Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Suman Naishadham offers a look at the latest evidence of a climate breakdown in progress. And Richard Crim examines James Hansen's grim projections of continued warming even from year to year. 

- Max Fawcett weighs in on the need of tar sands operators to lie to Canadians to avoid answering for the implausibility of their emission promises. And Phil Tank writes about the Saskatchewan Party's contempt for both education and the non-dirty energy economy evidenced by Scott Moe's eagerness to hand over curriculum development to his oil and gas donors.  

- Inderjit Dhiman writes about the crucial role of sustainable housing in building climate resilience. And Tom Parkin points out the stark difference between British Columbia's focus on building social housing which is producing substantial results, and Doug Ford's subsidies and giveaways to developers which are producing nothing but windfall profits. 

- Finally, Armine Yalnizyan interviews Isabella Weber about her recognition that recent inflation has mostly been the result of corporate price gouging.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Phil Tank writes that the holidays will be anything but happy for families dealing with long COVID due to the Moe government's choice to let it rip through the population, while Larissa Kurz reports that a year in which everybody decided to pretend the pandemic was over has been the province's most deadly one yet. Aaron D'Andrea reports on the World Health Organization's warnings about the potential effects of developing variants on overburdened health care systems, while Alika Lafontaine and Stefanie Davis each point out how ours are already collapsing. 

- Meanwhile, Marc-Andre Pigeon, Haizhen Mou and Natalie Kallio point out how cooperative clinics can ensure people have access to primary and preventative care without placing additional burdens on already-overloaded workers.  

- Armine Yalnizyan responds to anti-worker spin by pointing out that there's little reason to think higher wages are a driver of inflation. Marco Chown Oved reports that there's still a direct connection between food price inflation and profiteering by grocery giants. And Katie Hyslop explains her decision to stop contributing to band-aids such as food banks when there's an urgent need to work toward actual food security. 

- Dylan Short reports on the sheer cruelty involved in Calgary's decision to remove doors from transit stations in order to prevent people from seeking warmth. And Arny Wise offers some suggestions as to how David Eby can address British Columbia's housing crisis - including a need to focus on non-market housing rather than hoping that for-profit developers will solve the shortage of affordable homes. 

- Finally, Adam Johnson highlights how under a corporatist political and economic system, free speech is limited to what the wealthiest few are willing to hear and promote. And Rebecca Burns and Julia Rock report on the lobbying by U.S. banks to be able to commit felonies without consequences - supposedly in the name of serving the very customers they apparently plan to defraud. 

Sunday Evening Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- The OECD issues a report on the importance of avoiding climate tipping points - and the reality that we're on pace to far overshoot them. Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood notes that lobbying on behalf of fossil gas is the latest version of climate denialism masquerading as pragmatism, while Stewart Phillip and others write that David Eby has to choose between responsible climate action and fossil fuel development. And Lylla Younes discusses the unusually high cost of extreme weather events and natural disasters which are becoming ever more common.

- The Globe and Mail's editorial board points out how some conservative governments have lost their minds - though there are plenty more cringe-inducing policies across right-wing governments which presumably had to be cut for space. Althia Raj asks why any principled conservatives who may still exist aren't calling out the combination of heavy-handed intrusion and abject dishonesty underpinning Danielle Smith's power grab. Don Braid points out that Alberta itself fought against a far more limited version of sub-legislative decision-making at the federal level just last year. And Martin Regg Cohn thinks that Doug Ford will pay the price for overplaying his own hand in trampling on Charter rights and democratic structures - though the evidence to date suggests little reason for optimism.

- Russell Lansbury discusses how Australia has moved toward sectoral bargaining which figures to ensure gains are shared widely among workers. But Luke Savage calls out the U.S. Democrats for trampling collective bargaining rights while pretending to be allies of the labour movement. 

- The Economist discusses how the deliberate elimination of public testing for COVID-19 is leaving responsible people to look to indirect measures like reviews of scented candles to determine current levels of spread.

- Finally, Oliver Darcy reports on the dramatic increase in hate speech on Twitter in the wake of Elon Musk's takeover.

On democratic decisions

Today looks to be a watershed moment for the future of the B.C. NDP, as its provincial council determines whether to follow a recommendation to disqualify Anjali Appadurai from its leadership race - and in the process effective disenfranchise the entire membership in favour of a coronation. 

But it's worth noting that the issue isn't an entirely new one. And the recommendation in the B.C. campaign seems to be applying drastically different standards and results than what Saskatchewan experienced in relatively recent memory. 

By way of background, in the 2009 Saskatchewan NDP leadership campaign, a volunteer on behalf of Dwain Lingenfelter's campaign submitted and paid for 1100 membership applications in the names of members of two Saskatchewan First Nations without their knowledge or consent. (The volunteer would end up pleading guilty to the criminal charge of attempting to utter forged documents.) 

Lingenfelter's campaign manager had approved of payment for the memberships - without knowing they were being submitted without the putative members' knowledge, but also without following up to determine whether there was any financial need to justify the mass payment of membership fees. And when the mass signups without consent were discovered, both the campaign and the party had to determine how to respond. 

For Lingenfelter's part, he treated the matter as being one of an "overexuberant volunteer", while not imposing public consequences on the campaign manager or anybody else. 

The Saskatchewan NDP's response was to cancel the memberships that had been falsely submitted, and to commission an investigative report into how the problem arose and how to prevent it from happening again. And while there were some calls for Lingenfelter to withdraw from the race voluntarily, I don't recall any serious possibility that he would be disqualified, either for the initial violation or for his reaction. (Indeed, my view at the time was that it was best for him to remain in the race and let members decide how his handling of the issue weighed in evaluating his suitability as a leader.) 

Comparing that situation to the one now facing the B.C. NDP, there looks to be little reason why a more severe penalty would result in Appadurai's case. Any issue about the validity of new memberships would result solely from potential regulatory non-compliance in reaching people who wanted to become members, not outright forgery to bring people in unwittingly. The investigation was able to contact questioned members at a level of detail which allowed for the flagging of specific memberships based on existing membership in another party (if one presumes that should itself result in cancellation). And there isn't an obvious difference in Appadurai's response as compared to Lingenfelter's: both acknowledged some wrongdoing, while minimizing how it would be characterized and declining to punish members of their own campaign for less-than-perfect oversight. 

That leaves a strong perception that the difference in treatment arises largely from the question of deviation from expectations. Lingenfelter was the heavy favourite entering the campaign, meaning that his disqualification might have been seen as producing an unexpected result. And conversely, Appadurai's campaign is under particular scrutiny due to the perception that she might well have signed up enough members to change the previously-anticipated outcome. 

Hopefully it goes without saying that campaign rules shouldn't be made and applied with the goal of channeling the results toward predetermined outcomes. And if the B.C. NDP decides it would rather deny members any vote than find a mechanism to cancel only questionable memberships, that figures to have far-reaching effects within the party and beyond as to whether people see democratic change as a meaningful possibility.