Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- In the absence of leaders at any level of government willing to act on the scale needed to stop the coronavirus pandemic in much of Canada, Amir Attaran helpfully provides some minimum standards which could be applied across the country. And Nathaniel Dove and Anna McMillan report on a call from health sector workers for targeted shutdowns to meaningfully bend the curve in Saskatchewan, while Stephanie Taylor reports on the prospect that we could be facing massive increases in our case load by the first week of December.

- Andrew MacLean discusses the need for medical health officers to be able to speak openly and honestly to the citizens they serve, rather than having their messages and recommendations distorted by political considerations. And Gary Mason highlights what the recordings of Alberta meetings showed about the glaring gap between public health recommendations and the UCP's choices and orders.

- Meanwhile, the Progress Report exposes how Jason Kenney's government slipped $4 million to the NHL in a secret, sole-source contract while skimping on relief for Albertans.

- Natalie Kalata reports on the burnout being faced by frontline workers dealing with COVID-19, while Rosa Saba traces the difficulties in part to a lack of basic employment and labour protections. And Gabriela Panda-Beltrani notes that Saskatchewan's contact tracers are facing both understaffing in their workplaces, and deliberate abuse from the people they're trying to contact.

- Finally, Andrew Nikiforuk warns us against assuming that a vaccine will immediately put an end to the work that needs to be done in protecting against the continued spread of COVID-19.

Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- David A. Green, J. Rhys Kesselman, Lindsay Tedds discuss some of the complications involved in designing a basic income system. And David Roberts makes the case for a universal basic services model to ensure people have access to the necessities of life and social participation regardless of their income level.

- Meanwhile, Lauren Pelly discusses how shared and cramped housing can turn one's home from the best means of avoiding COVID-19 into a concentrated transmission zone.

- Penney Kome writes that there's an achievable path to convert to a sustainable, equitable economy. But Martin Hirst highlights how neoliberals are looking to put an end to the hope that we can build a stronger society in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

- Sharon Lerner discusses how big pharma is trying to exploit a massive social problem by price-gouging when it comes to any possible prevention or treatment. And Emma McIntosh documents the painfully long list of environmental protections which have been opportunistically set aside to allow corporations to maximize their damage to our planet in the midst of a public health crisis.

- Finally, Amir Attaran writes about Canada's failure to manage that crisis. And Kendall Latimer and Alicia Bridges report on the expert consensus that Saskatchewan's choice not to be transparent about the spread of the coronavirus can't be justified as a matter of privacy.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Thomas Piketty writes that regardless of the end result, Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign may mark the start of a fundamental change in U.S. politics:

Sanders’ success today shows that much of America is tired of rising inequality and these so-called political changes, and intends to revive both a progressive agenda and the American tradition of egalitarianism. Hillary Clinton, who fought to the left of Barack Obama in 2008 on topics such as health insurance, appears today as if she is defending the status quo, just another heiress of the Reagan-Clinton-Obama political regime.

Sanders makes clear he wants to restore progressive taxation and a higher minimum wage ($15 an hour). To this he adds free healthcare and higher education in a country where inequality in access to education has reached unprecedented heights, highlighting a gulf standing between the lives of most Americans, and the soothing meritocratic speeches pronounced by the winners of the system.

- Richard Shillington studies the economic status of Canadian near-seniors and finds that very few people are prepared for retirement. And PressProgress points out that the result may be a reversal of Canada's past success in fighting seniors' poverty.

- Meanwhile, Iglika Ivanova reviews B.C.'s provincial budget and finds that it's falling far short of what's needed to rein in poverty and inequality.

- Amir Attaran reminds us of the money Canada's health system is wasting on artificially high prices for generic drugs.

- Matthew Behrens weighs in on the next steps for Canada's surveillance state (including C-51) and argues that we shouldn't settle for secret, after-the-fact parliamentary reviews of state disruptions.

