The drug war—cui bono?

The drug war is a most curious war indeed. It is a war which creates its own enemy. If there was no war, i.e. if drugs were legal, the massive profits in drug-dealing would fade away as would the drug dealers and the crime they bring with them. So inasmuch as crime is the problem, it would seem that the real enemy isn't the drugs but the war itself.

The drug dealers depend on the war to keep the money machine running. But they are not the only ones who profit of course. The prison industry is booming—from the U.S., where half the inmates in federal prisons are there for drug offenses, to little Latvia, where half the women in prison are there for non-violent drug offences.

The arms industry has done well, too. American defence contractors have sold billions in weapons for the drug wars in Colombia and elsewhere. The banks have also profited. Wachovia bank recently admitted to transferring $100-million of drug money into the U.S. and failing to monitor $376-billion brought into the bank through small exchange houses in Mexico over a four-year period. And there are other beneficiaries: lawyers and accountants who serve the drug barons, architects who build their mansions, police and military personnel who take their bribes ... the list is long.

Unfortunately, however, wars do more than make some people rich, they also cost lives. In Mexico, 56,000 people have died from drug-related violence since the country launched its latest version of the war in 2006. The Mexican city of Juárez exemplifies who the real enemy is. In the period 2008-10, 54 people died from drug overdoses, over 7,000 died from the drug war. In Juárez, people might be excused for stating the modest exaggeration that drugs don't kill people, drug wars do.

Why the Wall Street gang aren't in jail

Many Canadians (and many more Americans) ask the eminently reasonable question, Why aren't the bankers who precipitated the financial collapse of 2008 in jail? The damage they inflicted on the U.S. alone was immense: a loss of $11-trillion of personal wealth and 5.5 million jobs, and the foreclosure of over 10 million homes.

And there certainly seemed to be criminal behaviour. Two government bodies investigated the meltdown—the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the U.S. Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations—and both made criminal referrals to the Department of Justice. When the FBI issued a warning in 2004 that there was an epidemic of mortgage fraud in the country that could lead to economic calamity, the bankers bundling up high-risk loans and peddling them on Wall Street paid no attention.

Following the Savings and Loan scandal of the late 1980s and 1990s, 800 people went to jail. The collapse of 2008 has been described as "roughly 70 times larger." So why aren't the perpetrators being prosecuted, a failure that Byron Georgiou, who served on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, calls "a lack of accountability that is really quite unique in American history"?

Some possible reasons, loosely extracted from a recent article in Al Jazeera, include the following:

• According to Chris Swecker, a former assistant FBI director, the agencies responsible for investigating the excesses aren't adequately funded.
•  Swecker also believes that the Justice Department is reluctant to pursue a criminal prosecution unless it is a "slam-dunk" after losing a case in which two Bear Stearns hedge fund managers were acquitted of charges that they misled investors.
• The bankers' lawyers are the top graduates of the top law schools in the U.S. and completely outgun the government prosecutors. In short, they intimidate the regulators. Furthermore, the top lawyers with the government may be hoping to get a job with the very banking firms they regulate and start making a multi-million dollar salary, many times what they make with the government.
• U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Criminal Division Chief Lanny Breuer were once white-collar defence attorneys and as a result may have a "defence mindset" that discourages prosecution.
•  William Black, an expert in white collar crime who was involved in prosecuting bank executives during the Savings and Loan crisis, says prosecutors don't understand the connection between the 2008 collapse and a crime called "accounting control fraud" in which executives who control a company loot it and become rich.
• The revolving door of bankers moving into government agencies and regulators moving into banking firms creates close relationships in which nobody wants to call a friend a crook.
• The immense lobbying clout of Wall Street overwhelms politicians and regulators alike.
• The financial industry is a major contributor to election campaigns. Goldman Sachs was a top donor to Barack Obama in 2008.
• The banking industry is so critical to the health of the American economy the government may be afraid that tough regulation could be "bad for business."

Summing it all up, one might say the banks are just too damn rich and powerful. Meanwhile, time is ticking away on the statute of limitations. The bastards may walk.

What ails Canada?

I pilfered the heading of this post from a recent editorial in the Guardian: "Maple leaf ragged: what ails Canada?" The article suggests that our country's "hardline stances" on a number of issues has triggered "an undercurrent of anxiety" in our public discourse.

A long list of examples is provided: the toughening of immigration rules and the reduction to health care for refugees; the Quebec election of separatists triggering political violence; controversy over tar sands production; marginalization of First Nations people; our increasingly U.S. line on foreign policy; and allegations of complicity in the torture of Afghan detainees. The article tends to overstatement but its claim that many Canadians are asking "whether their country's reputation as a tolerant, environmentally conscious, international peacemaker is suddenly in doubt" is accurate.

The dichotomy between what we had established a reputation for being and what we now appear to be stems in large part from having a government that doesn't represent us. It does formally, of course, but not factually. It was elected by a mere 40 per cent of the voters and its popularity has declined since then. Some governments elected by a minority attempt to represent the views and attitudes of most of their citizens, but this isn't one of them. Indeed, this may be the most ideologically committed federal government we've ever had.

The result is a government whose policies and practices often fail to reflect what most of us believe. Not surprising then that there is an undercurrent of anxiety in our public discourse, not only about how these policies affect us, but how they affect our reputation abroad. Certainly, when our malaise becomes a topic of conversation in other countries, we are something less in their eyes.

Harper plays Mulcair ... at our expense

If Stephen Harper is anything, he is a shrewd politician—always strategizing. He illustrated this yesterday starting off the new session of Parliament by accusing the NDP of supporting a carbon tax. Thomas Mulcair fell into the trap by immediately denying the NDP was considering any such thing. This accomplishes two goals for the Conservatives. First, it put Mulcair on the defensive, exactly where the Conservatives want him, and second, it is now extremely difficult for the NDP to propose a carbon tax in the future. Nicely done, Stephen.

Not so nice for the rest of us, however. A carbon tax is an eminently fair and morally responsible way to ensure we stand accountable for our actions while contributing to our salvation from global warming.

As we drive our cars we litter the atmosphere with carbon dioxide and we do it with with impunity. This litter is rather more of a problem than candy wrappers or cigarette packages, however; this litter contributes to global warming, the greatest threat to civilization we currently face. We ought to be held responsible for our sins.

But how? We won't quit driving and we have no convenient way of disposing of our carbon waste. The obvious answer is a carbon tax. It is moral—we accept responsibility for our actions; and it is fair—the more you pollute, the more you pay. And although we pay in the short term, in the long term we profit from a healthier environment. We might expect any political party to support a measure that was moral, fair and an excellent investment in the future.

But in fact, we cannot. We can't expect a carbon tax from the Conservatives, a party in coalition with the oil industry and in love with the tar sands. The Liberals may not be willing to make another attempt after Stéphane Dion floundered on it. And now the Conservatives have maneuvered the NDP into a position where they hardly dare.

We won't, it appears, be seeing a carbon tax at the federal level any time soon. We will all be the losers.

