Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Marisa Kabas discusses the moral rot in corporate, access-based media - which in turn looks to be a contributor to the decline of human decency in the political and social realms. And Perry Bacon talks to Adam Bonica about the obvious opportunity for leaders and movements who pick up on the public demand to combat corruption.

- Jonathan Cohn interviews Atul Gawande about the cruelty of the Trump regime's obliteration of foreign aid programs which kept hundreds of thousands of people alive. Nat Lash reports on the potential for a bird flu pandemic as a result of the Republicans' anti-vaccine ideology and destruction of the U.S. public health system. Freddy Brewster and Luke Goldstein report on the U.S. Senate's gutting of regulations around food contamination as part of the price of reopening government is to ensure it doesn't protect people from corporate damage. 

- Meanwhile, both Andrew Gregory and Amina Zafar report on new studies showing the harm that ultra-processed food can do to the human body. 

- Lest anybody think Mark Carney isn't fully onside with destructive deregulation and corporate control, Marc Fawcett-Atkinson reports on the Libs' choice to eliminate protections around pesticides. Marc Lee discusses how the Libs' economic plans are limited to corporate handouts rather than any vision for future development. And Jim Thomas implores Carney not to let an already-worrisome obsession with artificial intelligence as a panacea turn into a bailout for tech sector tycoons. 

- Finally, Shanna Hanbury reports on Colombia's warning that corporate-biased trade agreements act as a dangerous barrier to needed climate action. 

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Don Moynihan discusses how the systematic erosion of American democracy includes the elimination of the belief among Republicans that the public service should be qualified and non-partisan rather than controlled from on high for political purposes. And Jonathan Last writes about the needed response to a ruling party which has jettisoned morality and ethics in favour of an unfettered will to power. 

- Zain Haq argues that the climate crisis is also a product of moral corruption (encouraged by the people whose wealth and power derives from harming others). Paul Palmer and Liang Feng discuss the record-breaking carbon dioxide readings being delivered by a NASA satellite which may soon succumb to the Trump war on reality. Oliver Milman reports on a new study finding the U.S. suffered record climate damage this year. And James Murray weighs in on the latest State of Climate Action report which shows humanity falling short of combating a climte breakdown by every possible standard. 

- Meanwhile, the State of Global Air 2025 report finds that the death toll from air pollution continues to be in the high seven figures, while over a third of the world's population is exposed to excessive pollution levels. 

- Paul Mozur, Adam Satariano and Emiliano Rodríguez Mega report on the justified public backlash against AI data facilities which are gobbling up desperately-needed water and power supplies at the expense of public health and well-being. And Caroline Haskins reports on some of the complaints people have made to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission about the direct harms caused by AI.

- Finally, Julia Lurie reports on the latest examples of Amazon's abuse of employees - including its driving a pregnant worker to homelessness by refusing to accommodate her with a place to sit. 

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Bruce Arthur writes that Doug Ford's already-pitiful response to COVID-19 is getting worse as Ontario opens up businesses in the midst of a deadly wave. And Adam Hunter reports that Saskatchewan businesses are worried about Scott Moe's refusal to require masks anywhere other than Saskatoon, Regina and Prince Alberta - a limitation which is particularly noteworthy given that the Sask Party's previous refusal to allow municipalities to pass mask mandates of their own was supposedly based on a desire for consistency across the province. 

- George Monbiot's series of columns on the UK's privatized COVID response examines continues with a look at a failing attempt to outsource testing and tracing operations in schools. Beyhan Farhadi examines the failings of Ontario's "concurrent classroom" system. And Alex Antonyshyn reports on one Alberta school division's decision to provide wellness days to allow staff to recuperate somewhat from the combination of excessive work burdens and pandemic response duties.

- Jeffrey Jones reports on yet another example of oil-industry consolidation which will ensure that whatever operations continue in a dying industry will employ as few people as possible. And Andrew Jeffrey reports that the Kenney UCP's attempts to jump-start coal mining by gutting environmental protections are likewise being met with closures and job losses as businesses move past the dirtiest sources of energy.

