and all professional sporting events combined." It circulated more items than any other system in North America except those of Toronto, New York and Los Angeles.

For a city sometimes perceived as redneck, we Calgarians do surprising things. We elect the most progressive mayor in the country and we read our brains out. Libraries are one of the finest measures of civilization and on that score at least, we are apparently quite a civilized bunch.

Occupy Wall Street—a Sixties moment?

Is Occupy Wall Street a Sixties' moment? Will it bring about lasting change or simply fade away? Either way, it is overdue. Started in New York, inspired by the Arab Spring, it has now spread throughout the U.S. and beyond. The views of the participants are diverse, yet seem to focus on two demands: We want our democracy back and we want a more equitable, sustainable society. The demands are reasonable and timely.

The United States more than other Western nation has seen its democracy reduced to a shadow. The Obama administration offers a variety of examples. Its centerpiece of domestic legislation, the health care program, seemed designed as much to placate the insurance and pharmaceutical industries as serve the American people. And when he dealt with the financial crisis, he focused on bailing out the banks rather than their victims and even hired some of the scoundrels who contributed to the problem. But rather than blame Obama, we might ask if he had a choice. Given the lobbying and publicity power of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, he probably couldn't have passed his legislation without their concurrence. As for the financial industry, it was a major contributor to his 2008 election campaign, and he will need that support again if he hopes to win in 2012. Corporate largesse is now essential to winning elections in the U.S.

And while democracy is steadily eroded by plutocratic power, wealth drifts increasingly into the hands of those who already have the most. The United States now has its most inequitable distribution of wealth since at least the end of the Second World War and the most inequitable in the Western World. Nor is its wealth production sustainable, dependent as it is on diminishing resources and pollution of the environment.

In a properly functioning democracy, these fundamental issues would be debated through the conventional party process, but that is hard to do in the kind of dysfunctional democratic/plutocratic system that exists in the U.S. Both major parties are beholden to corporate power which wants neither issue debated seriously. Former President Dwight Eisenhower, who famously warned against the military-industrial complex would be astonished to see his country now run by a military-industrial-Congressional complex. Nor is the mass media, the political forums of modern democracy, much help in holding such debates when they are owned and controlled by corporations.

The dissenters are therefore, like those in the Sixties, left to rely on less orthodox methods than party politics or the mass media to get their message heard, such as the tried and true approach of taking to the streets.

And the movement is growing. Demonstrations have spread from New York to almost every other major city in the U.S., including Chicago, Boston, St. Louis and Los Angeles. Unions representing transit workers, airline pilots, teachers, doormen, security guards, maintenance workers, postal workers, healthcare workers, and other labour sectors have pledged support. Actors, filmmakers, musicians, academics, and other celebrities have also shown support, as have some Congressmen.

Canadians, too, are getting in on the act, with protests planned for cities across the country, including Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and Calgary. We Canadians have been fortunate in not having our democracy eroded to the same degree as the Americans, nor have we suffered the same disparity of incomes. Just as we refused to surrender our financial system to the vagaries of unregulated free markets as they did, we have maintained a more democratic and equitable society generally, but the same destructive forces of global capitalism are pressing in on us, too, so adding our voices to the movement is an exercise in both solidarity and prudence.

The movement may, like those in the Sixties, produce lasting effects, or it may just fade away, but it's a righteous cause—or causes, rather—a refreshing rejection of the status quo.

A message from Forest Lawn for workers everywhere

The workers at Sobeys' Forest Lawn supermarket, the only unionized Sobeys in Calgary, are currently on strike. The pickets have been on duty for two weeks. Doug Smith of the United Food and Commercial Workers union says the action resulted from the company's refusal to bargain in good faith. He claims they have been bargaining for 22 months and the union is prepared to continue negotiations, but Sobeys is refusing to return to the bargaining table. For its part, the company says it is willing to negotiate but wants to reach a contract that is fair to everyone and reflects the deal non-union employees have at other Sobeys locations.

We can make a reasonable guess what the "deal the non-union employees have" consists of—whatever the company decides to unilaterally impose. Without the union hovering in the background, no doubt it would be even less than it is now. And now the company plans on reducing all its employees to the lowest common denominator.

The lesson for workers here is an old one. Without unions, they have no leverage. They are at the mercy of management. There may be fewer unions these days, but just their presence alone remains a major incentive for companies to treat their workers well. They are the only democracy in the workplace, the only guarantee that workers voices will be heard.

I wish the United Food and Commercial Workers members at Sobeys Forest Lawn store all the luck in the world, for their sake, for the sake of their non-union colleagues at other Sobeys outlets, and for the sake of non-union grocery store employees throughout the city.

Premier Redford's male cabinet

The recent election of Alison Redford as leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta, and thus the premier of the province, was healthy progress for women in Canadian politics. Now Premier Redford has selected her cabinet and there the progress halts. Out of 21 members of cabinet, including Redford, there are only three women.

One cannot entirely blame Redford, however. She had little to choose from. Of all the provinces, Alberta has the second lowest proportion of women in its legislature. Of 67 Conservative MLAs, only 10 are women.

Redford as premier may represent healthy progress, but obviously Alberta has a long way to go to achieve a healthy mix of the feminine and the masculine in our political culture.

Congrats to Tawakul Karman and friends

I was a little surprised at the Nobel Peace Prize awards for 2011. I had felt sure the winners would include a leader from Egypt's Arab Spring revolt, the Arab Spring being the major peaceful achievement of the year and Egypt being the most prominent example of it. Nonetheless, the winners are all sound choices—all women, chosen "for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women's rights to full participation in peace-building work."

