Americans opt to mind their own business

For the first time since it began measuring the statistic 50 years ago, the Pew Research Centre reports that a majority of Americans believe the U.S. should mind its own business internationally. The primary reason suggested for this new-found humility is "war fatigue." They would also like more focus on their struggling economy.

This is not to say Americans want their country to disengage from the world. Quite the contrary. A solid majority would like to see the U.S. play a shared leadership role, and almost 80 per cent support increasing trade and business ties with other countries.

Americans' top foreign policy concern is terrorist attacks, the only one of 10 leading foreign policy issues on which President Obama gets a favourable rating. Not surprisingly, half believe drone attacks make their country safer with only a quarter saying they have made no difference. By contrast, less than a third believe the Afghan war has made them safer.

Despite their concern about terrorism, a small plurality believe the government has gone too far with its anti-terrorism policies. On the other hand, and rather disturbingly, almost as many believe it hasn't gone far enough.

While most recognize that the U.S. remains the world's major military power, almost a majority believe—mistakenly—that China has become the world’s leading economic power. Forty-three per cent see China as a serious problem, but fortunately only 23 per cent see it as an adversary.

Overall, the survey results are encouraging. Americans are not becoming isolationist, but they do seem to be taking a more modest view of their nation's role in the world. We may even see the U.S. holster its guns and take a respite from war—except of course for the drones.

Should women run the world?

Scientists at at the University of Pennsylvania have once again confirmed what we have always known intuitively. Men's and women's brains are wired differently.

Maps of neural circuitry from one of the largest studies of brain wiring showed that connections in women's brains tended to be stronger across the left and right hemispheres, whereas in men's brains they were stronger across the front and back. Researchers said this indicated that, on average, men's brains were wired more for perception and co-ordinated actions, and women's for social skills and memory.

If women do indeed have superior social skills, shouldn't they be in charge? After all, in a world threatened by nuclear weapons, growing disparity between rich and poor, and environmental collapse, threats all created by male leadership, we have more need of social skills than ever before.

We all know why men run everything, and it has nothing to do with brains. It's because men are more competitive, more aggressive, more violent—the very characteristics that created the problems threatening to bring global civilization to its knees.

But before we hand over all power over our institutions to women, we might remind ourselves that the results of the study showed averages, not absolutes—the characteristics are not exclusive. They range across gender, some men being quite feminine, some women quite masculine. Margaret Thatcher, for example, was once described as the only man in her cabinet, an apt description for a leader so lacking in social skills. Many men, on the other hand, have excellent social skills and we need what they have to offer. We need the best of both genders. Ruben Gur, a co-author on the study, remarked, "It's quite striking how complementary the brains of women and men really are."

The lesson here is not that we should give up on men, although it's tempting, but rather that we have underused both women and feminine skills. If we don't start giving both more of a lead role, global society may face a dismal future.

Pembina praises Ontario's new energy plan

The Pembina Institute, one of the country's leading environmental advocacy organizations, has good things to say about Ontario's new long-term energy plan.

In a press release this week, the Institute praised the province for wisely investing in conservation. According to Tim Weis, Pembina's director of renewable energy and efficiency policy, “Energy efficiency is the centrepiece of Ontario’s new long-term energy plan, which is good news for ratepayers and the environment. Efficiency is the cleanest and most cost-effective way to meet future demand."

Weis also complemented Ontario for taking a cautious approach to nuclear power, saying, “The government has also prudently decided not to build expensive new nuclear reactors in Ontario, and has placed cautious guiding principles around rebuilding existing reactors."

On the subject of renewables, Weiss referred to a recent report issued by the Pembina Institute and Greenpeace, Renewable is Doable, which showed that "a portfolio of low-emission options can affordably meet Ontario’s energy needs.”

Living in a province and a country which are failing badly their responsibility on climate change, I find it encouraging to read about Ontario's enlightened approach.

Omar sues

Justice has to date miserably failed Omar Khadr. It simply has not been a match for the vindictiveness of Washington and the callousness of Ottawa. Consequently his life continues to waste away in a federal maximum security prison.

But justice may yet have its day. Tagging along behind the relentless persecution of Omar is his $20-million civil lawsuit against Canada. The suit claims this country has deprived him of his rights by failing to recognize he was a child soldier at the time of his capture. It alleges further that far from being a passive bystander, Canada collaborated with the Americans in his incarceration in violation of Canadian constitutional and international law protecting the rights of juveniles.

Omar stands a good chance of winning his case. Canada is, after all (like the U.S.), a signatory of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which protects the civil and human rights of those under 18. And the Supreme Court has twice chastised Ottawa for its treatment of Omar, ruling that in their interrogations, Canadian agents violated "the principles of fundamental justice” and offended “the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects.”

Our government has already spent millions challenging every attempt to free Omar from his nightmare, and now we could suffer an additional bill of $20-million. If Omar wins, and I sincerely hope he does, I will pay my share happily even as I curse Ottawa for sticking us with the bill for their vendetta against this boy. Omar will at least have finally received a portion of the justice he has always deserved.

Canada-Australia climate axis—greatest threat to global security?

Prime Minister Harper once announced that the greatest threat to global security was terrorism. That was nonsense of course—every year, malaria kills approximately 660,000 people, mostly children, and AIDS 1,700,000 people. Terrorism is a trivial threat compared to the big killers.

And the biggest of all, if we don't act preemptively with sufficient vigour, will almost certainly be climate change. And here PM Harper, if he wants to see threats to global security, might look in the mirror. It appears that his government has formed a new axis—an axis of evil to borrow a phrase—aimed at undermining efforts to deal with climate change.

His partner is Tony Abbott's new government of Australia. Abbott has abolished a leading environmental agency, slashed funding for renewable energy, and introduced legislation to scrap the country's carbon tax. All this will sound familiar to Canadians, and all this has been applauded by our government which is encouraging other nations to follow Australia's example.

The axis countries have quite appropriately been referred to as climate pariahs and Abbott as a climate criminal by Australia's Green Party. The Climate Action Network, an umbrella group of environmental NGOs, deemed Australia this year's Colossal Fossil while offering Canada a Lifetime Unachievement Fossil Award for its long-standing efforts to obstruct the achievement of an effective global climate treaty. Canada had previously been awarded the “Fossil of the Year” award five straight times.

How big a threat to global security the axis will be depends on how seriously it is taken. Perhaps it will simply be ignored, in which case it will be no threat at all. It's the job of responsible Canadians and Australians to see that it is.

U.S. feeds Japanese militarism

China, with its paltry aid to the Philippines and its announcement of a new air-defense zone over the East China sea, has not been making friends in its region these days. But the country to worry about in the Far East is not China. It is Japan.