- Finally, Nathan Robinson writes that any solace we take from Joe Biden's eventual victory in the U.S. election needs to be tempered by concern that a contest between democracy and fascism resulted in anything less than a landslide. And Ako Ofudike discusses the voting public's worrisome lack of regard for honesty and ethics in the U.S. and Canada alike.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Ben Parfitt comments on the dangers of captured regulators such as B.C.'s Oil and Gas Commission who end up serving corporate "clients" rather than the public interest. And Bryan Walsh discusses the discounting effect which makes it all too frequent for people to avoid seriously considering the long-term effects of a climate breakdown (among other policy choices).

- But if we needed an example as to how pollution affects people every day, Allison Aubrey discusses new research showing that smog and other air pollution can be as harmful to a person's lungs as being a heavy smoker. Pheobe Weston reports on the spread of microplastics to the most remote areas of the globe. And Jillian Ambrose reports on new research showing how fracking results in the emission of large quantities of methane with severe climate consequences.

- Meanwhile, Michael Salmato points out that plenty of coal workers (among other people currently tied to fossil fuels) recognize the need for a just transition to more sustainable energy sources.

- In the wake of the Ethics Commissioner's report finding Justin Trudeau to have broken the law by pressuring Jody Wilson-Raybould in SNC Lavalin's interests, Paul Wells highlights the reminder that a government's decisions and actions have consequences beyond immediate public relations effects. And Andrew Coyne notes that the problems with Trudeau's actions also extend beyond a conflict of interest alone.

- Finally, Paul Karp and Ben Butler take note of the attempt by Australian corporate giants to avoid any use of the Panama Papers which revealed their tax evasion - along with the rejection of that argument by the courts.

New column day

Here, on how Donald Trump is just one of far too many politicians trying to undercut needed counterbalances in the media, political systems and civil society.

For further reading...
- Rem Reider's story offers a few examples of Trump's attacks on the press.
- Althia Raj reported on Bill Morneau's complaints about opposition MPs doing their job, while Andy Blatchford addressed his claim that he doesn't report to journalists.
- John Paul Tasker discussed Jane Philpott's attempt to silence critics of the Libs' failures on Indigenous issues (and particularly the implementation of Jordan's principle).
- And Keith Baldrey's year-end interview with John Horgan included the latter's comment on setting activism aside.

New column day

Here, on the Trudeau Libs' willingness to favour the concentration of money, power and privilege.

For further reading...
- Peter Zimonjic reported on the fallout from Bill Morneau's profit off of his own decisions as Finance Minister, while Kathleen Harris discussed his belated attempt to distance himself from his own choices. And in the example of appalling coverage discussed in the column, Donovan Vincent managed to allow Morneau to portray himself as Bruce Wayne while glossing over or outright ignoring the ethical lapses which have put him in the headlines.
- Harvey Cashore, Chelsea Gomez and Gillian Findlay reported on Stephen Bronfman's involvement in Cayman Islands tax sheltering, then followed up with both their own confirmation and the response from Bronfman and Trudeau.
- Finally, Peter Mazereeuw reports on the Libs' credibility gap in talking to the middle class while serving as a government of, by and for the privileged few. Justin Ling weighs in on Trudeau's immodesty - most recently in attempting to substitute his personal mandate letters for the Libs' election promises. And Andrew Coyne points out how even an effort at self-promotion is only highlighting the Libs' broken promises.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Dennis Howlett highlights how the Libs are only making our tax system even less fair by overreacting to trumped-up criticism of a plan to close minor loopholes:

As​ ​the​ ​dust​ ​settles​ ​on​ ​the​ Trudeau government’s private​ ​ corporation​ tax​ ​reforms,​ ​Canada​ ​seem​s ​to​ ​be​ falling ​ further​ ​behind​ ​in the quest for​ ​tax fairness.

While​ ​the​ ​government’s​ ​decision​ ​to​ ​proceed​ ​with ​ ​income​-sprinkling​ ​reforms​ ​is​ ​positive,​ ​we are​ ​disappointed ​ ​​​the​ ​capital​ ​gains​ ​reforms​ ​were​ ​dropped​ ​and​ ​find the​ ​ ‘tweaks’​ ​to​ ​the​ ​proposals​ ​for passive​ ​income to be​ ​overly​ ​ generous.​