The award to Yemeni journalist and pro-democracy activist Tawakul Karman was of particular importance for more than playing "a leading part in the struggle for women's rights and for democracy and peace in Yemen." It was important also because she is a devout Muslim and a member of an Islamist party associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. She demonstrates that Islamist parties are not immune to women's rights and democracy. Thorbjorn Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel committee, disagrees that such groups are necessarily a threat to democracy, saying, "There are many signals that that kind of movement can be an important part of the solution."

Karman may have been chosen over participants in the Egyptian revolt because she has been involved in the struggle long before the Arab Spring. In 2005, for example, she founded Women Journalists Without Chains, focusing on the right to a free press.

Her award sisters, too, are highly deserving. Liberian president Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, the first woman elected head of state in Africa, was chosen for contributing "to securing peace in Liberia, to promoting economic and social development, and to strengthening the position of women." She has been a tireless fighter of corruption and has made education compulsory and free for all primary-age children.

The third winner, fellow Liberian Leymah Gbowee, helped bring peace to her county in the early 2000s. According to the Nobel committee, she "mobilized and organized women across ethnic and religious dividing lines to bring an end to the long war in Liberia, and to ensure women's participation in elections." She is now executive director of the Women in Peace and Security Network, an organization that works with women in other West African countries to promote peace, literacy and political involvement.

Worthy winners all. Congratulations, ladies.

Pembina comments on the federal environment commissioner's report

I intended to comment on the October Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, offering as it did yet another disappointing, if not depressing, account of the federal government's climate change efforts. However, a press release by the Pembina Institute said it better and with more expertise than I could, so I decided to offer that instead.

Matt Horne, director of the Institute's climate change program, commented as follows on Chapter 1 of the report which dealt with the government's plans under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act:

The federal government has repeatedly exaggerated the effectiveness of its policies to limit greenhouse gas pollution, and now admits its plan will be 90 per cent less effective than it first claimed. Further, the government has ignored the legal requirement to explain how it will make up for this gap.

Despite years of debate and discussion about federal action on climate change, the Commissioner found that the federal government still does not have a solid management structure in place to achieve its objectives, or properly measure the effectiveness of its policies or spending. This is a recipe for continued failure.

The Commissioner's findings are especially relevant when looking forward to Canada's 2020 commitments. Canada will fail to live up to those commitments unless it addresses the serious gaps in the ambition, implementation and monitoring of its climate change plans.

Nathan Lemphers, a senior Pembina policy analyst, commented on Chapter 2 which concerned the cumulative environmental effects of tar sands projects:

Today, Canada's environment commissioner concluded that the federal government is not able to adequately assess the cumulative environmental impacts of oil sands development due to gaps in monitoring data and baseline information. The implication of this is simple: the government can't claim to be effectively managing environmental impacts when it is not adequately assessing what those impacts are.

Doing a thorough job of assessing and understanding the environmental impacts is fundamental to making informed decisions about whether and how development should proceed. The government is failing on both counts.

This report is the latest in a series of reports that contradict the government's claims about protecting the environment in the oil sands region. Canadians have learned that their government does not have sufficient information to make informed decisions, and as a result is unable to properly assess the cumulative environmental impacts of oil sands development. The only thing diminishing faster than Canada's international credibility on these matters is the environmental assessment agency's budget, which will be cut in half over the next two years.

This report tells a different story than what the federal government has been saying in the U.S. and the EU, where it has downplayed environmental concerns in its effort to lobby for new pipeline approvals and shield the industry from environmental measures elsewhere.

Not an encouraging picture.

Loss of party subsidy is loss for democracy

Democracy is about political equality. To be democratic, a political system must in essence belong to all the people equally, and if it is to belong to all the people equally, all the people must fund it equally. One person/one dollar may not be as important as one person/one vote, but it is very important nonetheless—money does translate into votes.

The federal government's termination of the public subsidy to political parties will shift political power away from equality toward those with bigger purses, i.e. away from democracy toward plutocracy. This may be of little consequence to Conservatives because after all Conservatives believe in privilege, but it should be of considerable consequence to democrats.

The Conservatives are right in that we practice other ways of leveling the political playing field—banning of corporate contributions, tax breaks for contributions, limits on election spending, etc,—nonetheless the subsidy is an important tool in achieving greater political equality. Its loss will be a loss for democracy.

Cities—the provincial option

The possibility of Toronto becoming a province has popped up in the news again. The idea has floated around for years, supported by a variety of civic thinkers including the urban guru Jane Jacobs.

The idea has considerable merit and not only for Toronto. Under our Constitution, cities are creatures of the provinces, to be dealt with as provincial politicians see fit. This may have been reasonable when we were a rural country, but we have become an urban country, and it's time to reverse the relationship. A good start would be transforming our major cities into provinces. They are, after all, the centres of cultural and economic activity and should therefore be the centres of power.

Acquiring provincial status might require a constitutional amendment ... or it might not. If the federal and provincial government agreed to split a province, a constitutional amendment might not be necessary.

Calgary's mayor, Naheed Nenshi, a vocal advocate for Canadian cities, has been talking a lot about the need for more sources of revenue for cities, emphasizing that their growing costs drastically outpace their property tax revenues. “I’m the mayor of a city that has more people in it than five provinces," he points out, "yet I have the exact same legislative authority as any village of 30 or 40 people. And that has to change.”

Indeed it does. And if he starts promoting the provincial option as the agent of that change, he will get my support.