Countries such as China and South Korea that have suffered the horrors of Japanese imperialism must feel chills up their spines as they take note of Japan's newfound militarism. Since its defeat in WWII and its experience of being the only victim of nuclear war, Japan has adopted a pacifist posture. But perhaps not any longer. Under hawkish Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's policy of "new nationalism," Japan is ramping up its defence budget and expanding its navy (already the second largest in Asia).

This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but this is only part of it. Abe, something of an historical revisionist, wants more patriotic propaganda taught in Japan's schools and is proposing a tough state secrets law that threatens lengthy jail sentences for whistleblowers and journalists who break its catch-all provisions. In other words, it isn't just bulking up Japan's military he is seeking but rather outright militarism.

To many Asians, Abe's recent pronouncement "I will make Japan a force for peace and stability" may sound disturbingly like Japan's "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" of the 1930s and 40s.

While Asians shudder, the U.S., to quote The Guardian, is "positively purring with pleasure." Abe's government has agreed to work with the Americans to enhance co-operation in ballistic missile defence, arms development and sales, intelligence sharing, space and cyber warfare, joint military training and exercises, and advanced radar and drones.

The U.S., it seems, is playing off Japan against China, anything to limit the influence of its latest rival in the great power race. It might just be backing the wrong dragon.

If you're a democrat, instruct your MP to support Chong's Bill

An opportunity to strike a blow for parliamentary democracy has suddenly arisen and all democrats should take advantage of it. On Thursday, Michael Chong, MP for Wellington-Halton Hills, will introduce a Bill in the House that would dramatically devolve power from party leaders to MPs and constituency associations.

The Bill, entitled An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act (reforms) or simply the Reform Act, 2013, would

• give party riding associations the ultimate say in electoral nominations, removing the need for the leader's signature. There would be no leader’s veto.
• entrench the right of the Commons' caucuses to demand a leadership vote, with the support of 15 per cent of the caucus. A simple majority would be sufficient to remove the leader.
• give Commons' caucuses the right to elect their own chairs and to call for a review of an MP, as well as eject or readmit one.

This isn't about Stephen Harper or any other party leader—the Bill would not take effect until after the next election. Currently, all MPs must defer to their party leader as he can arbitrarily eject them from the party if they displease him or refuse to sign their nomination papers and thus end their political careers. The leader is not similarly obligated to caucus. This offends the proper democratic relationship of leaders deferring to those they lead. Michael Chong's Bill would right this upended relationship.

In our democracy, we elect Members of Parliament to represent us. We don't elect Prime Ministers (at least I've never seen one on my ballot). Parliament is intended to function through the MPs, not through the PM, not even through the ruling caucus, but through all the MPs of all the parties/caucuses.

We have lost sight of this, increasingly allowing ourselves to be ruled by a presidential system where the prime minister is supreme. Presidential systems legitimize such power by having the president elected by all the people. Our prime ministers have no such legitimacy, yet under the present government we have become dangerously close to rule by PMO rather than rule by Parliament. Michael Chong's Bill would be a significant step in curbing the growing excess of prime ministerial power.

So, arise democrats, instruct your MPs to do the right thing and help restore the integrity of our parliamentary democracy.

Thou shalt not have an economy of exclusion and inequality

I am no fan of the Roman Catholic Church, nor can I avoid cringing at some of Pope Francis's views, particularly on women, but occasionally I do have to applaud the old boy. Such was the case with his recent apostolic exhortation when he criticized the world economic system, referring to unfettered capitalism as "a new tyranny"and proclaiming, "Just as the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say 'thou shalt not' to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills." Amen to that, Francis.

His comments on markets, an obsession with our current government, deserve a quote: "As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world's problems or, for that matter, to any problems."

He begged his Lord for, "more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by the state of society, the people, the lives of the poor." Reading these words, I immediately thought of a string of Catholic politicians in last year's U.S. presidential election who went on at length about God but who never manifested the slightest interest in the lives of the poor.

Can the Pope reach such people, I wonder. Maybe not. While he preaches his message of inclusion and equality, they will preach their message of exclusion and inequality, both preaching primarily to the converted. With the advent of Francis, the Church has seen a surge in attendance around the world except, apparently, in the United States. Nonetheless, with time, perhaps his good words will inspire the faithful even there.

Parliament needs a science watchdog

Science has never been more important to the human race than it is today. We are faced with the two greatest threats in our history: catastrophic climate change combined with exhaustion of the Earth's resources. We must rely on science to lead us out of the crises we have created for ourselves, to both understand and to deal with the threats. And this means our leaders must be scientifically literate. Unfortunately, they are not.

 Our Minister of State for Science and Technology, Greg Rickford, has no background in science, which almost makes one wonder if this wasn't why he was appointed. In any case, he isn't alone in ignorance of his portfolio. Out of 308 MPs, except for health care workers only 13 have a science or engineering background. Out of the 74 per cent who have some post-secondary education, only 4.2 per cent have a background in science or engineering and 3.2 per cent have advanced degrees in medical fields. This is well below the general population where 21 per cent of university graduates have a background in science, math, computer science or engineering. Only one MP has a PhD in science and only one a PhD in engineering.

There are a variety of reasons why scientists don't run for public office, not the least of which is that politics is an uncomfortable place for people who value reason over partisanship, but the point is they aren't there and therefore neither is science.

In order to deal with this dangerous deficiency, NDP science critic Kennedy Stewart will introduce a private member's bill this week proposing the creation of a parliamentary science officer. The officer would assess the state of scientific evidence relevant to any proposal or bill before Parliament; answer requests from committees and individual members for unbiased scientific information; conduct independent analysis of federal science and technology policy; raise awareness of scientific issues across government and among Canadians; and encourage coordination between departments and agencies conducting scientific research. According to Stewart, the officer would be "a champion for science." And lord knows, Parliament needs one. Both the U.K. and U.S. governments have a science officer who provides scientific information and advice publicly to all members of their respective legislatures.

Paul Martin's government established a national science adviser, but Stephen Harper abolished it, replacing it with the Science, Technology and Innovation Council. The Council, however, laden as it is with industry executives, is committed primarily to monitoring how well science is being applied to the economy, focusing on "commercialization, entrepreneurship and management." It is of little use in maintaining a high level of science awareness generally or of providing advice on environmental degradation and resource depletion specifically. It will do little to reduce the science illiteracy rampant in Parliament.

At this moment in our history, a Parliamentary science officer is of even greater importance than a Parliamentary budget officer. We can only hope enough MPs of all parties will vote to scientifically enlighten their chamber and support Stewart's bill.

Does Canada's knee-jerk loyalty benefit Israel?

Right on cue, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attacked the new nuclear deal with Iran hardly before the ink was dry, calling it a "historic mistake," stating he was not bound by it, claiming the world had become a "more dangerous place," and reiterating his threat to use military action against Iran as he saw fit.

This belligerence was, also on cue, echoed by our federal government, with Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird expressing deep skepticism about the deal and declaring our sanctions against Iran, for what they're worth, will remain in full force.