The U.S.—India's favourite major power

With the unwitting collaboration of an idiot "film-maker" in Los Angeles, irresponsible imams in the Middle East and Islamic extremists leading to the besieging of American embassies, the United States does not appear to be winning the hearts and minds of Islam these days. Not that it was doing much of that before.

Americans may be consoled however by their popularity in the Hindu world. The United States is India's favourite major power. According to a Pew Research Center survey, far more Indians hold favourable views of the U.S. than of China or Russia. Needless to say, very few have a favourable opinion of their neighbour Pakistan, although a solid majority do want to improve relations.

Not only do they hold favourable views of the U.S., they support the Americans on key issues. For example, they strongly support a free market economy, place freedom to pursue life’s goals above the state playing an active role in guaranteeing that nobody is in need, oppose Iran developing nuclear weapons, and approve of the U.S. fight against terrorism including drone strikes. Indians much prefer Obama over Putin or Hu Jintao, and a solid majority want to see him re-elected.

When it comes to culture, the results are rather different. A majority of urban Indians dislike American music, movies and television and most think the spread of American customs in India is a bad thing. I would have suspected the opposite, that they would like the culture but not the foreign policies, but it is not so. It isn't surprising though, considering that 80 per cent say they want to shield their traditional culture from globalization. 

In any case, while the Islamic world besieges American embassies, the Hindu world maintains a friendly face.

Social justice in the OECD

Unfortunately, when nations are compared, the yardstick of comparison is usually GDP, a crude measure of a people's well-being even by economic standards. I am, therefore, always seeking rankings by more meaningful measures. My attention was recently caught by a publication entitled Social Justice in the OECD—How Do the Member States Compare? issued by the Bertelsmann Stiftung Foundation. The report applies six criteria—poverty prevention, access to education, labour market inclusion, social cohesion and non-discrimination, health and intergenerational justice—to determine the relative standards of social justice for the 31 members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

As might be expected, the Scandinavian countries topped the combined index with Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland ranking one to five. According to the report, "The north European states comprise a league of their own."

The U.S. did poorly as also might be expected, ranking 27th overall with its "alarming poverty levels." Only three countries—Turkey, Mexico and Chile—had greater income disparities.

Canada did rather well, "top performer among the non-European OECD states" with "strong results in the areas of education, labor market justice and social cohesion." We ranked ninth overall. So, a decent performance for us, but we can do better. This is a competition in which we should definitely shoot for number one.

Water—a matter of security

When we think about security in the global sense we tend to focus on terrorism although, according to Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, Iran is now the most significant threat to security in the world. Of course it isn't, and terrorism is actually a trivial threat on the world stage. A number of other phenomena are vastly more threatening to people's security, including oppression by dictatorial regimes such as Syria's, diseases such as malaria, and of course the most ominous of all, global warming. And then there's the increasing scarcity of that basic necessity of life—water.

Not that we should need it, but we have received yet another warning about the looming global water crisis, this time in the form of a book entitled The Global Water Crisis: Addressing an Urgent Security Issue, released by The InterAction Council, a group consisting of former heads of state or government. The authors of the book are experts in a broad range of water issues.

They discuss how increasing water scarcity can affect our security in various ways including effects on human health, food and energy reliability, the sustainability of ecosystems, political stability, economic development, and of course the potential for migration and conflict. They also, on the hopeful side, discuss opportunities available in addressing the crisis.

They point out that in 2010, the UN General Assembly formally recognized the “right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights.” This is of course a statement of the obvious, but is important nonetheless as formally establishing this basic need as a human right.

The book mentions some chilling facts including that lack of clean water and proper sanitation kills about 4,500 children every day. Compared to such facts, and the potential for future conflicts over water, the terrorist threat pales into insignificance. Sensibly, our efforts to achieve security for the world's people should focus on those areas that pose the greatest threat, and water scarcity is very high on the list.

The folly of shunning Iran

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer," said the oft-quoted ancient military strategist Sun-tzu. Our government, as militarist as it is, has decided to ignore this advice and cut all ties with its enemy of the day. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird announced last week that we are suspending diplomatic relations with Iran, expelling its diplomats and closing our embassy in Tehran.

Baird declared that, "Canada views the government of Iran as the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today." Iran may be a bit of a bad boy on the world stage (at least in the eyes of the West), but accusing it of being "the most significant threat to global peace" is a little over the top for a country that hasn't attacked another nation in centuries and indicates no intention of doing so now. By comparison, I could name a couple of countries that practically make a habit of it, and they're friends of ours.

This action, added to our government's abandonment of any balance on the Palestine issue, underlines our loss of credibility as an honest broker and peacemaker in the Middle East—appropriate, I suppose, to our new militarism. Nonetheless it is sad to see this country, once a real force for peace in the region, decline into impotence.

So why did they do it? Why did they decide to cut off communication with the very country that, according to their own rhetoric, we most need to talk to? To please our favourite nation in the region, Israel? If so, it worked. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu congratulated Mr. Harper, saying "The determination which Canada demonstrates is extremely important so that the Iranians understand that they cannot continue in their race to achieve nuclear weapons. This practical step must serve as an example to the international community [as regards to] moral standards and international responsibility." The bit about nuclear weapons was a bit rich coming from Israel, as was the bit about international responsibility, but the message was pleasing I'm sure to the ears of Messrs. Baird and Harper.


Or did they do it out of pique because a country they like to think of as a pariah state managed to attract 120 nations to a conference last month? Or were they taking advantage of being in Russia at the time of the announcement to give the Russians a slap on the wrist for their attitude toward Iran? Or have they been tipped off about an attack on Iran by Israel and the United States and our getting our people out while the getting is good? Or are we being psyched up to participate in the attack?

Whatever the reason, the move is counterproductive. I will leave the last word to Iranian-Canadian Mohamad Tavakoli, a history professor in the Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations at the University of Toronto: "I view the decision as irrational ... If Canada is interested in resolving key crises in the Middle East, such as in Syria, then the timing is also bad ... [To deal with geopolitical situations] you don't shut down dialogue and communication—you actually intensify dialogue and communication."

Obama's twin challenges

An interesting article in an Al Jazeera blog poses the question, Who is Obama really running against? The answer isn't Mitt Romney. It's Obama himself, or at least the 2008 version. The author suggests that the 2012 Obama, revealed after four years in office, is so different—as in disappointing—from the earlier version, that he may have trouble getting his supporters out to vote and voter turnout, the author insists, will be critical in this election.

I tend to agree. The turnout in the 2008 presidential election was the highest in 40 years, probably because of the enthusiasm for the young man from Chicago. The polls say the election this November will be close, so if very many of those enthusiasts don't bother to vote this time, Obama will be in trouble.

Obama's second big challenge is dealing with the billionaires. He has been a good boy for the corporations, extraordinarily so for the bankers, but Romney is their main man and they are inundating him with cash. His top super PACs are out-fund raising Obama's by four to one. So far, 32 billionaires have donated to a super PAC backing Romney. Sheldon Adelson, the richest man in Las Vegas, has spent $41-million to date and has pledged up to a hundred million. The infamous Koch brothers plan to raise $400-million. As one wit asked: Is this an election or an auction?