- Finally, Maciej Gorecki examines the possibility that voter turnout trends may be driven more by social expectations and maturation than by individual habit-forming.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Duncan Cameron discusses how Canada can respond to being stalled economically:

In 2011 median earnings in Canada were $30,000. That means one-half of Canadian workers earned less than $30,000. What is more to the point is that earnings in 2011 were $1,800 below the level attained in 1977 (inflation adjusted 2011 dollars)! The pay packet for workers shrunk over that 24 year period.

It's a big stall -- an awful lot of Canadians are not getting ahead.
...
What has escaped economic stagnation, and gone up in value is what Thomas Piketty called patrimonial capital: inheritances, tax sheltered investments, ownership of private companies, public stock holdings, real estate and private art collections.

Piketty shows that patrimonial capital is not just inherited from parents. Important as inherited wealth is in the upper reaches of the Canadian economy -- think Thompson, Irvings, McCains, Desmarais, Péladeau, where new generations have taken over from wealth accumulators -- Piketty shows wealth also grows out of high incomes like those paid in the FIRE sector: finance, insurance and real estate.

Wealth accumulation is outpacing income growth. This is an overall trend in Western economies according to statistics collected by Piketty through extensive research in tax returns around the world. This trend is what the big stall is about.

It should be obvious to anyone (other than the very rich) that it is good idea to take additional money from those who have much more than they need, or could ever spend, and transfer it to people who are barely surviving on social transfers.

- Meanwhile, Carol Goar notes that we stand out internationally in our large number of well-educated workers earning low incomes - meaning that our investment in education isn't translating into economic benefits. And PressProgress suggests that contrary to the Cons' inclinations, free money for the corporate lobby won't solve anything.

- Dave Gilson and Mattias Mackler chart the combination of greater inequality and more precarious lives for most U.S. residents. And Natasha Boddy reports on the work being done to act on the social determinants of health in Australia.

- Jacques Gallant reports on Amir Attaran's latest study showing that Canada is paying far more than it should for generic prescription drugs. And Andre Picard examines the even more worrisome trend of overreliance on antibiotics - which looks all too likely to create resistance which won't be met by insufficient research.

- Finally, Paul Dechene tears into the Regina Public School Board for teaching students all the wrong lessons:

Oh sure, they have a “unit” on “sustainability” somewhere in the school curriculum. I think I remember my kid bringing home a blue papier-mâché globe she made on Earth Day or something. I threw that shit out.


But we all know the three Rs — Reduce, Reuse and Recycle — can’t power a fossil fuel economy.
Neither can words like “sustainability” or “the environment.” And we’re within spitting distance of the epicentre of our fossil fuel economy (if you could spit on Alberta from Regina, that is). So we have to support the fossil fuel economy. It’s our patriotic duty.

If we don’t, who will?

And that’s why I’m glad the school board is doing an end run around those socialist Rs and setting a strong example in the three Cs: Combustion, Construction and Consumption.

Tearing down Connaught is a win on ALL THREE!!

Kids, you know all those plastic juice bottles you put in the blue bin because it’s good for the environment? Your school board has more than offset all that work you did by throwing the bulk of a two-storey building in the dump and then busing all of Connaught across town for three or more years. You could start composting the crusts off your jam sandwiches too and it wouldn’t amount to a hill of organic soy beans at this point!
...
So why exactly is the Public School Board tearing down Connaught? Because the building was not maintained adequately. Because renovation work that was done on the foundation exacerbated problems. Because heritage elements have already been removed from the building.

When Connaught kids graduate to high school, they’ll learn that these are all examples of the passive voice. That’s a way of playing with verbs that skilled wordsmiths employ to hide who actually did a thing.

In this case, it means no one ever has to say, “The Regina Public School Board and the Saskatchewan Ministry of Education did not maintain Connaught and did renovation work that exacerbated foundation problems and removed heritage elements from the building.”

With the passive voice, it looks like absolutely no one did any of this. And that means no one ever has to take responsibility for what happens, no one ever has to say “Sorry,” and no one ever has to learn anything. And that means the Regina Public School Board can keep doing the same thing over and over. 