At least read the bloody book

We in Christendom have a history of "Christians" using religion to justify violence of all kinds, from war to burning people at the stake. Indeed, exploiting one of history's gentlest prophets to justify violence is one of the more intriguing themes of the Christian story.

The prophet's Testament describes as non-violent a man as one could imagine. In Luke 6:29, he advises, "And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other," and in Mathew 5:43-4, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."

Of course, this is New Testament stuff. Old Testament stuff, on the other hand, can get pretty nasty—an eye for an eye and so on—but that after all is not the Testament of Christ, so it should have nothing to do with Christian behaviour. Unfortunately, many who insist on calling themselves Christians seem to prefer it, even when it's not so much Christ as Antichrist.

We should not be surprised therefore when the more devout among the Muslim faith also use religion to justify waging war and persecuting those who do not share their beliefs. A recent article about Pakistan in the September issue of the New Internationalist relates how religious fundamentalists in that country have brought in a number of blasphemy laws including one that specifies "death or imprisonment for life" for defiling the "sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad."

The joker in this pack is that the law would seem to violate the Koran, which says in verse 2.256, "There is no compulsion in religion," and in verse 73.10, "And bear patiently what they say and avoid them with a becoming avoidance."

But of course the disciples of violence will pick and choose from their good books, whether it be the Bible or the Koran, seeking words to justify imposing their brutish, self-righteous dogma. Asking them to read a little more carefully to find something that might at least modify their barbarous tendencies is, I suspect, asking too much.

CIA undermines aid agencies

That the CIA does sleazy stuff is hardly new. Perhaps we shouldn't have been surprised then that they exploited children to help track Osama bin Laden.

In order to confirm his presence in Abbottabad, they sought DNA samples from the residents of what they believed to be his compound. To this end, they recruited a Pakistani doctor to organize a vaccine program. The doctor claimed he had obtained funds for free hepatitis B vaccinations for children. Bypassing the management of the Abbottabad health services, he paid generous sums to low-ranking local government health workers to carry out the "project." The idea was to get workers inside the target compound to obtain the DNA samples.

Aid workers say the CIA's reckless behaviour has threatened the safety of genuine aid workers and endangered programs to help Pakistan's poor. Médecins Sans Frontières president Unni Karunakara said, "The risk is that vulnerable communities—anywhere—needing access to essential health services will understandably question the true motivation of medical workers and humanitarian aid." The president of InterAction, an alliance of 190 U.S.-based NGOs, commented, "Such unethical behaviour endangers not only local populations but also the lives of legitimate humanitarian workers."

These concerns have proven valid. Save the Children moved aid workers out of Pakistan after a warning from U.S. consulate officials that staff could be picked up by Pakistani Intelligence over alleged links to the doctor involved in the CIA scheme. Save the Children has 2,000 employees in Pakistan and assisted seven million people in 2010, many during the massive floods. After the security threat, its activities slowed or ground to a halt.

Other aid workers have also been forced to leave the country, and charities have experienced long delays in obtaining visas and shipments of relief goods.

Pakistan has the biggest polio problem in the world, and there is a particular concern that polio vaccination campaigns could be at risk. In northern Nigeria in 2003, local leaders suspended polio vaccination, claiming the vaccine was a plot by the West to sterilize Islamic children in order to reduce Muslim populations. As a result, annual cases more than doubled and Nigeria exported polio to nearly two dozen countries. Those suspicious of the West, and that includes a large portion of the Pakistani population, now have a powerful new weapon in their arsenal of propaganda against Western aid agencies and programs such as vaccination. One wonders how many children will die as a result of the CIA's most recent mischief.

Palestine and the churlish U.S. veto

It seems so little to ask. A people, already recognized as a nation by most other nations, requests full membership in the UN. It should be a shoo-in. Palestine is recognized by 65 per cent of the world's states representing 75 per cent of the world's people, including most of the major nations such as China, India, Russia and Brazil. And yet, ever unconditionally faithful to Israel which opposes Palestinian membership, the United States intends to veto the request.

"Peace is hard," says U.S. President Obama. And a president who is fighting wars in six countries ought to know. But peace in Palestine is hard because the most powerful nation in the world unconditionally supports one side. Until the United States leans on Israel to settle fairly with the Palestinians, peace will continue to be hard.

The president insists that peace can only come through negotiations between the two parties, but relying solely on that approach has failed for over 60 years and is currently going nowhere. Every day the Palestinians see more of their land stolen and see themselves more segregated. And every day the Israelis gain more land and further isolate their victims.

There is simply no reason for the Israelis to seriously negotiate a settlement when, on the one hand, they profit every day by the lack of one and, on the other hand, can do whatever they want by virtue of having the strongest army in the region, complete with nuclear arms, and the political and military support of the United States.

The Palestinians have no recourse but to seek other avenues that will lead to their liberation, such as seeking full membership in the United Nations. Maybe it will help, maybe not, but they have nothing to lose.

The Jews have their state. It is churlish of the Americans to deny the same to the Palestinians. A writer in The Seattle Times sums it up nicely, "It angers me that the people who run this country (Democrats and Republicans alike) have become so blinded as to forget who they are: a country that once fought for freedom and representation. If the U.S. decides to veto Palestine’s request, it will be one of the least patriotic and most hypocritical actions this country has taken. At a time of world struggle, Americans need to remember who we are and stick up for the little guy."

British cooking a hit in Berlin

Black is white, down is up, and British cooking is popular in Berlin. It's true! Berlin has seen the opening of a spate of cafes and bars featuring British food.