Obama is getting some big money as well. He has a few billionaire sponsors of his own, corporations like to hedge their bets, and organized labour will back him, but he'll never garner the kind of largesse that's flowing to Romney. He will have to squeeze every penny out of his supporters.

He has two mountains to climb—getting out the money, then getting out the vote. I wish him luck.

News flash—U.S. corn growers oppose subsidy

American farm policy has been described as "a bi-partisan pork-barrel boondoggle." Critics claim that massive subsidies reward mainly corporate farms (through 1995 to 2010, the top 10 per cent of farmers collected 74 per cent of all subsidies) while undermining farmers in the Third World. For example, NAFTA allowed cheap, subsidized corn to pour into Mexico from the U.S., undercutting Mexican farmers and costing millions of farm workers their livelihoods.

Now, surprisingly, the National Corn Growers Association, one of the country's largest agricultural lobby groups, is calling for an end to direct farm subsidies. A spokesman for the group said this is not the time for the government to be spending $5-billion per year directly subsiding corn farmers regardless of prices or yields.

They are not calling for an end to all subsidies, just direct subsidies. They continue to support others, such as price supports and crop insurance. These will cost nearly $10-billion per year, roughly the same as direct subsidies.

Nonetheless, it is refreshing to see at least one group within the industry itself calling for an end to policies that have proven unwise both domestically and internationally. Whether or not politicians will agree and unwind one of their favourite means of funneling federal dollars to their states and districts is quite another matter. Mitt Romney, for instance, a great proponent of the free market, has referred to farm subsidies as a matter of "national security."

We might also ask if Europe, an even greater subsidizer than the U.S., will pay attention. After all, agricultural subsidies consume 40 per cent of the European Union's total annual expenditures (including $683,000 per year for Queen Elizabeth).

Ending agricultural subsidies in the West would probably do more to help the Third World's economies than foreign aid. The Western taxpayer would doubly benefit—by ending subsidies and reducing aid. And we could end the current hypocrisy of benefiting the West with free trade for our manufactured goods while disadvantaging the Third World by protecting our agriculture. The Corn Growers deserve praise for a small step in the right direction.

Carleton makes amends ... sort of

Carleton University has finally attempted to atone for accepting what was little better than a bribe and then trying to cover it up. In 2010, the university made a secret deal with Calgary businessman Clayton Riddell which, in return for a $15-million donation for a graduate program in political management, would allow the Riddell Foundation to appoint three of five people on a steering committee that would have power over the program's budget, academic hiring, executive director and curriculum. The deal was fronted by former Reform Party head Preston Manning who would also head the steering committee.

Having made the deal, the university fought tenaciously to keep the details hidden, an effort that ultimately failed. Carleton faculty and the Canadian Association of University Teachers understandably called the arrangement a major infringement on academic freedom. Now Carleton president Roseann Runte, responding to the criticism, has revealed a revised deal. It will require the steering committee to operate in accordance with the university's policies and procedures, and it will no longer approve key hiring and curriculum decisions. It will, however, provide "timely and strategic advice."

Obvious questions remain. For example, will the university be able to say no to "timely and strategic advice" from the $15-million man? The only way academic independence will be assured is if this funding is divorced from any "advice" from the donor. Until then, skeptics will quite rightly have their doubts.

Attempts by big business to infiltrate academia have not been limited to Carleton. The University of Toronto established the Munk School of Global Affairs partially funded by Barrick Gold Corp. chairman Peter Munk. This deal gives Munk or his heirs sole discretion to pull $15-million of his donation if the school doesn't meet their expectations. (A petition to have this arrangement annulled and renegotiated can be found at http://www.petitiononline.com/munkoff/petition.html.)

Earlier this year, 200 professors at York University signed a letter requesting the university stop a proposed agreement with former BlackBerry magnate Jim Balsillie's Centre for International Governance Innovation to fund 10 research chairs until academic safeguards could be negotiated, stating that it allowed "unprecedented influence over the university's academic affairs." The Canadian Association of University Teachers has warned it will launch a boycott this fall if Wilfrid Laurier and the University of Waterloo don't "amend the governance structure for the Balsillie School of International Affairs so that academic integrity is ensured."

Last September, documents obtained after a three-year freedom-of-information fight with the University of Calgary revealed that Talisman energy gave the university $175,000 for a public relations and lobbying campaign against government programs to restrict fossil fuel consumption and lower greenhouse gas emissions. The university subsequently acknowledged "that there was insufficient management and governance oversight" and announced new internal controls.

These insidious attempts by business to influence our political dialogue by infiltrating our universities demand close attention. Quite aside from the very business-like practice of doing deals privately in back rooms, an offense to the open nature of a university, the deals themselves threaten to corrupt our democratic process with plutocratic influence. And Carleton's solution is hardly the answer.

Morsi's brave initiative

Egypt and Iran have barely been on speaking terms for some time. An Egyptian leader hasn't visited Tehran since the Islamic revolution in 1979. But new president Mohamed Morsi intends to change that. This week he is attending the Non-Aligned Movement summit hosted by Iran.

Apparently, Morsi's visit will be short and largely symbolic but he intends, nonetheless, to lay the foundation for a new regional effort to deal with the increasing violence in Syria. His idea is to create a Syria contact group made up of the four major powers in the region: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran. He also intends to discuss the issue with China and Russia, both having opposed punitive measures against the Assad regime in the UN security council.

The United States has opposed including Tehran in the discussions, and has even opposed UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon attending the summit, but given Iran's vital interests in Syria and its ability to affect the future of any solution, that is folly.

As for our government, no comment so far on Morsi's initiative, but Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird has written to Ban Ki-moon supporting the U.S. position that he not attend the summit. Given our abandonment of balanced policy in the Middle East, I suspect the Secretary General will pay about as much attention to Baird's letter as Mr. Baird would pay to a letter from me.

Nothing else has worked in ending the violence in Syria. Morsi should be wished all the luck in the world.

Muslim clerics rally to protect Christian girl

Pakistan is so saturated with Muslim fanaticism that hearing about a host of clerics joining hands with leaders of other faiths to strike a blow for justice is refreshing indeed.

News from Pakistan is replete with stories of religious barbarism, including the appalling law that provides the death penalty for blasphemy, the assassination of politicians who counsel toleration, the murder of Christians by zealous mobs, and so on—a depressing litany. The latest incident of religious mischief to grab the news is the tragic case of Rimsha Masih, a Christian girl accused of burning pages of the Koran. Apparently she is a minor and of diminished mental capacity. In any case, she is being held in prison, and the Christian community in her village has fled in fear.

But there is light in the darkness. The All Pakistan Ulema Council, an umbrella group of Muslim clerics and scholars, which includes representatives from fundamentalist groups, has joined with the Pakistan Interfaith League, which includes Christians, Sikhs and other religions, to call for justice for Rimsha. The chairman of the council, Tahir Ashrafi, declared, "We see this as a test case for Pakistan's Muslims, Pakistan's minorities and for the government. We don't want to see injustice done with anyone. We will work to end this climate of fear." Strong words, long overdue.