One wonders if our knee-jerk support, regardless of the circumstances, really benefits Israel. After all, one of the most important services a good friend can offer is constructive criticism when you are doing something wrong, and Israel has done much wrong to the Palestinians. At one time, while never hiding our friendship with Israel, we also supported the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians. This allowed us to act as an honest broker in attempting to bring the two sides together.

Now we mindlessly support Israel's transgressions against both the Palestinians and international law, leaving us with no role to play but that of lap dog. We do not help Israel by rendering ourselves impotent in the effort to resolve the Palestine conflict, the greatest source of tension in the Middle East and the greatest barrier to Israel living at peace with its neighbours. Our government may think itself a good friend, but it is in fact a useless one.

The Conservatives and the Republican disease

Being an inveterate reader, I frequently encounter something that is such a nice piece of writing it demands a second or third reading and occasionally even creates a pang of envy that I didn't write it myself— a "wish I'd said that" moment. Such was the case when I read Andrew Coynes' November 15th column in the National Post discussing Rob Ford and the state of the right in Canada today. The pertinent passage runs as follows:

And of all his enablers, the most culpable are the strategists, the ones who fashioned his image as the defender of the little guy, the suburban strivers, against the downtown elites, with their degrees and their symphonies—the ones who turned
a bundle of inchoate resentments into Ford Nation. Sound familiar? It is the same condescending populism, the same aggressively dumb, harshly divisive message that has become the playbook for the right generally in this country, in all its contempt for learning, its disdain for facts, its disrespect of convention and debasing of standards.

The "playbook for the right generally in this country" arrived, I believe, when the Mike Harris Conservatives in Ontario brought up advisers from the Republican ranks in the U.S. and then established its enemies list—welfare recipients, teachers and labour unionists among them.

It has now insinuated itself into the federal Conservatives under Stephen Harper, leader of a government that daily illustrates "its contempt for learning, its disdain for facts." Whether it's the nation's police chiefs on the gun registry, medical professionals on injection clinics, or climate scientists on global warming, their learning and their facts are rejected in favour of dogma.

Enlightened Republicans are beginning to tire of this noxious strain in their party. Will Canada's conservatives follow suit? Or will they allow it to erode the standards of Canadian conservatism as it has eroded the standards of American conservatism?

Era of sense of entitlement reaches U of C

CEOs loading up on compensation and perks, even if their companies are floundering, has become a commonplace of our era. This sense of entitlement has similarly been observed among various politicians, including recently the Senate. Now it seems to have crept into the University of Calgary.

In a year when the university's operating and capital budgets were cut by $47-million, it is spending $8.1-million to renovate the offices of its top brass. And very nice renovations at that. Vice-president offices, for example, will be expanded to 20 per cent larger than the maximum stipulated by the U of C’s own design standards. The president's office, already almost the size of my apartment, will sport a 175 square foot ensuite washroom complete with closet space and a three-piece bath. The office complex will include a $150,000 staircase in order to allow executives to avoid a nearby public stairwell.

Because of the provincial cuts, the university will only be able to afford a third of the necessary upgrades to aging classrooms and is unable to reduce a deferred maintenance liability amounting to $400-million. But as long as the execs are not forced to mingle with the commoners as they trip gaily up their elegant staircase, all is not lost.

Calgarians are happy campers

If you were looking for a living definition of the expression "happy campers," you might cast an eye on Calgary. According to an Ipsos Reid poll, almost ninety per cent of Calgarians believe their city has a good quality of life and is on the right track to become a better city; 95 per cent give it a positive rating for overall performance; 86 per cent say city government is open and accessible; and 85 per cent consider their neighbourhoods to be safe places.

Not bad. Particularly not bad considering that the city suffered a massive flood in mid year. Although, on second thought, that may have contributed to the high rating. Over 95 per cent of the survey respondents rated the city highly on overall handling of the crisis, evacuation procedures, communications and helping Calgarians recover. As a Calgarians living in one of the hardest hit flood zones, I heartily agree to all that.

And here's a point of some substance: a majority said they not only receive good value for their tax dollars but would accept a tax increase if services are maintained or expanded. Now there's a bunch of happy campers indeed.

Harper outshames Ford

Embarrassing our country more than Toronto Mayor Rob Ford would seem to be an impossible task. Yet our prime minister has done just that. On November 12th, the federal government issued a formal statement that included the following remark:

“Canada applauds the decision by Prime Minister Abbott to introduce legislation to repeal Australia’s carbon tax. The Australian Prime Minister’s decision will be noticed around the world and sends an important message."

In other words, our government not only supports Australia's retreat from the fight against global warming, it encourages other nations to follow suit. As The Guardian put it, "Canada has dropped any remaining pretences of supporting global action on climate change." This at a time when Ottawa is falling short on its own promise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and has no plan to get back on track.

But what is most offensive about this statement is its timing. In response to the massive destruction typhoon Haiyan did to his country, Philippines lead negotiator at the UN climate summit in Warsaw, Naderev Sano, whose own family suffered from the storm, pleaded tearfully to the world to end this "climate madness." Mr. Sano attributed the typhoon, the most powerful ever to make landfall, to climate change. He might be right or he might be wrong, but to issue this callous statement in the face of his country's tragedy is like slapping the man in the face.

We can overcome the Ford follies—just one buffoon behaving badly, after all, even if he is a high profile buffoon—but our shameful behaviour on the biggest threat facing humanity will scar our reputation for a long time. And if our government is successful in convincing other countries to ease off on the global warming struggle, much more than reputations will suffer.

The elites display their conscience

The World Economic Forum (an elite organization in itself) recently released a study, The Outlook on the Global Agenda 2014, based on a survey of 1,592 leaders from academia, business, government, and the non-profit world. The elite group offered their opinion of the top 10 trends for 2014. Number two was "widening income disparities" about which the group concluded, "The difference between rich and poor is becoming more extreme, and as income inequality widens the wealth gap in major nations, education, health and social mobility are all threatened." The study recommended tackling poverty in an integrated way with long-term impact, emphasizing the problem of gender discrimination.

Number three on the group's list was another issue of paramount interest to working people: "persistent structural unemployment." They warned that unemployment is threatening the world's social fabric, declaring that young people in particular need to be productively employed. They were also concerned about "diminishing confidence in economic policies" (number six on the list), again focusing on young people. 

Number one on the list was, "rising societal tensions in the Middle East and North Africa." I was disappointed there wasn't more emphasis on the environment, however, "inaction on climate change" did at least make number five. The group stated, in possibly the biggest understatement of the study, "There is action, and it’s moving in the right direction, but it’s not moving fast enough." They did admit that, "Our changing climate is the most pressing challenge we face," while adding "but it’s also the most compelling opportunity we’ve ever had," something environmentalists have been saying all along.