East London, a cafe recently established in the trendy Kreuzberg district, serves scotch eggs, bacon and egg butties and steak and ale pies. Das Gift, run by Glaswegian musician Barry Burns, offers snacks such as salt'n'vinegar crisps and Tunnock's Caramel Wafers, along with a large range of Scottish ales. Hudson's, a corner cafe specializing in British baking, is so popular that weekends require reservations. There is even a chain, Broken English, which recently opened its third branch.

Prices can be a bit on the high side. At East London, a cup of tea will cost you $3.90 and a full English breakfast $13.00. People paying these prices for British cooking? Or must we now refer to it as British cuisine?

Barack Obama, the world's leading assassin, and his private army

Within the U.S. military is another military, a secret military. Not secret in its existence—although even that can be shadowy—but secret in its operations. Except when it scores a public relations coup, such as the mafia-style execution of Osama bin Laden, the American people don't know what it's up to. And it's up to a lot. According to stories in the Washington Post and Al Jazeera, U.S. Special Operations forces were deployed in 75 countries last year, up from 60 at the end of the Bush presidency, and possibly 120 by the end of this year. In other words, in most countries on the planet, where they train the special forces of other countries, engage in operations with them or engage in operations of their own.

U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) now numbers over 60,000 personnel and includes the Army's "Green Berets" and Rangers, Navy SEALs, Air Force Air Commandos and Marine Corps Special Operations teams, as well as specialized helicopter crews, boat teams, civil affairs personnel, para-rescuemen, and air-traffic controllers and weathermen. In other words, essentially a complete military within the military.

And even deeper in the shadows is yet another army, composed of elements of the above, that reports directly to the president and acts under his authority. This is the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), a clandestine group whose primary mission is tracking and killing suspected terrorists. JSOC has made Obama the world's leading assassin. John Nagl, past counterinsurgency adviser to newly-appointed CIA Director David Petraeus, calls its extralegal kill/capture campaign "an almost industrial-scale counterterrorism killing machine."

And President Obama is using his killing machine with even more enthusiasm than his predecessor. A senior legal advisor in both Bush administrations, John B. Bellinger III, commented, "While they seem to be expanding their operations both in terms of extraterritoriality and aggressiveness, they are contracting the legal authority upon which those expanding actions are based." Obama bases his lethal operations not on constitutional executive authority as Bush did, but on the authority Congress gave the president in 2001 to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" he determines "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the 9/11 attacks. However, as Bellinger has pointed out, most of Obama's current targets had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

The United Nations has, not surprisingly, questioned the legality of such operations under international law, particularly when they kill innocent civilians. And no doubt there are many instances where innocents are killed. An example is a JSOC attack in Takhar Province, Afghanistan, in September of last year which killed ten people and injured seven. It turns out they had targeted the wrong man and attacked an innocent election convoy.

As citizens of a democracy, Americans should be concerned about their president having this secret army of assassins at his beck and call. He is, after all, a president not a Caesar. These forces not only operate clandestinely in most countries around the world doing God knows what but they are even deployed in the homeland itself. JSOC has provided support to domestic law enforcement agencies during high profile events such as the Olympics, the World Cup, political party conventions and presidential inaugurations.
 
And the rest of us should be concerned as well. After all, SOCOM is engaged in its shadowy activities in most countries in the world. The Obama administration justifies this by claiming they obtain the permission of the countries their special forces operate in. Or at least the permission of the governments. That, as we know from the case of Pakistan, does not necessarily translate into the permission of the people.

Media organs such as the Washington Post and Al Jazeera do us a necessary service when they track the growth and behaviour of this ominous force. A light needs to be shone into this dark corner of U.S. government policy.

The best voting system for Canada

We have seen four provincial referendums recently offering alternatives to the First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system and all failed to bring about change. A major reason for the failures may very well be the systems offered.

In B.C., a citizens’ assembly recommended the Single Transferable Vote (SVT) system and a citizens’ assembly in Ontario and a commission in Prince Edward Island both recommended the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system.

In order to see why these may have been poor choices, we need to keep two things in mind. First, the merit of the system proposed, and second, the marketability of that system to the electorate. There is, in other words, no point in recommending an excellent system, or at least excellent in theory, if the voters won’t accept it.

Let us ask first what Canadians would want in a new voting system. I suggest it should satisfy at least the following criteria:

1. Be fair to all voters (and political parties).
2. Be sensitive to the regions.
3. Provide equal opportunity to all potential candidates.
4. Provide local representation.
5. Enhance the power of voters over parties.
6. Be easy to understand.

Some of these have little to do with the theoretical merit of the system but are of vital importance in selling the system to the citizenry. Local representation, for example, is of limited value because most people vote for the party, not the candidate, yet the idea remains dear to the hearts of many voters. Not being easy to understand may not be a handicap to a good system, but it is a major handicap in selling it.

The citizens’ assemblies and the commission did a good job of choosing systems of merit, as we would expect from people who considered voting systems thoroughly, but failed when it came to marketability. It would seem the two choices appealed more to students of electoral systems than to the average voter.

The choice in B.C., Single Transferable Vote, maximizes the power of the voter but, unfortunately, presents about the most complicated ballot one can imagine. I may be underestimating the average voter, but I think he or she just wants to go into the booth and make an X (it’s getting increasingly difficult to get them to do even that), not engage in a convoluted analysis comparing candidates.

I was once a fan of Mixed Member Proportional, the choice offered in Ontario and PEI, but have increasingly come to dislike it, largely for its two classes of candidate, one elected by FPTP, the other from party lists. Many people are suspicious of the list candidates because they are chosen by the parties rather than the voters, a criticism that doesn’t stand up to analysis but seems tenacious, nonetheless.