Giving the initiative special significance is the presence among its supporters of fundamentalist and militant groups. Sajid Ishaq, chairman of the Pakistan Interfaith League, pointed out, "This is the first time in the history of Pakistan that the Muslim community and scholars have stood up for non-Muslims."

Pakistan has a long way to go to achieve religious tolerance, but it seems the clerics are at least beginning to recognize that religion should have some connection to justice.

What would Huck Finn have said?

My favourite book in childhood, and I was an avid reader, was Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Rafting down the mighty Mississippi from adventure to adventure was as romantic a vision as a boy could have. Sadly, it appears that old Miss isn't so mighty these days.

Due to the massive drought affecting the U.S., water levels in the river have dropped to one-quarter what they were last year, seriously hampering barge traffic along this major transportation route. Vessels can't be fully loaded and in some cases have gotten stuck, forcing their cargos to be moved by road. At Greenville, Mississippi, 100 barges were hung up, at a cost of $3-million a day.

Although global warming may not have caused the drought, it has surely aggravated it and it contributes to the costs. The price of ignoring climate change escalates.

At the end of Twain's great book, Huck decided to escape the woes of civilization and "light out for the territory." Unfortunately, no such option is available to us.

Dying for your country in anonymity

According to Wikipedia, 158 Canadian Forces personnel have been killed in the Afghan war since 2002. Their ultimate sacrifice has been widely recognized, honoured and commemorated—individually and collectively—and will continue to be, at least every November 11th, for generations.

I thought about this while reading about how the Alberta government has decided to no longer publish statistics on the deaths of farm workers in the province. These people also make the ultimate sacrifice for their country, yet there is no recognizing, honouring or commemorating. They may perform a service far more valuable than whatever our troops were doing in Afghanistan, yet they are no longer even counted.

We do, however, have a good idea of their number. In 2010, the last year the government published the figure, 22 workers lost their lives on Alberta farms. At that rate, every seven years the death toll matches that of the total sacrifice in Afghanistan.

Put on a uniform, pick up a gun, die for your country, and become a hero. Put on your overalls, rev up your tractor, die for your country, and you don't even become a statistic.

Is our federal government anti-worker?

Among other unwarranted assaults, the 2012 federal budget took a shot at working people. It introduced rules which will require most EI claimants to accept jobs at much lower wages and will allow employers of temporary foreign workers to pay less than the prevailing Canadian wage.

The budget followed a pattern of behaviour by this government. Last year, following a lockout by Canada Post, it legislated postal workers back to work at a lower wage increase than even the employer had offered.

Also last year, U.S.-based Caterpillar Inc. humiliated its workforce by locking them out and demanding a 50 per cent pay cut or else. When it didn't get what it wanted, it closed its plant and cashiered its workers. The Conservative government was content to stand by and watch this abuse of its citizens without apparent concern.

Now the U.S. giant Target has bought out Zellers and up to 13,500 employees will lose their jobs. Many will be re-hired to work for Target but with no guarantee they will be offered more than starting conditions. So far, not a word from their government defending their interests.

We might expect a Conservative government to be employer-friendly, particularly a Harper-led government, but the Labour Minister at least ought to be a voice for workers in the Cabinet. After all, it isn't unheard of for a Conservative Labour Minister to be a spokesperson for the interests of workers. Michael Starr, member of John Diefenbaker's Conservative cabinet, is considered to be one of the most worker-friendly labour ministers we ever had. However, Mr. Harper's Minister of Labour, Lisa Raitt, clearly has no interest in emulating the Honourable Michael Starr.

Mr. Harper and his cabinet colleagues talk a great deal about jobs, but one wonders if their concern is about providing rewarding opportunities for working people or just providing warm bodies for employers. Considering Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's infamous comment, "There is no bad job," I get the distinct impression it's the latter.

Funny picture of the day—Julian Assange's personal patrol

Below is a Sang Tan/Associated Press photo of policemen hanging out at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. The occasion is Julian Assange's presence within. As the whole world knows, Ecuador has granted Assange political asylum from the pursuit of British and Swedish authorities.

But look at the cops! I count 13 of them twiddling their thumbs. What could they possibly think is going to happen that will require a baker's dozen of officers?

It seems to illustrate just how desperate the British are to transport this guy to Sweden. First they were determined to extradite him, now they are threatening to invade the Ecuadoran embassy in order to carry out the extradition—in gross violation of international law. Might one be considered a cynic if he should suspect there's something more at issue here than Julian Assange's sexual peccadilloes?

Europe's shrinking economy—bad news or good?

Once again the news of a shrinking economy leaves me with mixed feelings. According to the CBC, the economy of the European Union shrank by 0.2 per cent in the second quarter of 2012 after a flat first quarter.

Surely this is bad news. The EU is heavily in debt and suffers from record unemployment—grim statistics indeed. And all of this leads to increasing social dysfunction.

Yet we know that economic growth cannot continue forever—we live on a finite planet and are using up its resources at an unsustainable pace. Sooner or later the growth must stop and we can either manage its end or have it imposed on us haphazardly by increasingly exhausted resources. The latter, combined with climate change, promises a dystopian future that would challenge the imagination of a pessimistic science fiction writer.

So, if financial mismanagement forces us into a no-growth mode before the realities of resource depletion and environmental abuse overwhelm us, is that a bad thing? The answer of course is no, but only if we adapt to the situation and restore economic health in a sustainable way. Unfortunately, there is little indication our political and business leaders are taking up that challenge. Their only answer seems to be ever more growth and damn the consequences.

As long as we refuse to confront the need to end growth, I will be unable to resist some small measure of satisfaction when I hear that circumstances are imposing on us willy-nilly what we ought to be doing by design.

Good news on climate change ... I think

A new survey indicates that Canadians are increasingly acknowledging the reality of climate change while recognizing that we are the culprit. An Insightrix Research, Inc. poll reported that 98 per cent of us believe climate change is occurring with 86 per cent believing that human activity is at least partly responsible. Only nine per cent believe it isn't happening at all.

This is good news. The first step in dealing with a problem is recognizing you've got it, and with climate change that recognition hasn't been easy to achieve what with major vested interests attempting to deny the reality or at least confuse the issue. Canadians seem to be increasingly realizing that scientists are the wise men on this issue—the people who know what they are talking about—not the political or business leaders. This is critical if we are to muscle our political and business leaders into doing what is necessary to meet the challenge, the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced.

I do have some reservations about the poll. Of the 98 per cent who believe climate change is occurring, only 32 per cent believe it is entirely due to human agency, with 54 per cent believing it's due to a combination of human and natural causes. The latter is not unreasonable, yet suggests a certain softness in the recognition of human responsibility.