The concern of this elite group about the two great problems of our time—inequality between rich and poor and climate change— is refreshing and encouraging.

The U.S. and Sweden—a tale of two incarceration rates

Having just watched the documentary The House I Live In about the U.S. drug war, or more precisely about the abject failure of the U.S. drug war, I was intrigued with an article I came across in The Guardian about Sweden's dwindling incarceration rate. The number of prison admissions has dropped so rapidly in the past two years, Sweden is closing four prisons and a remand centre.

The decline is attributed to a number of factors, including a strong focus on rehabilitation, more lenient sentences for drug offences and greater use of probation. Of course, Sweden also has a very low murder rate at 1.0 per year per 100,000 population, compared to the U.S. at 4.7 and Canada at 1.6.

Sweden's incarceration rate is 67 inmates per 100,000 population, ranking 180th in the world. Number one, of course, is the United States at 716, ten times as high. (Canada's rate is 114, ranking 133rd.)

The high U.S. prison population is due to more and longer prison sentences through such policies as mandatory minimum sentences, three-strike laws, and reduced use of parole and early release. But the biggest reason, as The House I Live In documents, is the war on drugs. A lost war. Americans have the world's highest use of cocaine (14 times that of Sweden) and drugs are cheaper, purer and more readily available today than ever. It seems that very many of those imprisoned men and women are rotting away for nothing, their families broken, their communities undermined, their country wasting valuable resources.

We are neither Sweden nor the U.S., we cannot simply imitate either, but if there is a lesson to be learned from these two stories, it is, as is so often the case, that we should tilt heavily toward Sweden.

Sun News and sewer journalism

When Sun News hires the infamous Ford brothers to do a TV show, decent people cringe, but they shouldn't be surprised. Aping Fox News, as Sun Media are inclined to do, it is simply pandering to the lowest common denominator, and the Fords are masters at pleasing that crowd.

An argument can be made that even the benighted among us deserve a mass medium that appeals to their passions and prejudices. And certainly in a land where freedom of speech prevails, no one can question the right of media moguls to satisfy those tastes. The question is whether they have to debase journalism in the process.

No matter what demographic you are appealing to, you can try to raise the standard of discourse with knowledgeable and well-reasoned news and views, even if you have to present your content at a grade eight reading level. But that is the perspective from principle. From the perspective of profit regardless of principle, the Rupert Murdoch perspective, it is easier to make money by peddling trash—angry, fear-inducing, hate-filled trash. And thus is journalism dragged into the sewer.

I'm waiting for an apology, Toronto

I admit to chuckling when Toronto first elected Rob Ford. While we here in Calgary, a city often accused by the uninformed of being a tad rednecked, chose the bright, well-educated, articulate Naheed Nenshi as mayor, Toronto chose the reddest of rednecks. I wouldn't say we were feeling superior, but there may have been a trace of smugness mixed in with the humour.

Well, it isn't funny any more. It's about more than Toronto now. When a country's premier city elects a foul-mouthed, alcoholic, crack-smoking friend of gangsters as mayor, the whole country looks bad.
 
And now Torontonians are rubbing it in. As ever more sordid revelations about this unsavoury boor come to light, his popularity with his fellow citizens actually increases. He now has, I understand, a 44 per cent approval rating.

This is too much, Toronto. If you want to make your city an international laughing stock, that's your business, but when you make all of us look like a nation of hosers, you've gone way too far. You owe every last Canadian outside your city boundaries a heartfelt apology.

I'm waiting.

Good news and bad news about climate change from Stanford U

First the bad news, even if it's old news. Stanford University scientists report that not only is the Earth undergoing one of the largest climate changes since the dinosaurs disappeared, it is occurring 10 times faster than any other change in that period. Many species will have great difficulty making the behavioral, evolutionary or geographic adaptations necessary to survive that rate of change. Entire ecosystems will be greatly stressed. As will global civilization.

Well, you know all that, but Stanford also has some good news. Professor Jon Krosnick has released polling data revealing that a solid majority of Americans in every state now believe that global warming is real. Furthermore, they support government action to limit greenhouse gas emissions by industry and in particular by power plants. A majority in every state also supports a cap-and-trade system to limit emissions; tax breaks to encourage the production of solar, wind and water energy; and government regulations or tax breaks to require or encourage improvements in the energy efficiency of cars, appliances and buildings.

Agreement about global warming ranged from 75 per cent in Idaho to 88 per cent in Arizona, New Mexico and Massachusetts. Surprisingly, two very red states, Oklahoma and Texas, agreed 87 and 84 per cent respectively. With most Republicans in Congress denying the existence of climate change or opposing action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the red states would seem to have very poor representation in Washington on climate change.

“To me," said Professor Krosnick, "the most striking finding that is new today was that we could not find a single state in the country where climate skepticism was in the majority.” President Obama has a very powerful mandate to deal aggressively with global warming, from the American people if
not from Congress. And that's good news for all of us.

Neo-militarism shows up on Alberta license plates

The neo-militarism seeping out of Ottawa seems to be infecting Alberta. The province has announced it is unveiling a new license plate which will bear the “Support our Troops” slogan along with the symbolic yellow ribbon. The plates will complement the current veterans’ plates which bear a red poppy.

Offering two plates honouring soldiers is doubly excessive. There is, after all, no plate to honour other workers who sacrifice their lives in the service of their country—police, miners, forestry workers, firemen, agricultural workers ... the list is long. In 2012, Alberta construction workers suffered 42 fatalities, but no plates for them, even though they are literally building the future of our country, a rather more importance task than whatever our military has been doing in Afghanistan.

Soldiers volunteer for the job, hence
deserve no more respect than any other Canadian who gives up his or her life in the service of our country. A life is a life—all are equally precious. Elevating the armed forces to a higher plane is warrior worship—militarism pure and simple. It is a political statement and political statements do not belong on our license plates. As one wag put it, what's next, "support our pipelines"?

Remember who? And for what?

Canada first observed Remembrance Day on November 11th, 1919, to  commemorate the armistice that had ended WWI one year earlier and to remember those in the military who had given their lives in the war.

The narrow focus on the military has become less legitimate—the majority of those who died in WWI were soldiers. In WWII, however, the great majority of the dead were civilians. Yet Remembrance Day still emphasizes the loss of soldiers. The red poppy should now, more than ever, symbolize also the civilian dead, the innocent victims of collateral damage, disease and starvation. Few, fortunately, have been Canadian but they nonetheless deserve a special place in our memories.

We might also commemorate the first victim of war—truth. We persist in perpetuating the lie that we owe our freedoms to the military. In fact Canadians' freedoms were won primarily by generations of diverse reformers who struggled to ensure that the lower classes had the same rights as the aristocrats and the wealthy, mostly by peaceful means but with occasional riot and revolution. Personally, I am grateful for their courage and sacrifice every day of the year, not only on one day.