I have come to believe that a simple PR system may not only be a very good system, but may be the easiest to sell. The only change from the current system would be multi-candidate constituencies.

To see how a simple system would work, consider my home city, Calgary. Calgary currently has eight constituencies, all of which elect Conservative MPs. Under simple PR, Calgary could be one constituency with each party presenting up to eight candidates on their list. Calgarians would still elect eight MPs but, if the popular vote were distributed as it was in the last election, elected would be five Conservative MPs, one NDP, one Liberal and one Green. Not only would the four parties—and Calgary voters—be represented fairly, but all six of the above criteria could be met.

As a PR system it would satisfy Criteria 1. PR systems also tend to provide better opportunities for women, thus helping to meet the biggest challenge of providing equal opportunity for potential candidates, i.e satisfying Criteria 3. The candidates would be local, therefore satisfying Criteria 2 and 4. Indeed this system would substantially improve local representation. Currently, NDP, Liberal and Green supporters have no meaningful local representation in Calgary. Under simple PR, they would.

Regarding Criteria 5, many voters are uncomfortable with PR because it presents lists of candidates and that makes them feel they are losing power to the parties. In fact, PR can increase the voter's power over FPTP. The simple PR ballot can be set up in two ways: the voter chooses a party or the voter chooses a particular party candidate. Under the first setup, the five Conservatives elected in Calgary would be the first five on the Conservative party list, i.e. they would be elected according to the party's ranking. Under the second setup, however, the five Conservatives elected would be the five who got the most votes—in other words, the party offers the voter a short list from which to make the final choice. This gives the voter more power than he or she has under FPTP where the Conservative voter’s only choice is the candidate offered by that party (of course, he or she can abandon his or her philosophy and vote for another party).

And finally, simple PR satisfies Criteria 6—it is easy to understand. The only significant change from FPTP is multi-candidate constituencies rather than single-member constituencies, and the voter is required to do no more than mark an X. If we want to sell PR to Canadians, this may be the way to do it.

Democracy week Sept 12-18

The United Nations has declared September 15th the International Day of Democracy. Fair Vote Canada is expanding the day to Democracy Week, September 12th to the 18th. The week, according to Fair Vote's website, is all about "participating, celebrating, understanding, and improving our Canadian democracy."

As I contemplate those four words "participating, celebrating, understanding, and improving," I can't help but feel this country need a great deal more of all of them and not just during Democracy Week. Participation has not been impressive recently with some very low voter turnouts at all levels of government. As for celebrating our democracy, well, that we hardly do that at all. With the rampant apathy toward the weaknesses in our democracy, such as our lamentable first-past-the-post voting system, we obviously need both more understanding and more improving of democracy.

The voting system is by no means the only area where we need improvement. We have precious little democracy in one of our most important places—the workplace. Our mass media is seriously flawed in serving its function as the chief public forum of democracy, vested as it is in corporate interests who shamelessly use it to promote their own agenda. Indeed, we allow corporations to intrude excessively on the citizens' democratic prerogative in a variety of ways: contributing to political parties, funding front organizations such as the Fraser Institute, and of course dominating the economy to the point they can bend any political party to their will. We are as much a plutocracy as a democracy.

So yes, we need a lot more "participating, celebrating, understanding, and improving," with the emphasis on improving, 52 weeks a year. The International Day of Democracy and Democracy Week will hopefully serve as reminders of this.

As my blogging participation in Democracy Week, I plan to write a short essay discussing what I believe would be the best voting system for Canada and post it this coming Thursday, the International Day of Democracy.

Barbie dolls are killing Chinese workers

Harmless, Barbie dolls are not. They are, in fact, responsible for exploitation, misery, and even death for thousands of innocents. According to the human rights group Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehavior (SACOM), a Sturdy Products factory in Shenzhen, China, that makes Barbie dolls uses child labour and forces its staff to do three times the amount of overtime allowed by law. One worker reportedly killed herself after being repeatedly shouted at by bosses while others expressed concern about poisonous chemicals.

SACOM, which helped expose abuses in Apple's Foxconn plant in China earlier this year, recently assisted in an undercover investigation of the Sturdy Products factory. Barbie dolls are one of the products made for the giant Mattel company which last month announced quarterly profits of $76 million. The factory also makes toys for Disney and Walmart.

Disney, Walmart and Mattel all said they had carried out investigations. Mattel declined to comment directly on any of the allegations other than to say it was "deeply saddened" by the suicide. We must hope the investigations bring some relief to the workers, but a spokeswoman for SACOM is not optimistic. She observed, "Mattel, Walmart and Disney ... always claim they strictly comply with local laws and adhere to their respective code of conduct. The rampant violations at Sturdy Products, including excessive overtime, arbitrary wages, unfair punitive fines, child labour and negligence of occupational health, prove that the pledges are empty statements. There is no effective enforcement mechanism and remedies for workers at all."

Her words were underlined by Sturdy Products record. An investigation in 2007 uncovered similar problems. It found that employees were working up to 288 hours a month with a compulsory seven-day week during peak periods, and the company was failing to pay the minimum wage. Nothing, it seems, has changed.

This exploitation of Chinese workers is the essence of globalization as our governments have created it—providing cheap labour for corporations at almost any cost. It is upon this altar that the welfare of Western workers, too, is being sacrificed.