Furthermore, the poll was conducted online and wasn't random, although an effort was made to account for age, gender, region and education in order to match the general population, and a CBC online poll yielded roughly similar results (77 per cent believing human activity is at least partly responsible).

Despite some misgivings, the poll does indicate an awareness of the problem if not yet an awareness of its seriousness. It allows for hope at least.

Are the feds backing off Northern Gateway?

The federal government has, up until very recently, been a major cheerleader for the Northern Gateway pipeline project. After all, the pipeline is intended to carry Mr. Harper's favourite energy source—Alberta bitumen—to offshore markets.

The government has proclaimed the economic benefits of the pipeline, castigated its critics as foreign-funded radicals undermining the Canadian economy and eased environmental regulations to expedite pipeline approvals.

Then B.C. Premier Christie Clark, philosophical bedmate and friend of Stephen Harper (now former friend?), got testy about the project, insisting that B.C. get a share of the profits as well as guaranteed compensation against environmental damage. Clark was generally considered to be responding to the anti-pipeline sentiment rampant in her province across which the pipeline must venture.

Mr. Harper's main man in B.C., Heritage Minister James Moore, started picking up on the provincial vibes as well and came very close to echoing Premier Clark's sentiments. "Just because British Columbia is physically the Asia-Pacific gateway, it doesn’t mean that we’re the doormat for companies like Enbridge to think that they can go ahead and do business without having due diligence and taking care of the public’s interest," Moore said.

Even Federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, who has been doing a Joe McCarthy on environmentalists, is hedging a bit, stating in a CBC interview, "I personally have not said that this pipeline should go through."

For his part, Prime Minister Harper has been taking pains to insist the evaluation of the pipeline will be based on independent, scientific assessment, something of a change in emphasis from his usual obsession with economics. But more importantly, why has the man who exercises iron control over his party allowed Minister Moore to make statements that border on heresy?

If the pipeline fails to gain all necessary approvals, it will be a massive political blow to the Conservatives. Are they now starting to reposition themselves to minimize the damage? Harper is a politician who thinks strategically every waking moment—as opposition to the Northern Gateway mounts, thoughts along those lines must be crossing his mind.

Mexicans solving U.S. immigraton dilemma

Mexican immigration has been a hot political issue in the U.S. for some time resulting in, among other unpleasant phenomena, Arizona's controversial Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act which was fought all the way up to the Supreme Court with mixed success. Now it seems the immigrants are solving the problem themselves.

Although the number of Mexicans entering the U.S. has continued to grow, it is now being matched by the number leaving. The reasons for the departures are many, including the weakened U.S. job market, stronger border enforcement, more deportations, the growing dangers associated with illegal border crossings, improvements in the Mexican economy and the long-term decline in Mexico’s birth rate. The rate has fallen from an average 7.3 children per woman in 1960 to 2.4 in 2009.

The magnitude of the migration is impressive. Today the U.S. has more immigrants from Mexico alone—12.0 million—than any other country has from all source countries combined. Most arrived illegally. The new balance of immigration and emigration should help stabilize the population and, most importantly, bring more light and less heat to the issue.

France embraces Robin Hood tax

On August 1st, France introduced its long-promised Financial Transactions Tax (FTT). Popularly referred to as a Robin Hood Tax, or Tobin Tax, the 0.2 per cent levy will apply to sales of publicly traded shares, including credit default swaps, of businesses with a market value of over €1-billion. Ten other European countries, include Germany, Italy and Spain, are expected to follow the French lead.

Such a tax was first proposed in 1972 by Nobel Laureate economist James Tobin. His intention was to reduce speculation in the international currency markets which he saw as dangerous and unproductive. He suggested using the proceeds of the tax to fund projects for the benefit of Third World countries, or to support the United Nations. The tax in effect provides a way of allowing governments, i.e. citizens, to reclaim part of the democratic space that global trade agreements have conceded to markets. Primarily designed to curb excessive market speculation, some of the revenue from the French tax will be used to support the global fight against AIDS.

The tax has strong support in Europe with 88 per cent of the French and 82 per cent of Germans favouring the tax. Even a contingent of bankers supports the idea. In June, 52 former and current financiers wrote to David Cameron and other European and world leaders calling on them to back FTTs to raise revenue for “people in urgent need at home and in the world’s poorest countries.”

The group, which included senior figures from the Rothschild Group, GLS Bank, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and the Chicago Stock Exchange, pointed out that the value of financial transactions is now seventy times the size of the real global economy and that much of this increase is due to computer-driven trading designed to turn very short-term profits that do not contribute to markets’ primary functions of raising investment, allocating resources efficiently and mitigating risk.

They emphasize that numerous countries already have FTTs on some asset classes and these work well. Comprehensive FTTs would, in their view, actually improve the functioning of markets, restoring "the financial sector to its proper role." There are, it seems, still bankers with a conscience.

Other luminaries who support a Robin Hood Tax include Bill Gates, the Vatican, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the world's major labour leaders, Nobel Prizewinning economist Joseph Stiglitz and other leading economists. Meanwhile, some powerful players resist the tax, including Great Britain, China, India, the U.S., Canada and Sweden, although some might modify their position if the tax was universal.

Fortunately, supporters currently seem to have the edge.

Drought, ethanol and the looming food crisis

That the drought in the U.S. will cause a rise in food prices is hardly news. However, scientists at the New England Complex Systems Institute are warning that the potential for a price spike has already been created by "misguided food-to-ethanol conversion programs and rampant commodity speculation." The drought will act as a "crop shock" causing the spike, originally predicted for 2013, to occur sooner "unless measures to curb ethanol production and rein in speculators are adopted immediately."

The Institute doesn't pull its punches. It claims that, "We are on the verge of another crisis, the third in five years, and likely to be the worst yet, capable of causing new food riots and turmoil on a par with the Arab Spring." Particularly worrying is that prices may rise well above the increase justified by the drought.

Commenting on the U.S. government's corn conversion to ethanol program, Institute President Yaneer Bar-Yam observed, "Given the possibility of price-driven famines, burning corn for cars is unconscionable."

American meat, dairy and poultry producers echo the Institute's concern, calling on the Environmental Protection Agency to suspend this year's quotas for corn ethanol production. (The EPA's renewable fuel program requires oil companies to dilute their gasoline with increasing amounts of biofuel every year.) Randy Spronk, president of the National Pork Producers Association, told reporters, "We are worried about having enough corn, soybean and other crops at any price to feed our animals," while the president of the Minnesota Turkey Growers' Association, John Burkel, warned, "Even the most prudent and cautious producer could be put out of business."

Using a food crop to feed cars is questionable at the best of times—during a drought it is simply immoral.

Unintended consequences—Bangladesh suffers from Iran sanctions

The Bangladeshis are entirely innocent of any real or imagined transgressions on the part of Iran, yet they are being punished nonetheless. Their sin is a heavy reliance on the jute crop.

Jute is a major industry in Bangladesh, worth a billion dollars in exports, mainly to Iran. Forty million people, mostly farmers, depend on it. But exports to Iran are faltering and the industry, including many of those 40 million people, are suffering. As part of the sanctions against Iran, the West has imposed severe restrictions on its banks, and as a result exporters are finding it difficult to realize payments.