Indeed, in which wars exactly have Canadians' freedoms been at stake? The Second World War? Maybe, but doubtful. Certainly not the First World War. On that occasion, we fought for the British Empire, defending the British and the French from imperial Germany while imperial Britain and imperial France occupied and exploited much of Africa and Asia. The freedom of Canadians was irrelevant.

So by all means, on November 11th let us remember the dead warriors but let us remember also the victims of warriors. Wear a poppy for all, but particularly for the innocent. And let us remember to be honest about our great follies.

We really should pay attention to these guys

I know precious little about the World Wide Web other than that it serves me royally. Tim Berners-Lee, on the other hand, knows a lot about it. And he should—he invented it. He is a leading authority on the power and the vulnerabilities of the Internet, uniquely qualified to comment on Internet spying.

And he is now profoundly concerned about just that. He has made some very strong statements about the mischief the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and its British counterpart, GCHQ, have been up to, expressing particular outrage that they have weakened online security by cracking much of the encryption millions of people rely on to guard their Internet privacy. He has pointed out that breaking the encryption software plays into the hands of cyber criminals and hostile groups. "It is naïve to imagine," he said, "that if you introduce a weakness into a system you will be the only one to use it." In effect, he is suggesting the agencies are undermining the very security they are supposed to be protecting.

While British Prime Minister David Cameron calls for an investigation of The Guardian for publishing Edward Snowden's revelations, Berners-Lee declares, "It seems clear that The Guardian's reporting around the scale and scope of state surveillance has been in the public interest and has uncovered many important issues which now need a full and frank public debate." Indeed.

As for Snowden, Berners-Lee suggests that whistleblowers are the only practical guards against excess by the security agencies and called for an international system of protection for them.

Joining Berners-Lee in his criticism of the spymaster is another gentleman with exceptional web knowledge, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. Wales claims that the massive surveillance of global communications networks will cause serious damage to the American cloud computing industry. "If you are BMW, a car maker in Germany ... you probably are not that comfortable putting your data into the U.S. any more," he said. He also suggested that it will be harder to convince nations like China to respect basic freedoms and privacy. The Chinese, he said, will now have "every excuse to be as bad as they have been ... It's really embarrassing. It's an enormous problem, an enormous danger."

A lot of people have something to say about Snowden's revelations, but these two guys stand out. They know what they are talking about like few others and they have no bones to pick. We should pay close attention.

We were hell on other species before we were even us

Homo sapiens has been driving other species into extinction for a very long time. We are familiar with more recent events on our own continent with the annihilation of species such as the passenger pigeon and, very nearly, the American bison. But it started much earlier than that. Paleontologists suspect that the disappearance of some of the larger species of North America—horses, camels, mammoths, mastodons, giant bears, and many others—was due, in part at least, to the arrival of the Clovis people 10 to 15 thousand years ago.

This pattern is repeated around the world. In Australia, many of the great marsupials vanished around 50,000 years ago, following the arrival of humans. In Madagascar, humans arrived about 2,000 years ago, after which nearly all of the island's megafauna went extinct. In New Zealand, the victims were birds. With no mammalian predators present, the islands were a bird paradise, including 11 species of flightless birds, one a giant, 12-feet tall. After Polynesian settlers arrived around 1500 AD, accompanied by dogs and rats, one fter another disappeared. Today only one is left. And so it goes, from island to island, continent to continent.

Our greatest assault on the environment began of course with the invention of intensive agriculture in Mesopotamia 5-6,000 years ago when we first began the wholesale conversion of prairie and forest into desert, a process that continues apace today.

Now, scientists suggest that we were annihilating other species long before we became Homo sapiens. In an article in the November issue of Scientific American, fossil expert Lars Werdelin explains the sharp decline of large carnivores in Africa beginning around two million years ago as due to the rise of Homo erectus. Entire groups of species, including the sabertooth cats, disappeared during this period.

Prior to this time, hominins were believed to be "relatively small-brained, chimpanzee-sized creatures that subsisted primarily on plant foods." But erectus were "bigger, smarter and armed with stone tools," and they had a hearty appetite for meat. With a rapidly evolving intelligence and social co-operation, they were serious competitors in the meat market. When game was scarce, the big predators were in trouble, but erectus could resort to plant foods to carry them through the hard times.

Our forbears had excuses for the malign affects of their behaviour—ignorance and need. They didn't understand what they were doing to their neighbours and, in any case, times were precarious. We do understand and our wants greatly exceed our needs, but we continue nonetheless to wipe out one species after another. The age of Homo sapiens is referred to by some biologists as the Sixth Major Extinction.

The Scientific American article is entitled "King of Beasts," an appropriate label. However, the king's rapacious ways have now got him into serious trouble. If we don't soon come to our senses, we may not go the way of the sabertooths, but our civilization will.

No need for the Nisga'a to sell their land

The Nisga'a Nation in northwestern B.C. has announced it will be the first First Nation in Canada to allow reserve land to be owned privately. Three properties have already been transferred to individuals. They are now able to mortgage their property and lease or sell it to aboriginal or non-aboriginal buyers. The land will remain subject to Nisga'a laws.

According to Nation President Mitchell Stevens, land ownership, "will change the Nisga'a world. Without true land ownership, you can't have true self-government." Other Natives are not so sanguine. Toronto lawyer Pamela Palmater, a Mi’kmaq from New Brunswick, comments, “Once you put it into the hands of individuals, it’s gone, especially for impoverished individuals.” Rosie Augustine of Elsipogtog First Nation describes the move as, "The Worst thing you could have done to our native lands."

Whether or not the Nisga'a considered other possibilities I do not know but here in southern Alberta, a proven alternative thrives. In the early 1970s, the Tsuu T'ina First Nation, neighbour of the City of Calgary, leased a parcel of reserve land to Sarcee Developments Ltd., a wholly-owned Tsuu T'ina company. Sarcee then established the Townsite of Redwood Meadows and sub-leased lots to private parties. The leases run until 2049.

Redwood Meadows, population 1,150, has been a great success with many fine homes built on the lots, presumably financed with mortgages. The Townsite of Redwood Meadows Administration Society shares management with the Tsuu T'ina Nation Council.

The Nisga'a could have adopted a similar scheme thus allowing private development while retaining ownership of their land—the best of both worlds. Ironically, this may have most closely approximated the system in place before the Europeans came, where each family was responsible for its own housing but with the land available to all. Did the Nisga'a, I wonder, look into their own history for a solution?

Conservative MPs defend Edward Snowden, attack security establishment

No, not Canadian Conservative MPs—British Conservative MPs. Former shadow home secretary and Conservative Party leadership candidate David Davis has come out strongly in support of American whistleblower Edward Snowden. "The only protection for us all in this sort of area is actually whistleblowers," said Davis, "It's the only thing that makes these sorts of organizations behave properly." He has also wisely observed that, "It is inevitable that any big bureaucracy—government departments or agencies—will at some point misuse the powers it has and the data it holds."