​If​ ​the​ ​changes​ ​to​ ​the​ ​private​ ​corporation​ ​tax​ ​rules​ ​are​ ​assessed​ ​on their​ ​own,​ ​they​ ​move​ ​Canada​ ​a​ ​slight ​ ​step​ ​forward.​ ​However,​ ​the​ ​appeasement​ ​of​ ​the​ ​vocal business​ ​lobby​ ​with​ ​a​ ​further​ ​cut​ ​in​ ​the​ ​small​ ​ business​ ​tax​ ​rate​ ​to​ ​9 per cent​ ​means​ ​the​ ​government ​ ​likely​ will ​lose​ ​more​ ​revenue​ ​than​ ​it​ ​gains, which​ ​ will​ ​contribute​ ​further​ ​to​ ​growing​ ​inequality.
...

This​ ​is​ ​not​ ​the​ ​first​ ​time​ ​the​ ​government​ ​has​ ​ backed​ ​off​ ​on​ ​tax​ ​fairness​ ​reforms.​ ​The​ ​closing​ ​of the​ ​stock​ ​options​ ​loophole​ ​suffered​ ​the​ ​same​ ​fate​ ​as​ ​the​ ​ private​ ​corporation​ ​tax​ ​reforms.​ ​These are​ ​black​ ​eyes​ ​ for​ ​Canada’s​ ​tax​ ​system.​ ​Even​ ​the​ ​IMF​ ​has​ ​raised​ the concern ​that​ ​capital​ ​income (including​ ​profits,​ ​interest,​ ​ and​ ​capital​ ​gains)​ ​is​ ​distributed​ ​more​ ​unequally​ ​than ​ ​labor​ ​income.

Capital​ ​income​ ​has​ ​been​ ​rising​ ​as​ ​a​ ​share​ ​of​ ​total ​ ​income​ ​over​ ​recent​ ​decades,​ ​with​ ​a​ ​lower​ ​tax rate​ ​than​ ​labour​ ​income.​ ​The​ ​IMF​ ​states​ ​that​ ​adequate​ ​ taxation​ ​of​ ​capital​ ​income​ ​is​ ​needed​ ​to protect​ ​the​ ​overall​ ​progressivity​ ​of​ ​the​ ​income​ ​tax​ ​system​ ​and ​ ​that​ ​more​ ​equal​ ​treatment​ ​of income​ ​from​ ​capital​, ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​different​ ​forms​ ​of​ ​capital​ ​income, ​is​ ​critical if we want to​ ​avoid​ offering ​incentives​ ​for tax​ ​avoidance.​ ​ This​ ​means​ ​getting​ ​rid​ ​of​ ​the​ ​unfair​ ​tax​ ​treatment​ ​ of​ ​capital​ ​gains​ ​and​ ​stock options.

The​ ​next​ ​time​ ​the​ ​government​ ​moves​ ​forward​ ​on​ ​an​ ​ agenda​ ​for​ ​tax​ ​fairness,​ ​it​ ​needs​ ​to​ ​make it​ ​part of​ ​a​ ​larger​ ​package​ ​of​ ​reforms​ ​that​ ​looks​ ​at​ ​all​ ​the​ ​unfair​ ​tax​ ​expenditures.

- Likewise, Tony Keller discusses the terrible policy behind the Libs' attempt to change the subject from closing loopholes. And with Bill Morneau in the middle of the mess, Althia Raj reports that the Libs' defence that the Ethics Commissioner hasn't specifically said he's doing anything wrong when it comes to how policy affects his own wealth depends on her not actually bothering to check.

- Meanwhile, Jennifer Robson notes that plenty of federal policies which are supposed to help lower-income people aren't reaching their intended recipients.

- Linda McQuaig writes that the Sears pension fiasco should be a catalyst for change. And Tim Harper notes that nearly everybody aside from the Libs seems to be onside with protecting pensions.

- Finally, Sheila Block and PressProgress each examine some of Canada's persistent forms of inequality based on race.

New column day

Here, on what we need to do to clean up political funding - and how both the Saskatchewan and federal systems offer painful examples of the problems with big money in politics.