Not only Bangladeshis are affected. Jute farmers in Egypt, Syria and Libya are also being hurt. The sanctions are a collective punishment not only of Iranians, but of people around the globe—collateral damage of Western policy.

We are constantly reminded we now live in a world of global trade. Perhaps we should keep this in mind when we level sanctions.

Is Omar Khadr an untermensch?

I have thought long and hard on why so many Canadians hold such a callous attitude toward Omar Khadr. Here is a young man who has spent his whole life as a pawn of others. Indoctrinated in an extremist philosophy throughout his childhood; sent to serve jihadists in Afghanistan when he entered his teens; severely wounded, brutally treated and imprisoned by the Americans; and finally betrayed by his own country, Khadr has lived a life of victimhood. Yet many Canadians, including our government, show a complete lack of compassion toward his suffering, even justifying it.

What explains this hostility? Canadians are, after all, a generous people, normally compassionate toward the less fortunate. We have shown compassion toward the child soldiers of Africa who, through no fault of their own, became killers. Yet toward Khadr, very much the child soldier, many utterly lack compassion, to say nothing of understanding.

It almost seems as if his detractors consider him unworthy of normal human feeling. Their attitude is a testament to the flexibility of human morality. Toward those we consider one of us, or at least worthy of being treated as one of us, we exercise sympathy, even empathy, but to those we consider alien, fellow feeling is easily suspended, and respect replaced with contempt. In 1930s Germany, for example, many people, even seemingly decent men and women, referred to those fellow citizens they considered insufficiently German as untermenschen—essentially subhuman.

Today this attitude is commonly applied to radical Islamists. They can be abused, even tortured, denied all the rights of international convention, because they are unfit to be treated as fully human.

It seems Omar Khadr's detractors place him in this category and form their attitudes toward him accordingly. But this is grievously unfair—Khadr never had a choice. He has never in his short life had control over his own destiny. Holding him responsible for his associations and his resulting actions makes no more sense than holding a Ugandan child soldier responsible for his behaviour in the service of Joseph Kony.

We can understand the American's lust for revenge for 9/11, although taking it out on a mere boy does no credit to their nation. Canadians don't even have vengeance as an excuse. It is time for our government at least to rise above its baser instincts, recognize the humanity of Omar Khadr, and bring him home.

The Tea Party outperforms the Occupy Movement

The financial and economic collapse of 2008 in the United States precipitated two "revolutionary" movements: one on the right, the Tea Party, and one on the left, the Occupy Movement. If we now ask what each has accomplished, the answers are straightforward: the Tea Party a great deal, the Occupy Movement not much.

Both did their demonstration thing, but the Tea Party didn't stop there. After the street theatre, they doffed their tricorn hats, laid down their muskets, and carried their anger into the political sphere via the Republican Party. They changed that party and they changed the country. They elected Congressmen, Senators, state governors and other officials amenable to their principles and sent the country reeling to the right. Their success is quite extraordinary. The Occupy Movement, by contrast, seems to have hardly changed the country at all.

All the Republican candidates for president found it necessary to sound more like Tea Party members than members of a formerly moderate centre-right Republican Party. Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, on the other hand, seem to have been barely touched by the Occupy Movement.

Why the difference? Aside from their contrasting philosophies, the two parties differ in something else—age. Tea Party members tend to be middle-aged to older, Occupy members young. Older people tend to use the system, youth tend to reject the system—that, after all, is what rebellious youth do. So perhaps we could not expect the Occupy Movement to storm the Democratic Party en masse, as the Tea Partiers did with the Republican Party.

Another, and much more significant, difference is big money. Big money now dominates politics in the United States. That doesn't interfere with the goals of the Tea Party or the Republican Party. Both are comfortable with big money influence: the Republicans have always been the party of the rich and the Tea Party was partly created and funded by big money. So the Tea Party/Republican Party/big money relationship makes for a happy ménage à trois.

But the power of big money is precisely what the Occupy Movement is opposed to, and the Democratic Party is hardly less dependent on big money than the Republican Party. So there is a serious conflict. If the Occupiers were to move into the Democratic Party as the Tea Partiers have into the Republican Party, their message would at least be diluted if not drowned entirely by the race for funding. Barack Obama seeks the financial favour of bankers as much as Mitt Romney does. Who would have his ear—the guys with the chequebooks or the guys with the abstract principles?

Yet if the Occupy Movement is to create change as the Tea Party has done, it cannot remain aloof forever from the political mainstream. The anti-war movement did and achieved success, but that was a campaign with an intensely focused goal, not at all like the rather nebulous goals of the Occupy Movement. Even the civil rights movement, initially outside mainstream politics, ultimately had to come in from the cold before the important changes were made.

This will apply to the Occupy Movement as well. Legislation will be necessary to change the economic and political systems in significant ways, and that means either joining and attempting to reform the Democratic Party, or amassing enough supporters outside the two main parties to sway elections. Or, I suppose, forming a new political party. In a system now a captive of big money, any option presents a huge challenge.

The revolution and the reality—why Egypt elected Islamists

No small amount of surprise was generated by the recent elections in Egypt when Islamist parties swept the parliamentary elections and the Muslim Brotherhood candidate won the presidential election. Coming after a revolution conducted by progressive elements, convincing victories for Islamists was unexpected.

But it shouldn't have been. The revolutionaries were mainly young, urban and secular. But most Egyptians are rural, conservative and devoutly Muslim. We heard a great deal about the former in our newspapers and TV—they were creating the action and thereby the news—but very little about the latter, toiling away on their subsistence farms. But when the elections followed the revolution and the masses turned out, the latter emerged in their numbers and had their way.

The news, with its total emphasis on the revolutionaries, led many to believe the new Egypt would be not only a democratic place but a liberal place. Whether that will happen, even if the country becomes a democracy—and the military will have something to say about that—a lot will depend on the magnanimity of the Islamists, principally the Muslim Brotherhood.

Will, for example, the Brotherhood and their allies promote the equality of women, raising them from the oppressive conditions in which they currently find themselves? Will they guarantee Christians, atheists and others the same rights as Muslims? Will the rule of law trump religious dictate?

Early on, the Brotherhood is indicating they will be accommodating. The attitude of the Egyptian people is, however, not entirely encouraging. Recent surveys indicate that while two-thirds of Egyptians prefer democracy over other systems, two-thirds also believe that Islam should play a major role in politics. Furthermore, 60 per cent believe that laws should strictly follow the Koran. A majority, but not a very convincing one (58 per cent) believe that women should have equal rights to men.

So the Egyptians have a way to go on the road to a free and equitable society. They must overcome first a recalcitrant military to achieve democracy and then an entrenched religious conservatism to achieve full human rights. I wish them success.