Davis is not alone in his concerns about the security establishment. Another Conservative backbencher, Rory Stewart, has suggested that Parliament's intelligence and security committee should always be chaired by a member of the opposition to ensure its independence. He has also proposed it be freely elected by MPs. "You are never going to have a government backbencher chairing a committee that is going to criticize the government properly," he states by way of explanation.

Strong stuff. At a time when the British Prime Minister is threatening The Guardian newspaper for publishing Snowden's revelations, it is gratifying to see backbenchers expressing contrary views. It gives democracy a good name.

TSN dumps FRIENDS' ad

The FRIENDS of Canadian Broadcasting, staunch defenders of the CBC, have been running a campaign against the federal government's Bill C-60. The Bill gives the government control over the wages and working conditions of all CBC employees, including those who produce news and current affairs programs.

The campaign included FRIEND'S' quite funny and timely Man Behind the Desk video ads. TSN, Canada's leading English language sports TV channel, has however turned out to be a party pooper. It ran the ads for two days, then pulled the plug. The ad did not run as scheduled on either the Leafs/Flames or the Canucks /Red Wings games Wednesday night.

FRIENDS has not been made aware of the reason but is speculating that either Bell, TSN's parent, decided not to curry disfavour with the Prime Minister or was pressured by the Prime Minister's Office.

If you would like to check out the offending ad for yourself, you can do so here. And if you would like to sample more of the ads and join the FRIENDS' campaign by signing their petition, you can do so here.

The West Coast steps up on global warming

Earlier this week, the governors of California, Oregon and Washington and B.C. Premier Christy Clark announced their Pacific Coast Action Plan on Climate and Energy, "committing their governments, and a region that represents the world’s fifth largest economy, to a comprehensive and far-reaching strategic alignment to combat climate change and promote clean energy."

The plan makes significant commitments on carbon pricing, low-carbon transportation, research on ocean acidification, energy efficient buildings, and other issues. Of particular importance is that in addition to agreeing to fight global warming, the four leaders emphasized the economic opportunities associated with a transition to clean energy. "Oregon supports the Action Plan," said Governor Kitzhaber, "because we are already seeing how our commitment to clean energy is changing the face and fortune of our state, accounting for $5-billion in economic activity and 58,000 jobs."
 

Under the plan, California and British Columbia will maintain their existing carbon pricing programs along with their clean fuel standards with Oregon and Washington committed to adopting similar policies. Furthermore, the leaders pledged to co-operate with governments around the world to press for a global agreement on climate change in 2015.

It was encouraging indeed to see the leaders "affirm the scientific consensus on the human causes of climate change and its very real impacts," and to refer specifically to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report.

So, despite rumours to the contrary, there are voices of reason on climate change among political leaders. Few, unfortunately, are to be found in Ottawa.

A politician of rare humility and wisdom

Uruguay is not a very important country in the grand scheme of international affairs, so we don't hear much about it. Nor about its president, José Mujica. We should hear more. President Mujica is a politician who serves as a model for others of his profession.

To begin with, he rejects the trappings of power. Upon election, he refused to move into the luxurious house provided for presidents, choosing instead to live on a small farm owned by his senator wife. He drives an old Volkswagen Beetle. Furthermore, he donates 90 percent of his salary to charity, a practice that has earned him the title "the world's poorest president."  Poor by some standards, perhaps, but not by his. "My definition of poor are those who need too much," he says, "Because those who need too much are never satisfied."

"The thing is," he explains, "I have a way of life that I don't change just because I am a president. I earn more than I need, even if it's not enough for others."

Preaching simplicity and living it, he sets an example of the kind of lifestyle that could lead humanity to a sustainable economy.

Calgary—sprawl or planning?

During the recent Calgary election campaign, two visions of the city's future development vied for attention. One, presented by Calgary's mayor, Naheed Nenshi, was about planning growth to ensure a sustainable city. The other, presented by a group of home builders and their hired gun, Preston Manning of the Manning Institute, was about leaving growth to the dictates of the market.

The latter was justified by choice. We all support choice, so this is a tempting approach (although, as the mayor pointed out, the choice isn't entirely a fair one as developers are not paying the full costs of new suburbs leading to a "sprawl subsidy"). But there is a big problem with relying on the market—it lies. If doesn't tell us the full cost of choices and therefore can lead to bad decisions.

Consider, for example, the cost of driving a car. The market tells us this includes depreciation, insurance, maintenance and gas. But, in fact, the real cost is much higher. It includes what economists call "externalities"—the cost of building and maintaining roads, the cost of policing those roads, the cost to Medicare of accidents, the many costs of pollution, etc. These are not abstractions, they are real costs, but the market ignores them. We will pay them, of course, but not in direct relation to driving a car. As a result we make bad decisions not only about transportation but about how we build our cities.

Similarly, when you buy a house in the deepest suburbs, the market doesn't include the costs of sprawl—more roads to be built and maintained, more snow removal, more sewer and water lines, more pollution, etc., all of which would be reduced if we built a more compact city. We might recognize this, realizing we will have to pay these additional costs in the long run; nonetheless, we can do little about them acting on our own.

And this illustrates a second big problem with the market. It isolates us. Acting alone we can do little about the big picture so we are coerced into making our decisions based only on our own narrow interests.

How do we overcome this isolation? We, all 1.1 million Calgarians, cannot sit down around a big table and discuss it. We can, however, elect representatives to do exactly that. It's called democracy. Elected representatives—city councillors—can hear all the views about how best to develop the city, including the views of experts—urban planners—people whose profession is studying the growth of cities. Combining the views of citizens and experts, city councils can develop a plan which best assures a financially and environmentally efficient city.

This is exactly what the City of Calgary did with Plan It Calgary. Engaging thousands of Calgarians and city planners and commissioning extensive research, the City developed a vision for a long-term pattern of development grounded in the values of SMART growth and sustainability principles for land use and mobility.

Home builders didn't much like it and unfortunately the City modified it to meet many of their concerns. Such is the power of the development industry in municipal politics. Nonetheless, much of the plan survives. Some good sense at least will be brought to the future of our city.

Citizens combining their thoughts and aspirations, and soliciting the advice of experts, is after all just good sense. Leaving the future of the city to the randomness of the market is a recipe for bad decisions and sprawl, the enemy of a vital and efficient city.

Forget the polar bears, what about the moose?

As the Earth inexorably warms up due to human folly, one species after another pays the price. The most iconic example is of course the polar bear. And why not—what is cuter and cuddlier than the bear with the thick white coat and the black nose?

But less cuddly creatures are also suffering. For example, the ungainly moose, one of nature's least handsome, but no less precious, beasts.