For further reading...
- Brad Wall's top-up pay from the Saskatchewan Party - being one of the many noteworthy uses of the corporate and out-of-province money finding its way to the party - was the subject of reporting here and here.
- Progress Alberta's report on the Saskatchewan Party's out-of-province fund-raising and other dubious practices is here. And it's particularly worth examining its comparison between provincial systems.
- For other reporting on the Saskatchewan Party's foreign ownership, see here, here and here.
- Robert Fife and Steven Chase reported on the federal Liberals' cash-for-access fund-raising. And Adrian Morrow summarizes a few of the questionable practices from Kathleen Wynne's Ontario government.
- And finally, Martin Regg Cohn and Andrew Coyne are among other commentators pointing out the need to get big money out of politics - whether through direct donations or through bundling.

Monday Evening Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Tom Parkin writes about the tendency of far too many Canadian governments to put the wealthy at the front of the line, and leave the rest of us to wait:

(O)ver the past two decades, corporate tax rates have been slashed in half. Canadians were told low corporate taxes would create jobs and increase wages. But the evidence is all around us. Even the IMF now admits trickle-down economics doesn’t work.

But trickle-down economics is great at starving our governments for revenue.

So – want childcare? Sorry, no money. Want transit? You’ll have to wait. Want social housing fixed? Send in a work order. Want health care money? Sorry, can’t.

But – want a tax cut? If you’re affluent you’re in luck – because cutting high earners’ income taxes, stock options taxes and corporate taxes is a priority. Our government will even borrow money to give it to them.
...
The growing power imbalance presents a huge obstacle to unwinding tax unfairness and getting back to Canada-building.

Because it’s a lot easier to set up priority lanes than it is to shut them down. A politician who just wants to chum around with big shots, eat free and get on TV is no threat.

But someone motivated by justice and social progress is a real danger. Any politician with the courage to shut down the priority lanes for special people will come under heavy fire. Well-funded heavy fire.

- Cameron Fenton highlights the gigantic climate change loophole in the Libs' new pipeline review process. And Bob Weber points out that Canada stands to suffer some of the most drastic effects of climate change if we can't massively reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

- Matthew Campo investigates the impact of privatized liquor retailing on the small Saskatchewan communities which have already seen public stores replaced with private sellers. And Cory Collins discusses the cost of privatizing food services in public institutions.

- Meanwhile, David Cochrane reports on one of the Saskatchewan Party's most ridiculous fiscal choices yet - as due to Brad Wall's choice *not* to repay a federal loan when he had a billion dollars of NDP surplus to work with, Saskatchewan is now having to scrape together loan payments when it can least afford it.

- Finally, Ian Welsh offers up some worthwhile reading on the basic ethics which all too often seem to be lacking in public policy-making.

[Edit: fixed wording as per comments.]

On teasers

Yes, this will do nicely as the trailer for the long-awaited film The Fall of the Harper Conservatives:



But let's make sure people know where to find the full screenplay. (And putting some more of it in front of the camera may not hurt as we approach the election campaign won't hurt either.)

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- A new Ipsos-Reid poll shows that nearly 90% of Canadians support higher taxes on the rich generally, and million-dollar incomes in particular. And there's an obvious need for change based on how distorted tax systems already are - as Reuters reports on a Congressional Budget Office study showing that U.S. tax deductions, credits and exclusions primarily benefit the wealthy.

- Of course, tax policy is far from the only area of corporatist decision-making designed primarily to benefit those who already have the most. Jeremy Nuttall discusses how the federal government's cover-ups succeeded in protecting HD Mining from a challenge to its abuse of temporary foreign workers; CBC reports on contract manipulation at AECL; and the Leader-Post writes about the Sask Party's decision to turn hospital linen services into a corporate cash cow.

- But it's easier to take offence when insider abuses can be tied to individual wrongdoers. On that front, Michael Harris writes that Mike Duffy doesn't seem to have done much other than what he was told to do by the Cons, while Tim Harper suspects that Pamela Wallin is the next in line under the Cons' bus. Colin Horgan sets out some of the questions that still need to be answered about the Cons' Senate scandals. But the Star recognizes that the Cons' answers have been nothing but evasive so far, while Michael den Tandt reminds us why we shouldn't trust a word Stephen Harper and his entourage have to say.

- At the same time, Paul Saurette is right to observe that right-wing scandals may only serve the cause of anti-government forces in the long run. And so in pursuing the facts, we should be careful to point out how public administration can be carried out more cleanly and effectively - not merely pile on the current set of Con offenders.