Sweden: hIgh taxes and highly competitive

The daily press, diligently promoting the interests of its corporate owners, continually insists that taxes must be kept low to ensure Canada's economy is competitive. This refrain is dutifully chorused by conservative politicians. It is not, however, true. It has, in fact, been utterly disproved—beyond a reasonable doubt as they say in the legal community—by various European countries.

For example, in the Global Competitiveness Report for 2011-12, produced by the World Economic Forum, Sweden ranks third, ahead of the United States (fifth) and Canada (twelfth), as the world's most competitive economy. And yet Sweden is the highest taxed country in the world with 54.2 per cent of its GDP going to taxes, compared to only 29.6 for the U.S. and 35.8 for Canada.
The World Economic Forum is an institution composed of various corporate communities so we can dismiss any suggestions of left-wing bias in the report.

The Forum ranks competitiveness on the quality of a nation's institutions; its infrastructure such as roads, ports and electricity supplies; macroeconomic factors such as government budget balances and gross national savings; health and education; goods and labour market efficiencies; technological readiness; market size; business sophistication; and innovation.

Northern and Western European nations, i.e. relatively high tax nations, dominated the top 10 rankings. This makes sense. Countries with good social and physical infrastructure, i.e. countries with well-educated, healthy workforces and good roads, ports and other facilities should be highly competitive economically. And good infrastructure does not come cheap. We might expect, therefore, that to maximize its prosperity, a country must have high taxes—just the opposite of what the corporate message tirelessly tells us.

Americans pissed at politicians, particularly at the GOP

This has been a summer of discontent in American politics. According to The Pew Research Center, 79 per cent of the U.S. public are dissatisfied with the way things are going in their country and even more are frustrated or angry with their federal government.

The Republicans are particularly out of favour. Since February, the approval rating of their leaders has dropped from a low 36 per cent to an abysmal 22 per cent. Democratic leaders aren't faring much better at 29 per cent. Approval of Republican leaders had jumped ahead of the Democrats by last November's election, but has plunged back below the Democrats since, rather as if Americans regret their decision to elect more Republicans.

The Republican Party's favourable rating has similarly declined, from 43 per cent in February to 34 per cent today. Again the Democrats did better, only dropping from 47 per cent favourable to 43, but still on the wrong side of 50.

President Obama has also seen his approval decline despite ridding the Americans of their nemesis, Osama bin Laden. Since the assassination in May, his approval rating has "declined markedly," and for the first time since he was elected, significantly more Americans disapprove than approve of the way he is doing his job.

This disenchantment with politicians is hardly surprising after the acrimonious budget debate, but it should, nonetheless, alert the two political parties, particularly the Republicans, that their constituents are fed up with politics as usual. Will the upcoming election year see a more civil, constructive political climate? Judging by the current crop of GOP presidential candidates, I doubt it.

Fukushima—radiation damage that just won't quit

I admit to a love-hate relationship with nuclear power. One day I am all for it because of the large amounts of relatively green power it can provide. I wonder if we can seriously reduce our dependence on fossil fuels without it. And then an incident like the disaster at the Fukushima plant in Japan reminds me of what a nasty little friend nuclear power can be.

Fukushima has now claimed another casualty. On Friday, Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan announced his resignation, thought to be largely due to his handling of the tsunami and Fukushima disasters. Kan's resignation follows by days the announcement that residents who lived close to the damaged plant are to be told their homes may be uninhabitable for decades, even if the operation to stabilize the reactors by January succeeds.

The government had planned to allow the 80,000 people evacuated from the 12-mile exclusion zone back into their homes once the reactors had been brought under control. However, the science ministry now estimates that radiation accumulated over one year at 22 of 50 tested sites inside the exclusion zone would easily exceed 100 millisieverts, five times higher than the safe level advised by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. "We can't rule out the possibility that there will be some areas where it will be hard for residents to return to their homes for a long time," said Yukio Edano, chief cabinet secretary, "We are very sorry." Entire towns may remain unfit for habitation for decades.

As for nuclear power, the prime minister had won widespread public support for his plan to phase it out, but most of his potential successors oppose the plan. Naoto Kan may be far from the last casualty.

Busting the union-busting bills

Anti-union legislation has been all the rage in the U.S. following last November's election of a number of right-wing governors. Most notorious is Wisconsin's Scott Walker, infamous for his polarizing union law that strips most public employees of their collective bargaining rights. Ohio governor John Kasich hasn't received similar attention, but his Bill 5 (SB5) has been an equally savage an attack on workers' rights.

Kasich is not, however, having as much success in putting his bill into action. Ohio activists, led by the coalition group We Are Ohio, took advantage of the state's Citizen Veto law that gave them 90 days to collect enough signatures to stop the bill going into effect until voters had a chance to vote on it themselves. They needed 231,149 signatures; they collected 1.3 million, the greatest signature collection drive in the history of the state. The bill will be put on the ballot in the November election. The governor now wants to compromise and called for a meeting with union leaders and others opposed to the bill. They formally rejected any deal with the governor until the bill is repealed.

Public Policy Polling now has Kasich with only 36 per cent approval, lowest in the country except for Florida's Rick Scott. Scott, another right-wing union-basher, is currently besieged with lawsuits attacking his often bizarre legislation. Three unions representing state workers are suing the state, claiming it violated its contractual obligations and broke the law. Scott has already had his wrists slapped by the Florida Supreme Court who ruled he had “overstepped his constitutional authority” and “violated the separation of powers” on another matter.