According to New Scientist, moose are experiencing a die-off across the southern edge of their global range, in what might indicate the start of a huge climate shock to the world's boreal forests. The direct causes vary, from liver flukes in Minnesota, to a worm that blocks the moose's carotid arteries in Wyoming, to massive tick infections in New Hampshire. Dennis Murray, a population ecologist at Trent University, claims, "The fact that you've got different proximate causes killing off the moose suggests there's an underlying ultimate cause," and he suspects that ultimate cause is climate change.

Moose, a cold climate animal, can become heat-stressed when the weather gets too warm, preventing them from building reserves of body fat to help them survive the winter and weakening their immune systems such that they are more susceptible to parasites.

So as we lament the suffering of our own species as we increasingly foul our planet, let us spare a scrap of empathy for the moose as well. And of course I was just kidding about the polar bears—we mustn't forget about them either.

The military-industrial complex comes to Canada

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.

Over half a century has passed since U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower, in his farewell address, warned his fellow Americans against the threat posed by the "meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense." They failed, unfortunately, to heed his warning. Today, the arms industry is entrenched so widely and deeply in the United States that hardly a Congressman exists who can demand a decrease in the military budget without risking jobs in his constituency. Furthermore, the U.S. is by far the world's biggest dealer in the armaments trade, with Russia a poor second.

But not satisfied with its giant share of the market, the U.S., in yet another disappointing move by President Obama, this month made the nation's largest deregulation in its history of arms exports, a move that led Amnesty International to comment, "We’re seriously concerned that the reforms will open a floodgate of weapons technology and equipment to governments that have bad human rights records. This could further facilitate the commission of human rights abuses around the world."

The Americans claim they sell only to responsible nations (a claim not to be taken too seriously—Saudi Arabia is a top customer) but other countries, Russia for instance, will only be too happy to take the hint and decontrol their sales. And who will Russia sell to? Syria, perhaps?

One country that has been quick to follow suit is our own. According to the Vancouver Sun, "The federal Conservative government has been quietly working to remove restrictions on the transfer of hundreds of Canadian-made, military-related goods as part of a plan to make Canada a global arms exporter." According to Public Works Minister Dianne Finley, "The amendments will also ensure that the list is always aligned with the U.S."


We, too, claim to be responsible in our sales, yet Canadian-made armoured vehicles sold to Saudi Arabia were used to suppress legitimate dissent in Bahrain. Similar vehicles have also been sold to Colombia, hardly a country known for respecting human rights.

The government's efforts are part of a policy to turn Canada into a major producer and exporter of arms. It has ordered the National Research Council to focus on the sector, established multimillion-dollar funds to support business-driven research and development, and turned the Canadian Commercial Corporation, a Crown corporation, into an arms salesman.

Nations are hypocrites in the realm of armaments. They talk peace while enthusiastically selling the instruments of war. I am saddened to see my country shamelessly participate in this hypocrisy. Yet another in an increasing number of black marks against our international reputation.

The Saudi tail and the American dog

That Israel is the tail that wags the dog of American Middle Eastern policy is a given. Often, however, we overlook the fact this particular dog has two tails. The other is Saudi Arabia.

A complexity of factors explains the close ties between the U.S. and Israel: the sharing of democratic and human rights values; the emotional resonance of the Holocaust; the power of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, possibly the most powerful lobby in Washington; etc. The factors responsible for American deference to the dictatorial Saudi regime are simpler—oil and guns.

Saudi Arabia has the largest reserves of conventional oil in the world and is the Americans' second largest supplier, and, on the other side of the ledger, it is the major purchaser of U.S. weapons.

Not surprising then that the Americans pay close attention when the Saudis are unhappy with their foreign policy, and they are very unhappy at the moment. They are unhappy that the Americans have not attacked Syria and indeed are not doing more to help the rebels, they are unhappy with the improving U.S. relationship with Iran, they are unhappy with American ambivalence on the Israel-Palestine issue, they are unhappy the Americans didn't support their repression of dissent in Bahrain, and they are unhappy the U.S. has severed military ties to Egypt's new dictators.

Indeed, they are so unhappy the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, has publicly stated the kingdom will make a "major shift" in relations with the United States, a shift that would have wide-ranging consequences, including on oil sales and arms purchases. Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is urgently meeting with his Saudi counterpart and attempting to play down any divisions.

So, will the Americans stand their ground? Will they call the Saudi bluff and, if necessary, distance themselves from this disreputable ally? Or will oil and guns win out? And that, I expect, is a silly question.

B.C. 's "textbook example" of good climate policy

High praise indeed from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In a recent speech, OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría praised B.C.’s carbon tax as being “as close to a textbook example as we have."

The praise is well deserved. A paper published in the journal Canadian Public Policy by two members of the University of Ottawa's Faculty of Law indicated that four years after the tax was introduced in 2008, British Columbia’s per capita consumption of fuels subject to the tax declined by 19 per cent compared to the rest of Canada while at the same time B.C.'s economy kept pace with the rest of the country. Furthermore, the paper reported, "Due to the tax shift, British Columbia households and businesses now pay the lowest income taxes in Canada and use the least amount of fuel per capita of any Canadian province."

Covering roughly three-quarters of B.C.’s carbon emissions, the tax is a key component of the province's climate policy. Whatever sins the province has on the environmental front, and it has a few, it deserves full credit for its carbon tax.

Meanwhile, despite its success in B.C., the federal government continues to attack carbon taxes with, as a Pembina Institute article put it, rhetoric "that has become completely unhinged from reality."

Somehow we have to get past our unhinged government and put a national carbon tax back on the table. As Secretary-General Gurria has said, "Without placing a clear and explicit price on emissions we are, as they say, just ‘pushing at a piece of string’ when it comes to changing consumer, producer and investor behaviour.”

Progressive Alberta

Seemingly in defiance of Alberta's reputation as a very conservative province, voters in Calgary and Edmonton both elected young, progressive mayors yesterday.

Calgary elected the 41-year old Naheed Nenshi for a second term and Edmonton chose the 34-year old former city councillor Don Iveson. Nenshi supports a more compact city with increased density in the inner city and levies on suburban development that reflect the true cost of building suburbs. Iveson appears to be of a similar urban philosophy.

Nenshi easily overcame vigorous opposition from home builders who disapprove of his references to the "sprawl subsidy," the difference between the cost of infrastructure in new suburbs and developers' contribution to it. They
were joined in their opposition by Preston Manning whose Manning Institute recently received over a million dollars from home builders to train developer-friendly candidates.

Other progressives also did well in Calgary with Druh Farrell, Gian-Carlo Carra and Brian Pincott holding their wards and Evan Woolly joining the group. Council still leans conservative, if not pro-developer, but at least there is a strong contingent of progressives pushing for a financially and environmentally sustainable city.

Lynching Obama

Allow me to offer a theory about the recent bizarre behaviour of the Republican Party in the U.S. Congress.