- Finally, Ian Welsh draws a distinction between broad-based ethics and narrowly-focused morals - and while I'm not sure I'd use those exact terms, his conclusion is well worth sharing:

To put the needs of the few before the needs of the many, in public life, is to be a monster.  But even in private life if we all act selfishly, as our reigning ideology indicates we should, we destroy ourselves. If we all put only ourselves and those we love first, and damn the cost to everyone else, our societies cannot and will not be prosperous, safe, or kind.

The war of all against all is just as nasty when it is waged by small kin groups as when it is waged by individuals.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content for your Friday reading.

- The Cons' latest line of talking-point addiction isn't passing without some substantial comment from Canada's political press. Today, Jeffrey Simpson lambastes Stephen Harper and his party for trying to wipe out their own history and promises, while Dan Gardner considers the Cons to be a Monty Python skit in progress (minus the humour of course). And Aaron Wherry continues to document the farce. 

- Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt suggests that we should expect any government to leave out democracy in no worse condition than when it took power - and I'll readily agree with that as a general principle. But it's also worth noting that the surest way to continue in the wrong direction is to focus solely on the problems with any given government, rather than holding all parties to the standard.

- Likewise, I appreciate the purposes behind Steve's proposal for a political code of ethics (including a requirement that public statements have some basis in fact). But I'm rather wary of any policy which may give top-down parties just one more way to force MPs to stay on a predetermined script - as MPs will surely see it as safer to take their party's word for the facts than to strike out on their own.

- Christopher Majka thoroughly reviews the effect of voter suppression in the 2011 federal election.

- Finally, Peter Prebble rightly criticizes the combination of Con neglect and Sask Party coal boosterism that's locking Saskatchewan into a needless dependency on coal power.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Brian-Michel calculates the expected outcome of the 2011 election minus the Robocon election fraud based on Anke Kessler's data. Alison, thwap and Saskboy all rightly lament that a government claiming that a majority entitles it to treat Canada as a helpless plaything may never have had a legitimate mandate in the first place, while Jack Layton had a chance to co-operate to replace the Cons stolen from him.

- And Mark Kennedy reports on some of the results, as the Cons look poised to attack Canadians' standard of living in retirement in a way they'd never have dared without the ill-gotten security of three and half years before answering for their increasing unpopularity in another election.

- Meanwhile, Christian Paradis broke ethics rules in giving preferential treatment to his former caucusmate Rahim Jaffer. And as usual, the Cons think law, order and accountability are only for people they don't like.

- Finally, in the wake of another increase in EI recipients, Erin reminds us that under 40% of jobless workers actually receive benefits.

Parliament In Review: October 3, 2011

Monday, October 3 saw another day dedicated largely to debate of the Cons' anti-refugee bill.

The Big Issue

As might be expected after several days of debate, the Cons' single set of poorly-reasoned talking points was beginning to get stale. And Kevin Lamoureux nicely highlighted the absurdity of the Cons' reading off scripted messages rather than participating in a debate over a serious policy issue.

But the opposition parties weren't without some more important points to make.

The most important observation may have been Glenn Thibault's commentary on how the anti-refugee bill also attacks current Canadian residents, allowing for the indefinite detention of any foreign national based on mere "suspicion" of a crime:

Think carefully about what this would mean. This provision would mean that any person in Canada who is not a citizen can become detained on the mere suspicion of criminality, with no need for proof or evidence. Simple suspicion would become enough to not only arrest but to also indefinitely detain people.

The rule of law in a democracy is founded on the principle that the police's powers of arrest and detention are only legitimate if there are reasonable grounds for arrest; specifically, the notion of reasonable grounds means that there must be an objective component to the notion of suspicion. This objective component is met by evidence. Suspicion alone is subjective. There would be no way to prove whether that suspicion is warranted or not, and this would leave the system open to abuse.

Meanwhile, Francois Lapointe challenged the Cons to put more effort into catching actual smugglers rather than attacking the refugees who are all too easily exploited, then pointed out that an Australian process which similarly failed to provide any appeal for refugee claimants was found to be illegal. Ted Hsu and Jean Crowder duly mocked the Cons' argument that refugees fleeing an abusive government would read up on Canadian legislation or base their decision on price points, while Dennis Bevington pointed out the real damage to Canada's reputation if we're seen as disapproving of immigrants. Hsu also questioned the cost involved in what's sure to be a legal challenge to the Cons' bill. Paulina Ayala noted that immigrant communities are in fact relatively safe and productive rather than posing the threat claimed by the Cons. And Jinny Sims noted that actual smugglers aren't targeted at all by the bill, since they already face the maximum possible penalty under Canadian law.