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Alice interviews Allan Gregg about his sharp criticism of anti-evidence politics, and finds some optimism on Gregg's part that clear falsehoods will eventually be treated with due disdain:

Q. So, one of your early mentors, [US pollster] Richard Wirthlin, he’s arguing that values trumped issues in the work that he did for Ronald Reagan. He told George Lakoff that this was how Reagan managed to get elected: that people wanted to vote for him based on an appeal to values, in spite of most voters at the time disagreeing with his policies.
So, that being the case, that an appeal values will trump reason every time, how is it that you’re so sure we could use reason and knowledge to “fight back”, which was your closing call?
A. It’s the power, you know, it’s the power of 2 + 2 = 4. It’s irrefutable. It’s not very emotionally compelling; it’s not something that causes people to stand up and give you a standing ovation. But over time, it will prevail. Dick is right to the extent that people make their judgements using irrational criteria in a very rational way. I mean, choice – political choice, consumer choice, what have you – is a fairly rational intersection of self-interest and self-image. People ask themselves these two things: (i) is it like me – self-image, and (ii) is it for me – self-interest. And if the answer to both those things is “yes”, they’re likely to be chosen. But the way you transmit “I am like you” could be “you and I love children, or puppy-dogs” as opposed to “you and I both believe that we have to have a guaranteed annual income program”. So, yeah, there always is the element of the irrational in the rational, I just think it’s something we have to keep our guard up for.
Q. But is it also maybe that “you and I both dislike that other person” or “both fear this phenomenon”?
A. [laughs] Well, there’s always that as well, yes.
Q. Because that’s the basis of wedge politics.
A. Well it is, but I’ve always feared those who try to keep the population ignorant, or try to misdirect them, or fool them. I’ve got no problem with right-wingers. I’ve got no problem with left-wingers. I just want them to be honest, and to base their ideology, and put it out there and have it challenged by facts and reason.

- Meanwhile, Mia Rabson writes that notwithstanding incidents like the shooting at the PQ's election-night party, we shouldn't let fear stand between our leaders and the general public:

Each year, it seems security around our politicians tightens.

The federal government is spending $9 million this year to add new barricades on Parliament Hill.
Last month, a man heading for a regular paddle on a Toronto-area river was stopped and frisked by local police because Prime Minister Stephen Harper was campaigning across the river.

In August, newly minted Manitoba Opposition Leader Brian Pallister asked Elections Manitoba for an exemption from publishing his home address in his nomination papers for security reasons. He is the first leader to request such an exemption.

But compared to the high level of security around American politicians, we are still open. Security is there but most often unobtrusive.

It's the way it should be.

The more security we are forced to bear, the more difficult it becomes for the average person to engage with elected officials, and the more difficult it is for those officials to engage with the public.

- But then, as Jim Stanford notes, it isn't only in politics that there's a push to insulate a privileged few from the masses - as even publicly-funded airport security systems are set up to filter out first-class travelers from mere ordinary people.

- And finally, Dr. Dawg points out why there's ample reason for concern that some voices (which are more and more seen as representing a standard right-wing take) are determined to stoke fear - with no regard for the likelihood of resulting violence.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Gerald Caplan skewers the tendency of right-wingers - most recently expressed by the federal minister responsible - to see child care as some kind of bizarre conspiracy:

What deeply distressed these callers was the fear that ECE, sanctioned by the Ontario Ministry of Education, organized by your local school board, conducted by highly qualified staff, was a diabolical plot to do something terrible, unspeakable, to their children’s minds. To steal them away from their families. Some explicitly declared that the purpose was to turn their children into Communists, even though the Soviet Union had dissolved four years earlier. Others insisted that the state intended to brainwash children in any number of unknown ways for malevolent purposes. Though what these could possibly be no one could ever say.

There was no plausible rebuttal to these delusions. This was a matter of deep superstition, not reason or science. This was the very antithesis of commonsense. I wondered how these parents could ever trust the school system, since the same provincial governments and school boards who would offer ECE were responsible for the next 15 years of their kids’ schooling.