The amusing story of JPMorgan Chase

Reading about the latest foibles of JPMorgan Chase, the largest bank in the United States, one cannot help but chuckle. CEO Jamie Dimon initially reported a trading blunder had cost the bank a mere $2-billion and dismissed concerns as a "tempest in a teapot." He now admits the tempest may have cost the bank $5.8-billion and that's not the end of it. He further admits that if financial markets go south, the bank's loss could run up to $7.5 billion. So the loss is some number of billions ... give or take a couple of billion. His lack of precision must be less than reassuring to his shareholders.

But at least Mr. Dimon has now been chastened. No more tempests in a teapot—he now recognizes the tempest is in the real world. After appearing before Congress to apologize and explain himself, he says the affair has "shaken our company to the core" and points out that heads are rolling. Not his, actually, but those managers in the London office responsible for the trade have been dismissed without severance and will forfeit two years' pay.

And some pay it is. The most important head to roll is that of Ina Drew, JPMorgan's chief investment officer, who oversaw the division responsible for the loss and who resigned shortly after the disclosure. Ms Drew received about $29 million in total compensation for 2010 and 2011, and retired with about $57.5 million in stock, pension and other pay, so she should still be left with multimillions after the clawback.

The bank now seems to be suggesting its traders may have acted fraudulently, but not quite so fraudulently as to have broken any laws. Just enough innuendo to provide a scapegoat, but not enough to actually land anyone in jail, perhaps? Ah, the world of bankers—how did a group once so stereotypically dull become so entertaining?

Call for international solidarity with Canadian scientists

As the federal government's assault on science encounters increased resistance from Canadian scientists, the international community increasingly takes notice. In a recent column in The Guardian, science writer Alice Bell suggests that our scientists deserve international support, saying "We can't pretend Canadian science is simply a Canadian matter any more than we can pretend we can separate the natural world from our political decisions."

Among other items, Ms. Bell mentions the cancelled funding for the Experimental Lakes Area, a  research facility for ecosystem-scale experimental investigations where scientists from all over the world have studied for generations. The facility has conduced internationally recognized research into climate change since 1968 and provided the first evidence for acid rain. Its closing has understandably generated international concern while further damaging our country's rapidly sinking reputation.

But our reputation is hardly the point. As Ms. Bell points out, our scientists' work has global implications. Making us look bad in the eyes of the world is a trivial matter compared to undermining the health of our planet, and losing institutions like the Experimental Lakes Area will contribute to just that. So her message is right on: the international community should defend our scientists for its own sake as well as ours.

Australia's Girl Guides drop the Queen ... and God

Having posted recently about an attempt to purge swearing allegiance to the Queen from the Canadian Oath of Citizenship, I couldn't help but notice an article in The Guardian about Australia's Girl Guides dropping reference to Her Majesty in their pledge, or "promise" as it is properly called. The Guides have replaced "do my duty to God, to serve the Queen and my country" with "to be true to myself and develop my beliefs to serve my community and Australia." Not only has the Queen between deleted but, even more importantly, God as well.

Belinda Allen, director of Girl Guides Australia, explained: "Many of the members didn't feel that with our multicultural community of people from 200 nations that it was necessarily relevant for the Queen to be mentioned. We're open to girls from all cultures, backgrounds and faiths and we listened to our membership before we made the change." Nicely said, Belinda.

Here is yet another example of women (little ones) liberating themselves from fusty tradition. The Australian Cub Scouts, on the other hand, have only timidly allowed their members to drop the Queen if they so choose, but God stays.

Nonetheless, if the Australian Girl Guides can cut the apron strings of monarchy, surely we grown-up Canadians can manage it.

Fukushima—Japan's remarkable mea culpa

There are mea culpas and there are mea culpas. The report by an independent commission on the nuclear disaster at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant is a dandy. In the preface to the report the commission chairman, Kiyoshi Kurokawa, a medical doctor and professor emeritus at Tokyo University, laid it on without mercy. "Its fundamental causes," he wrote, "are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: our reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question authority; our devotion to 'sticking with the program'; our groupism; and our insularity."

He went on to summarize: "What must be admitted—very painfully—is that this was a disaster 'Made in Japan.'"

The report described how the "conventions of Japanese culture" manifested themselves, sparing none of the agencies involved: "The Fukushima nuclear power plant accident was the result of collusion between the government, the regulators and Tepco, and the lack of governance by said parties." It accused Tepco, the plant owner, and regulators at the nuclear and industrial safety agency of failing to adequately account for the area's susceptibility to earthquakes and tsunamis.

I stand in awe of the good doctor and his commission. How rare for someone in a position of authority to blame their own culture for a national tragedy. No scapegoats, he is saying, we have seen the enemy and it is us. Extraordinary ... and immensely commendable.

Roach vs. the Queen

"I affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen."

Just kidding. Of course I don't. This is, of course, the Canadian Oath of Citizenship, which I have never taken and the first part of which, the bit about being faithful to and bearing allegiance to dear Elizabeth, I could not affirm in good conscience.The latter part presents no problem.

I was prompted to ponder this when reading about the case of Charles Roach. Roach has been resident in this country for 57 years and has wanted to become a citizen but has never been able to get past pledging allegiance to the Crown, claiming it offends his freedom of conscience. He calls it an "oath to a symbol of racism,” referring to England’s colonial past. He has never had success getting it struck down in the courts but now, expecting to die from cancer within the next 18 months and wanting to become a Canadian before he goes, is making one last attempt. The Ontario Superior Court has given Mr. Roach and three others permission to argue that the oath to the Queen is unconstitutional. If they win, the federal government will have to rewrite the oath.

There is another way of dodging the pledge. Ashok Charles, who had taken the Oath of Citizenship in 1977, publicly recanted the portion of the oath that makes reference to the monarch and informed Citizenship and Immigration Canada about his recantation in a notarized document. He later claimed that Citizenship and Immigration had informed him in writing that his citizenship had not been affected. Unfortunately, if Mr. Roach's court case fails, he may not have time to take this approach.

While we celebrate the Queen's Diamond Jubilee—or while some of us do, I beg to be excused—we might ask ourselves why we, the citizens of a democratic nation, are still swearing allegiance to a foreign, unelected head of state who got her job not by merit but by birthright. I recognize she has little real power, so perhaps it doesn't matter all that much. And not being an Asian or African, I may lack Mr. Roach's critical perspective, but even I find that accepting the British Queen as our head of state seems a bit immature. It seems rather like clinging to mommy's skirts when you're supposed to be all grown up. Mr. Roach does have a point.

Australia's Dutch disease

Canada is not alone in suffering from the insidious Dutch disease. Australia, too, is feeling the pain. Whereas Canada's version is caused by booming tar sands production, Australia's is caused by booming iron and coal production.

The resources industry is credited in part for keeping Australia out of recession and insulating it from the worst effects of the global financial crisis. On the other hand, because of the boost it has given to the Australian dollar, it has created big losers. According to Saul Eslake, chief economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch (Australia), "There's been a 'two-speed' economy. On one side is the booming mining sector and some of the industries that hang off it, like heavy construction. On the other, you've got floundering industries like manufacturing, tourism, retailing and higher education, which employ many more people than mining." Sound familiar?