And as for Wisconsin and Governor Walker, there too the anti-union legislation is facing legal challenges. This summer, two Republican senators were bounced out of office in recall elections because of Walker's bill, the first time in American history more than one state legislator has been recalled at the same time over the same issue.

This vigorous opposition to anti-union legislation is encouraging. A proper democratic society includes democracy in the workplace and unions are the major source of that democracy.

Goldman Sachs boss lawyers up

Will justice ever be done? This is a question U.S Investors have been asking about the recent financial crisis. Specifically, they have queried why no criminal charges have been laid against Goldman Sachs or any other investment bank whose greed and recklessness led to the crisis. They may finally be getting an answer with the news that Lloyd Blankfein, chief executive of Goldman Sachs, has hired one of the country's top criminal defence lawyers to help him address claims his bank misled clients in the run-up to the financial crisis and subsequently misled Congress.

Jake "Jaws" Zamansky, the hotshot U.S. attorney who spearheaded the successful pursuit of investment banks after the dotcom crash, predicts this may indicate the beginning of a series of cases against Wall Street firms. Goldman has admitted executives at the firm are expected to be interviewed by the Justice Department.

The Obama administration cannot be overly enthusiastic about pursuing Goldman Sachs, especially with an election year approaching. The company was a major contributor to Barack Obama's presidential campaign, CEO Blankfein is a frequent visitor to the White House, and a number of former Goldman executives have held senior positions in the Obama administration, including Gary Gensler, chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

Nonetheless, the Justice Department has a lot to work with, including the support of many ordinary Americans who wonder how a bunch of amoral bankers can crash the financial system, doing serious harm to millions of people, and not wind up in jail. Justice may yet triumph in this sordid story.

Britain's class struggle and the proclivity to riot

The British lower classes, like those elsewhere, have for a very long time expressed their grievances with riot against the established order, going back to the Poor riot of 1196, and including the Spitalfield and Gordon riots of the 18th century, the Luddite and Bristol riots of the 19th century, and the Luton Peace Day riot of the 20th. Other Western countries have similar histories but, with the exception of the United States, seem to have in recent times achieved greater success at relieving tensions in the social order.

One reason, perhaps the major reason, why social distrust smolders in Great Britain is the persistence of inequality, of class, in that country. Despite considerable progress, Britain remains one of the most inequitable nations in the West.

Inequality can be measured in various ways, but the results are much the same. Consider, for instance, the ratio of the average income of the richest 10 per cent of the population to the poorest 10 per cent. In the more equitable Western countries, that ratio runs at around six (Norway 6.1, Sweden 6.2, Germany 6.9, etc.). For France and Canada, it is higher at 9.1 and 9.4 respectively. Britain's ratio is 13.8, exactly twice that of Germany and almost as bad as the United States at 15.9. The class struggle persists in that green and pleasant land.

We know that inequality in a society equates to dysfunction. The higher the inequality, the less healthy a society is—the higher the rates of crime, drug abuse, mental illness, etc., and presumably the more susceptible it is to rioting. Prime Minister David Cameron can preach moral values until he's blue in the face but until Britain deals seriously with its inequality problem, i.e. its class problem, it will suffer a relatively high rate of social tension, the next riot just around the corner.

Peter MacKay, "royal" privilege, and the unelected Senate

Canadians can hardly escape the "royal" connection. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, the Royal Canadian Mint, the Royal Ontario Museum ... the list is endless. To say nothing of the royal visage staring out at us from our currency. All appropriate I suppose as the royal family provides our head of state.

I am bemused, nonetheless, at Defence Minister Peter MacKay's enthusiasm for returning to the "royal" air force and navy. After all, aren't the Conservatives the strongest critics of our unelected Senate? And yet here is a Conservative government applauding our allegiance to not only an unelected head of state but a foreign one at that. At least the Senate is appointed by our elected representatives thus achieving a modicum of democratic respectability. The Queen, imposed on us by an accident of birth, doesn't even have that to her credit. Indeed, democracy is triply insulted—a foreign, unelected head of state chosen by aristocratic privilege.

I suppose I should not be surprised that conservatives support this arrangement. They are, after all, firm believers in privilege. And as to this country cleaving to an archaic institution ... well, that's very conservative, too. So, I am left wondering, why are they fussing about the Senate?

David Cameron, former Bullingdon bully, criticizes rioters

It is always such a challenge to divorce the class angle from British affairs. Two of the most vociferous critics of the recent rioters in London and other cities have been Prime Minister David Cameron and London mayor Boris Johnson. As it turns out, these two old Etonians know a little about vandalism themselves. Back in the '80s, during their Oxford days, they were members of the infamous Bullingdon Club.

The club is famous for its misbehaviour, a favourite form of which is trashing restaurants. Their notorious dinners typically involve members booking a private dining room (usually under an assumed name) and drinking themselves stupid before wrecking the place.

On the night the attached photo was taken, the group was strolling through Oxford after dinner when one threw a plant pot through the window of a restaurant. Six of them were arrested and spent the night in a lockup before being released without charge the next morning. Cameron escaped.

We might expect the Prime Minister's personal experience with gangs and vandalism to provide him with some empathy for the wild oat sowing youth of Tottenham, but I wouldn't be too optimistic.

In any case, one thing can be said for the Bullingdons. After trashing a restaurant they characteristically pay for the damages by peeling off high-denomination bills from their fat wallets. A bit of noblesse oblige, if you like. But then the Bullingdons are rich men's sons, they can afford it. The rioters of recent days are hardly equipped to do likewise. The rich are indeed different from the rest of us.