Upper Chamber Music

The other bill discussed on the day was the Cons' Senate tinkering bill, which also featured a few noteworthy interventions. Claude Gravelle documented a few of Stephen Harper's past criticisms of the chamber he's now seeking to further empower, and highlighted the abuse of public money by senators working as fund-raisers and campaign managers. Stephane Dion pointed out that a provincial-based system for electing senators would likely lead Senate elections to be funded by the corporate cash that's been removed from the federal electoral system. Hsu and Dennis Bevington both noted that the provision to have the Prime Minister consider the results of an election provides exactly zero substantive change from the status quo. And Randall Garrison repeatedly questioned who in the world would consider a costly and unfairly-distributed second chamber as a plus if they had the opportunity to design an electoral system from scratch.

From the Cons' side, James Bexan and Blaine Calkins slammed the concept of proportional representation as the "worst thing that could happen to democracy". And Calkins apparently considers the fact that NDP and Lib candidates haven't run in Senate elections as a reason to favour them.

Back and Forth

The Cons presented a ways and means motion to implement their budget. And after confusing matters by briefly opposing the Cons' budget legislation, the Bloc resumed their previous support of the Cons.

Still No Apologies

In case anybody thought the Cons might concede some mistake in trying to drag a sitting judge in front of a Parliamentary committee, Dean Del Mastro made clear that they'll do no such thing.

In Brief

Chris Charlton introduced a private member's bill to protect seniors' benefits by ensuring that cost-of-living increases in CPP payments aren't then deducted from GIS benefits. Jean Crowder challenged the Cons to provide an actual plan to make child care better available to Canadian families. Jean Rousseau presented a private member's bill to protect Quebec's relative representation while allowing for redistribution of seats in the House of Commons to better reflect population shifts. Charlie Angus continued to point out examples of rule-breaking and political distribution of public money by Tony Clement.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous content to start your week.

- Ian Welsh reminds us of the golden rule that should govern politics and everyday interactions alike:

To paraphrase many of the greatest religious and moral leaders, there is only one law: imagine you are in someone else’s shoes, then treat them as you would wish to be treated.

Or, put another way, act towards everyone as if you loved them.

The vast majority of political and economic commentary on this blog is commentary derived from those postulates. Note that they are postulates, they are judgments about how you should live. I can make a very strong argument that the more a society acts like this, the more everyone is happy, including the rich and powerful, but that’s not why you should act that way, as powerful arguments can be made for selfish and destructive self-interest. You should act that way because it’s the right thing to do, and you know it is, deep in your gut.
...
In this we come back to the maxim “if you aren’t good, just act good”. Character and personality are built up in part by habit. Kindness, generosity, love, are habits as much as anything else. Your mind is great at justifying whatever you do. Do evil and it will justify it, do good and it will justify that, and over time you will become a better person inside your head, inside your soul.

- Meanwhile, Bruce Livesey recognizes that well-placed outrage can serve a positive purpose as well:

There is nothing wrong about being optimistic and hopeful, of course. Yet I contend we are in a time when we need to see people on the left express more anger and less willingness to compromise. For 30 years, unions, social democrats, liberals and other progressives have caved into the right and the corporate sector in the hopes that by giving them something they will leave social programs, labour laws and other progressive institutions alone. And it never works. There is no such thing as enough for the right-wing. They see this willingness to compromise as a sign of weakness and they take advantage of it and demand more takeaways. And bit by bit we have seen our social safety net fray and the power of capital grow to the point it is now pretty much free to do whatever it pleases.
...
The reality is, we are living in angry times. And we need leaders on the left who reflect and act on that anger. We have to recognize who are enemy is and articulate not the politics of appeasement, but the politics of class struggle and combat. Workers and the middle class and small businesses owners have been at the receiving end of a class war launched by the corporate sector more than 30 years ago – and have been losing that war. It’s time to get angry and demand that the next NDP leader lose his or her shit over all the terrible things capital is doing to wreck our economy, our planet and standard of living.