But there was no answer, not even an attempt at one. Many Conservatives – including those who seem to win elections in Canada – simply have an irrational hatred of ECE, a delusional certainty that its purpose is evil, and a paranoid fear of its impact on their children.

The consequences of this blind conviction is to severely penalize millions of Canadians desperate for assistance with childcare, with the worst penalties as always being paid by those already struggling to get by, and especially – as always – by the mothers.

- In case there were any points left standing in the usual spin about slashing corporate taxes as a matter of competing with other countries, Erin highlights the fact that the carefully chosen comparison relies on giving full weight to less-developed, new OECD countries rather than looking at economies even remotely similar to Canada's.

- I'll grant that there isn't much directly linking the personal requests about Errol Mendes and Amir Attaran with the federal Cons directly. But particularly given the news from the U.S. showing disturbing coordination between government and private-sector power brokers in attacking dissenting voices (by fraud and/or extortion if necessary), we shouldn't get distracted by the semantic question of who submitted a particular request in pointing out how it fits with the intimidation tactics we've come to expect from the Cons and their allies.

- Finally, some may find the news that some Cons reject any action on climate change based on the belief that it isn't part of God's will. But let's not miss the upside to the Cons holding faith-based beliefs: shouldn't it be possible to encourage them to be equally uninterested in most other areas of policy by asking who they are to try to override the will of a divine being?

On full transparency

CBC's report raising the possibility that Canadian officials deliberately rendered Afghan detainees to be tortured obviously raises the stakes in the ongoing standoff over records documenting Canada's actions. But while we'll have to see how both the information showdown and the substance of the issue play out, it's worth a reminder as to how easily the Cons could muddled any responsibility for war crimes by accepting some of the ill-advised "compromises" suggested last year as a way of avoiding confrontation.

Consider what would have happened if before Amir Attaran's revelations had become publicly known, the Cons had jumped on an offer to share their documentation on the treatment of detainees with a small number of MPs in return for their being sworn to secrecy. Only a limited number of representatives would then have had any ability to look through a vast number of documents. And even if they'd managed to find on their own any documentation showing that the issue actually involved deliberate orders to pursue torture as a matter of policy rather than failure to prevent torture as had been discussed publicly, they'd have had no ability to do anything about it.

Then suppose Attaran had gone public with his revelations. At that point, the Cons would have had a ready-made opportunity to point fingers at opposition MPs for having known about what was happening, claiming that any charges of war crimes would be just as applicable to MPs who learned what happened only after the fact as to any officials who made decisions to have detainees transferred to be tortured.

In retrospect, then, it's entirely fortunate that the Cons' apparent suspicions of what the opposition parties would do with the truth outweighed their desire to spread blame around. (And based on the Libs' constant efforts to be seen as compromising, I'm far from sure that shouldn't have been obvious from the beginning.)

Now that the ultimate nature of the issue is known publicly, though, there's no way for the Cons to try to raise any pretense that all parties should be seen as conspiring to hide information about war crimes from the public, rather than the Cons alone hiding their own misdeeds from the opposition and the public alike. And now that the issue has to be seen as one of intent rather than negligence, there figures to be far more demand for a full public airing of the responsible officials' actions.

Of course, some Con supporters are already pivoting toward a claim that Canada should be satisfied with being lied to so as to avoid the consequences of the crimes which may have been committed by Canadian officials. (Or in other words: "See, we told you the truth might injure our reputation! Now let's pretend none of this ever happened." Which puts a particularly interesting spin on the hints that Justice Iacobucci's mandate might be limited to considering any possible injury resulting from disclosure of the records currently being hidden.)

But the real lesson has to be that we shouldn't settle for selective disclosure of what's been done in our name when our country's values are at stake. And while the Cons may have a greater incentive to try to fight to suppress the truth now that we have a better idea what it might include, I'd have to think they're far less likely to succeed.