A lesson in hypocrisy from King Abdullah

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has condemned Syria's Assad regime for its suppression of pro-democracy dissenters and withdrawn his ambassador. This is a very civilized thing to do in the face of the brutality taking place in that country.

Coming from Abdullah however, it is thoroughly unconvincing. The Saudis recently supported a similarly brutal suppression of a pro-democracy movement by the kleptocratic Al Khalifa family, rulers of neighbouring Bahrain, complete with the usual beatings, torture and murder. Comically, Bahrain has also withdrawn its ambassador from Syria.

The king probably had a variety of reasons for condemning Assad: Syria is a secular republic and is friendly toward Iran. He may also have had encouragement from the United States. But the suppression of democracy was certainly not one of the reasons. With the Saud family imposing a harsh, theocratic, misogynistic regime on their own citizens, any criticism of fellow dictators cannot but ring hollow. They could best speak out for democracy by practicing a little themselves.

Coca Cola sponsors the Pope

What would Jesus do? Would he take a trip to Spain that cost the Spanish taxpayers, in the midst of a severe economic crisis, $80 million while accepting sponsorship from over 100 corporations, including Coca Cola?

Apparently 100 Spanish priests don't think so. That's what Pope Benedict is doing and they are protesting it. The priests represent Madrid's poorest parishes and don't believe that the expense can be justified at a time of massive public sector cuts and 20 per cent unemployment. One member of the group, Evaristo Villar, explained, "We are not against the pope's visit, we are against the way it is being staged." A sore point for many Spaniards is that pilgrims to the event will receive free transport while locals in Madrid are facing a 50 per cent increase in transit fares.

Meanwhile the Church is hoping—or perhaps the appropriate word is praying—that the response this time will be better than the poorly received visit to Barcelona last November when, according to the Guardian, the popemobile was "forced to drive at top speed past small groups of the faithful along mainly deserted streets."

But not to worry. With Coca Cola on side, things will no doubt go better.

Stability in South Asia?

Suspended because of the terrorist attacks on Mumbai in 2008, peace talks between India and Pakistan are back on. Foreign ministers of the two countries have held a formal meeting in New Delhi that brought effusive comments from both parties.

The Indian foreign minister, SM Krishna, said his country wanted to see a "a stable, smooth and prosperous Pakistan." while his counterpart, Pakistan foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar, said their relationship "should not be held hostage to the past," but that the two countries should move forward as "friendly neighbours, who have a stake in each other's future and who understand the responsibility that both the countries have to the region."

Both India and Pakistan are joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organization this year, a mutual-security organization which currently includes China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. With the addition of India and Pakistan, it will represent over half of humanity. Membership will not only create a bond between the two nations, it will offer another forum for dialogue.

Any easing of tensions between these nuclear-armed neighbours is good news for all of us. It is, of course, particularly good news for two poor populations who see far too much of their countries' wealth consumed by their militaries.

Wealth gap in the U.S.—100 years of progress lost

A lost century—inequality in the U.S. is more extreme than it has been in almost 100 years. The gap between the ultra-rich and the poor and middle class has widened dramatically over the last 30 years. The richest one per cent of Americans now earn almost a quarter of the country's income and control over 40 per cent of its wealth.

The wealth gap between the races is also worsening. According to the Pew Research Center, the median wealth of white households is 20 times that of black households and 18 times that of Hispanic households, the most lopsided ratios since the U.S. government began publishing the data a quarter of a century ago.

Everyone's living standards have improved in the last hundred years, of course, but Americans should nonetheless be worried about this relapse into inequality. Quite aside from the lack of decency and fair play, these inequities carry a heavy price. Demographic analysis increasingly shows a powerful link between inequality and social problems. More inequality means more crime, more drug abuse, more mental illness, more obesity, etc. An equitable society is a healthy society. And a healthy society is a more prosperous society.

American politicians have been intensely involved in debate about their federal government's financial situation as the country attempts to recover from the Great Recession. If they want to maximize that recovery, they should be looking at reducing the country's wealth gap. In the long term, this may be the most important component of not only a healthy society but of a healthy economy.

Former Iranian Guard commander to become OPEC boss

Now this is interesting. Brigadier General Rostam Ghasemi, a senior commander in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, has been approved by Iran's parliament as the country's next oil minister. This automatically makes him head of OPEC as Iran assumed the presidency of OPEC last October.

The general presents certain problems. He is subject to sanctions by both the U.S. and the European Union. The sanctions bar him from traveling in the EU, making it awkward for him to attend OPEC's quarterly summits in Vienna.

Not that Ghasemi is without qualifications. He has an engineering degree and was head of the Khatam Anbia Troops, the Guard's engineering and construction company that had a major role in the re-construction of the country after the war with Iraq. He has considerable experience in oil and gas production. 

Despite his credentials and his approval by parliament, not all Iranians agree on the wisdom of the appointment. Ali Motahari, a prominent conservative MP who has in the past threatened to impeach Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, opposes involvement of the Revolutionary Guard in Iran's politics, telling parliament, "The integration of the Guard, as a military force, in political and economic power is not in the interests of the system. In neighboring countries, military officials are distancing themselves from politics and power, while it's the opposite in Iran." Motahari is recognizing the simple fact that allowing the military to become a vested economic and political interest is a recipe for military dictatorship and Iran is following that recipe.

In any case, there he is. How the Europeans and the Americans will react to having one of Ahmadinejad's hard line cabinet ministers as head of OPEC, an organization that plays a critical role in determining world oil prices, will be interesting. Take a good look at that handsome face. You may be seeing a lot more of it in the future.