Messages of hope and optimism are great, but at some point people need to get really pissed off.

- Jeff calls for leaders and members of all parties to recognize and encourage the potential Jack Laytons in their midst:

Given the low esteem we hold politicians in the country, the public outpouring of emotion we've seen this week has been impressive. Much of it has to do with Jack's positive and dynamic force of personality, but I think it's larger than that. I think it's the people embracing the idea that Jack has come to represent, in spirit if not always perfectly in practice: a different, more positive, cooperative type of politics. It's the citizenry sending a message that there is a better way.

I think the way forward is multifold. Politicians of all stripes should heed this message, and reconsider their ways. But I think the bigger challenge is for our citizens, and it's two-fold. First, recognize that there are more Jacks out there, and in every party. Seek them out and support them as they try to work in a system designed to stifle them; too many good people give up on public life, but we need them too much. Help them persevere. Second, be the change you want to see. Get involved, up to and including running yourself, in promoting the ideal of public service you would like to see.

It's easy to lament the state of modern political discourse, but it's also a cop-out. We get the kind of politics we demand; if we don't demand change ... if we don't make it change, we'll never get it.

- Finally, I'm curious as to how much of increase in inmate voting is a direct result of more (and less marginalized) people getting incarcerated due to the Cons' dumb-on-crime policies. But it's well worth hoping that the habit spreads as a counterweight to the Cons' efforts to cut offenders off from society.

Well said

Ralph Surette slams the Cons' principle-free politics, but points out who holds the ultimate responsibility to end them:

(C)aught in a barrage of scandals, manipulations and abuses of trust, not to mention being judged in contempt of Parliament, the prime minister’s defence is that everybody does it, so it’s no big deal.

Thus, there is no more even the pretence of principle, and not even the hollowest political rhetoric promising improvement. By definition, the sovereign can do no wrong, and the subject is taboo. Harper is now, by his own admission, calculating that the decline of the democratic instinct is to his political advantage, and he’s encouraging it. If people don’t vote out of disgust, good. That increases the voting weight of his zealous base. Governmental ethics may be in a fetid swamp, but who cares?
...
You may have noted that the decent guys in the Harper government aren’t running again — Chuck Strahl, Jay Hill, Jim Prentice, Stockwell Day — leaving the ship ever more firmly in charge of the hachetmen from the old Mike Harris government in Ontario, running things with their Bush/Cheney handbook. If we vote for this (or worse, not vote at all) we’ll get the government we deserve. Are we that pathetic?

You can't do that in Parliament

Ah, the wacky ideas coming out of the NDP these days. Voluntarily implementing non-binding ethics recommendations? Encouraging public participation in the drafting of legislation? Consultations with citizens to support future policy development? If this kind of thing doesn't stop soon, people might start getting the idea that politics can and should be taken seriously.

In re: glass houses

Con MP Greg Rickford serves up a distraction tactic:

A Conservative MP has filed a complaint with the House of Commons ethics commissioner against 18 Liberal MPs for fundraising through their websites.

In a statement, Conservative MP Greg Rickford accused the 18 MPs of "attempting to raise money using their online parliamentary offices."

"The Liberal party should not be using their online offices offering constituent services to further their private or partisan interests, or the interests of their party or riding association," he said.

So MP websites shouldn't be used to direct traffic toward party activities? Rickford may want to have a word with some of his Con colleagues who "further their...partisan interests" by driving traffic to the Cons' website before making such a declaration.

On telling responses

It's definitely for the best that the misuse of federal resources to fund-raise for Con MP and Minister of Natural Resources Lisa Raitt is going to be investigated by the Ethics Commissioner. But it's worth noting what could be done in the meantime to ensure the Cons don't wrongly benefit from even what they acknowledge to have been improper - and what it might mean that they seem to be deflecting instead.

After all, it would seem to be a fairly easy step to determine exactly how many of the attendees at Raitt's fund-raiser appeared in response to Janet MacDonald's e-mail, and ensure that the Cons return or at least set aside the funds raised through the Port Authority. But if they're not willing to take even that type of basic action to avoid benefiting from wrongdoing, might it signal that the Cons aren't swimming in quite as much spare cash as they'd like to claim?