In order to help even out the benefits, the Australian government has levied a 30 per cent tax on iron ore and coal profits over A$75-million.

The mining industry is fighting back in a big way ... and winning. The Minerals Council of Australia launched a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign which led to the tax eventually being watered down. The campaign also helped bring down former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. The mining companies plan to continue their advertising assault. Furthermore, they are increasing their grip on the press. Rupert Murdoch's right-wing News Corp already owns eight of the country's 12 major daily newspapers and mining magnate Gina Rinehart is making a move for majority control of Fairfax Media which owns three of the remaining four. News Corp also dominates regional and suburban newspaper publishing.

The defeat of the ruling Labor Party, already unpopular, will be almost guaranteed with mining company ad campaigns and big donations to the opposition combined with a hostile press. This will bring to power the conservative, mining industry-friendly Liberal/National Party coalition (it has promised to repeal the mining tax as well as Australia's carbon tax). This, too, will be familiar to Canadians: a government committed to defending an extractive industry above all else, most particularly above the environment. Polluters won't pay and Dutch disease will persist with its viral mischief.

No more pecker snipping in Germany

With a ruling that circumcising boys constitutes grievous bodily harm, a German court has effectively outlawed the practice in that country. The case was brought against a doctor in Cologne who circumcised a four-year-old Muslim boy on his parents' wishes. When, a few days after the operation, the boy was bleeding heavily and taken to a hospital, the doctor was charged. "The body of the child is irreparably and permanently changed by a circumcision," the court said. "This change contravenes the interests of the child to decide later on his religious beliefs."

As might be expected, Jewish and Muslim leaders immediately attacked the decision, calling it insensitive and discriminatory, and saying it was an attack on centuries of religious tradition.

It is indeed an attack on religious tradition, but calling a legal ruling against cutting off bits of little boys' penises insensitive and discriminatory is more a comment on the barbaric traditions of religion than on the court's decision. Deliberately inflicting injury on a baby in order to enforce conformity with religion is sordid. The surprise is that they continue to get away with it in modern societies.

What kind of religious observance is this anyway? Why would God put a foreskin there if He meant it to be chopped off? Is this god an idiot, or a sadist?

Not that boys have only been snipped for religious reasons. Circumcision became very popular at the turn of the last century in order to prevent masturbation, and more recently in order to prevent AIDS. The supposed benefits all vanish with further studies—the disease prevention worked about as well as the masturbation prevention.

Holm Putzke, a criminal law expert at the University of Passau, observes, "After the knee-jerk indignation has subsided, hopefully a discussion will kick off about how much religiously motivated violence against children a society is ready to tolerate." We should consider also the latter part of the German court's ruling about contravening the child's future ability to decide on his own religious beliefs.

We have, in this country, seen a particularly tragic example of indoctrinating children in religion—the case of Omar Khadr. Omar was immersed in extreme religious belief from the time he was born with catastrophic results. His parents turned him into a jihadist when he had barely reached his teens, he was nearly killed in war, brutally abused by the Americans and finally betrayed by his own country. With this tragedy staring us in the face, it would seem long overdue to give thought to just how far we are prepared to go in allowing religious zealots to theologically abuse their children.

The windmill next door

As a citizen of Alberta, Canada's oil province and the birthplace of wind energy in Canada, I have perhaps less innate concern about windmills than citizens from other provinces. Indeed, the first time I walked up to a windmill, I was favourably impressed. Although I found its size somewhat intimidating, I found the rhythmic swish of its blades as soothing as ocean waves on the beach.

I often wonder about the reaction in Holland when the first windmills were built there centuries ago. Was there debate between those who appreciated the clean energy and those who saw the great ungainly things as blots on the landscape? Will the sleek modern models we see now become, like their ancient cousins, tourist attractions, the stuff of postcards home?

The Pembina Institute isn't hoping for anything that grand, but it is hoping to improve the image of the machines in Ontario. It has arranged for Heidi Eijgel, an Alberta rancher who has lived next to a wind farm for a decade, to tour Southern Ontario this week and share her experiences. It is at least a better message than tar sands.

Drunk driving a capital offense?

If you think that Alberta's new drunk driving laws are tough, consider Iran. Two Iranians, their names not released by authorities, have been sentenced to death for persistent consumption of alcohol. Not that they weren't warned. They had been convicted twice before and subjected to 160 lashes each time, but they couldn't stay on the wagon. Iranian Sharia law forbids Muslims the use, manufacturing or trading of all types of alcoholic drinks. Three strikes and you're out ... literally. Unless you're a Christian, which this unfortunate duo was not.

Nonetheless, if you concluded from this that Iranians are dissuaded from imbibing, you would be wrong. Consumption is on the rise—the country's newspapers reported recently that the amount of confiscated alcohol has increased by 69 per cent in the past year. One paper quoted official figures that suggested it takes 22 minutes to get access to drugs and only 17 minutes to find alcohol. The Deputy Health Minister, Alireza Mesdaghinia, has expressed concern about an apparent increase in "abnormal behaviors such as alcohol consumption." The head of the Health Ministry's Policy Making Council, Bagher Larijani, states that despite an ongoing police crackdown, "There is no wedding party without a special room for those who want to drink alcohol and have a good time."

It would appear that North America isn't the only place drug wars don't work. For those who think tougher laws are the answer, they might keep in mind the utter failure of even Iran's barbaric legal regime.

Jimmy Carter, drone attacks and moral authority

Jimmy Carter was, in the opinion of this non-American, one of the better presidents the United States has had in recent history. Americans didn't agree of course, and dumped him after one term, but his record speaks in his favour. And nowhere, does it speak more eloquently than on the subject of human rights.

As governor of Georgia, he was the first statewide office holder in the Deep South to state publicly that racial discrimination had no place in the future of the state and went on to appoint many African Americans to state boards and offices. Although once a supporter of the death penalty, he became a staunch opponent and is now known for his outspoken opposition. Recently, he has expressed the view that the Democratic Party should be more pro-life, even though as president he found it difficult to uphold Roe v. Wade because of his strong Christian beliefs. He is a man who wrestles with moral issues and has the courage to change his mind as a result.

After leaving the presidency, he founded the Carter Center to advance human rights and alleviate unnecessary human suffering, and in 2002 was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work "to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development," the only president to receive the prize for work done after leaving office.

This is a man whose voice carries moral authority and he recently used that authority to denounce the Obama administration for sanctioning the “widespread abuse of human rights” by authorizing drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists. He accused the administration of violating 10 of the 30 articles of  the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and declared that the “United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights.” Not stopping there, he criticized the government for failing to close Guantanamo and for “unprecedented violations of our rights to privacy through warrantless wiretapping and government mining of our electronic communications.”

Condemnation of a sitting Democratic president by a former Democratic president is very serious criticism indeed, and one hopes that Barack Obama will listen and rethink his kill lists and his assassinations. If he does, he may return some moral authority to the Democratic Party ... and to his country.