All countries have a substantial ultraconservative component of their political spectrum. But not often in a democracy does that component take over the agenda of a major political party and threaten to bring the government down if it doesn't get what it wants, rather like a gang of two-year-olds collectively holding their breath and kicking their heels. Why this happened in a nation long considered a responsible democracy is a result perhaps of political passion aggravated by that country's nemesis—racism.

At the end of the Second World War, straight white American males ruled the nation. They were "the Man." They owned pretty well everything and dominated pretty well everything. They sat at the head of the table and, damn, they owned the table. Everyone else knew their place and it was second place, or third.

And then things began to come apart. Women demanded an equal place at the table. As did blacks who were insisting that phrase in the Declaration of Independence about all men being equal should be taken seriously. Homosexuals no longer found the closet agreeable and emerged, flaunting their pride in the streets with, dare I say it, gay abandon. And if all this impertinence wasn't bad enough, whites were shrinking toward minority status as Hispanics expanded their numbers. Most straight white males accepted the changes with grace but others didn't, wouldn't, just couldn't, and they retreated into a smoldering anger. Their country, it seemed, was being stolen from them bit by bit.

And then came the ultimate insult. The rubbing it in. The salt in all these many wounds. The American people voted in a black president. Not all the American people did, but clearly a disproportionate number of the usurpers—blacks, women and Hispanics. To say nothing of those perennial mischief-makers, the younger generation. And not just any black man but a black man with—horrors!—a white mother.

At one time, red-blooded American males knew how to deal with uppity blacks—they lynched them. Unfortunately, that is simply no longer on. But if those red-blooded Congressmen can no longer bring out the bedsheets and the lynch rope, they can still focus remarkable energy and passion on destroying the uppity black president politically.

They will not, I think, succeed. Even their Republican colleagues are tiring of their juvenile shenanigans. As are the American people at large.

But deny them not their last hurrah. They are losing their country. Women increasingly seek positions of power, blacks aren't returning to the back of the bus, gays are getting married, and Hispanics are now the nation’s largest minority group and among its fastest growing populations. White numbers are shrinking, predicted to be a minority by mid-century. A new America is emerging, and the Man is having a tantrum.

Anyway, that's my theory. Not particularly original and perhaps a bit over the top, but not as over the top as the antics in the U.S. Congress over the past few weeks.

Where will all the scientists go?

In a new book about the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal, The Oil Man and the Sea, author Arno Kopecky relates his attempt to  interview Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) scientist Kenneth Lee. Dr. Lee was the executive director of the DFO-sponsored Centre for Offshore Oil, Gas and Energy Research, and possibly the country's top expert on how bitumen behaves in salt water.

Kopecky soon ran into the federal government's now infamous muzzle policy. An email to Lee earned him a reply informing him he would be contacted by a communications person, and he never heard from Kenneth Lee, or any other government scientist, again. Instead of answers to the questions he submitted, the communications department supplied him with a series of "bureaucratic talking points."

As for the Centre for Offshore Oil, Gas and Energy Research, it has now been down-sized due to the budget cuts to the DFO in omnibus Bill C-38. Kenneth Lee resigned and moved to Australia.

The irony here is that the federal government claims it will ensure safe transportation of bitumen offshore from the Gateway pipeline's proposed terminal in Kitimat. But how are we to believe that when it cuts the budget of the very government agency responsible for the science designed to ensure that safety? And how well is the science to be done if the country's top experts are driven abroad? This government's disrespect for science is now undermining not only its credibility but its ability to manage its own pet program.

What would Lesus do?

Sorry folks, I couldn't resist it. A set of gold, silver and bronze medals commemorating the first year of the pontificate of Pope Francis, produced by the Italian State Mint, went on sale in Vatican stores last week. But not for long. They were quickly withdrawn when a slight flaw was noticed. Jesus was misspelled Lesus.

What's next—Lod? The Virgin Lary? The Italian Mint would be well advised to hire a proofreader if they are going to do any more work for the Vatican. Or before they start producing bumper stickers.

Four lucky people did very well out of the Mint's lapse, however. They managed to purchase medals before they were withdrawn from the stores. Those medals will be worth—if you'll pardon the pun—a mint some day.

Save the songbirds—curb your cats

I have always been a dog man myself. Cats ... well, they can be cute and cuddly, but whereas dogs seem to belong with us, I have always found cats to be alien if not a little unnerving. Those cold, deadpan eyes seem to send the message that if I was small enough, I would be their prey.

Dogs are very much like us. Descended from wolves, they are social creatures, basking in the companionship of their fellows. Cats are loners, rejecting the company of even their own species. However, it is not their antisocial nature that concerns me today, but rather their relentless urge to kill, an urge that in a human would be considered psychopathic. Cats simply cannot stop killing, even when they aren't hungry.

This capacity for slaughter is inflicting a holocaust upon our songbirds. A recent study by Environment Canada reported that out of the more than 270 million wild birds killed every year in Canada from human-related activity, 75 per cent were killed by cats. Less than 20 per cent were killed by collisions with power lines and buildings. Hunting accounted for only about two per cent. According to Richard Elliot, director of wildlife research for Environment Canada, "A cat you think is just out wandering around the premises would be killing 10 or 12 birds a night."

One might expect that people who love cats would love animals generally, including birds, the most delightful of our fellow species. But it appears that all too many do not. If they did, they would keep these stealthy little serial killers in the house and not unleash them on our feathered friends.

Judge likens Alberta government to Duplessis regime

The tar sands gang does more than muzzle scientists. It also muzzles environmentalists. This came out loud and clear in a recent case before Alberta's Court of Queen's Bench.

Last year, the Oil Sands Environmental Coalition (OSEC), a group consisting of the Pembina Institute, the Alberta Wilderness Association and the Fort McMurray Environmental Association, filed a Statement of Concern with Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development to gain standing at the regulatory review of the second phase of Southern Pacific Resource’s proposed in situ tar sands project. OSEC was concerned about the project's use of up to 1.7 million litres of fresh groundwater every day, declining regional air quality, and the habitat of a threatened caribou herd. Their application was rejected.

They appealed to the courts and earlier this week the Court of Queen’s Bench revoked the government's decision. Justice Richard Marceau called the government’s actions “tainted" and concluded, “It is difficult to envision a more direct apprehension of bias.... [It] breaches all four principles of natural justice and must be quashed." In a particularly unkind cut, the judge compared the government's behaviour to that of the authoritarian regime of Maurice Duplessis in 1950's Quebec.

Documents obtained through Freedom of Information requests had suggested OSEC was denied its application in part at least because of “recent oilsands publications” and the government’s perception that it was “less inclined to work cooperatively.”

Speaking for the Pembina Institute, Policy Director Simon Dyer commented, “It’s deeply troubling that the Government of Alberta would attempt to block participation in the regulatory process on grounds that Pembina has raised concerns of its oilsands management policies.” Deeply troubling indeed, surprising not at all.