Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Gil McGowan highlights how the UCP's intolerable plans for Alberta include another four years of systematic wage suppression in order to further enrich the donor class.

- Cory Doctorow writes about the importance of having "ideas lying around" to respond to an obviously unacceptable status quo - though it's worth noting that the neoliberal exploitation of that principle has been paired with consistent corporate funding to keep ever more extreme ideas front and centre while shouting down any alternatives. And Manuela Fernandez Pinto and Daniel Fernandez Pinto explore how corporate funding distorts scientific research.

- Nikolaos Christidis, Dann Mitchell and Peter Stott study the rapidly increasing risk of extreme heat in Europe and the Middle East due to climate breakdown. And Leslie Scism reports that the combination of escalating wildfire risks and increasing construction costs has led a major insurer to stop offering home insurance in California.

- Bethany Lindsay and Christine Birak report on new research showing that access to free prescription medication more than pays for itself as a public investment. And the Canadian Press reports on the call for free school meals as a similar investment in health and well-being which would be more than worth funding even based on calculable financial returns (to say nothing of the importance of children being fed).

- Finally, Heather Mallick offers her account of life with long COVID (in case anybody was lacking for examples as to why it's to be avoided).

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Paul Nuki, Jennifer Rigby and Anne Gulland write about the refusal to acknowledge the airborne spread of COVID-19 which led to a continuing failure to put basic precautions in place - though part of the problem is noted to involve the match between droplet spread and conservative governments' ideological preferences:

Policymakers and politicians also have a natural bias against the idea that diseases may be airborne, says Professor Jimenez. 

“Droplets and surfaces are very convenient for people in power - all of the responsibility is on the individual,” he said. “On the other hand, if you admit it is airborne, institutions, governments and companies have to do something.”

- And Zak Vescera reports on Scott Moe's continued insistence on pushing already-failed U.S. fads as a substitute for preventative measures, this time in demanding monoclonal antibodies while his public health half-measures fail to make up for a summer of complete neglect. 

- Heather Mallick challenges the attempt to spin any oil as ethical or friendly in the face of a climate crisis along with the well-document historical impact of extractive industries. And Halena Seiferling argues that the new Parliament needs to put climate considerations at the centre of every issue it addresses. 

- Meanwhile, Henry Paulson highlights how we're in the middle of an extreme extinction event for large numbers of species. And Nathanael Johnson notes that the severe wildfires across much of North America this summer were far from the worst on the planet due to Russia's unprecedented blazes.

- Finally, Kim Siever writes that Alberta saw a huge drop in payday loans in the early stages of the COVID pandemic - confirming once again how even a modicum of social support can alleviate the extreme precarity and stress we've been conditioned to think of as normal. Umair Haque laments the Biden administration's failure to work on improving citizens' lives on the scale obviously necessary. And Phillip Inman reports on Antonio Guterres' warnings about the urgent need to reduce inequalities around the globe. 

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Eric Dolan reports on new research showing the connection between a sense of entitlement and a refusal to take basic steps to protect public health in a pandemic. And Francine Kapun reports on the Peel region's move to fine employers who don't put reasonable precautions in place. 

- John Michael McGrath slams Doug Ford for being more concerned with guarding jurisdiction than taking action to protect the public from the coronavirus (or at least allowing the federal government to do so). Heather Mallick rightly challenges Ford's valuation of business income over human lives. And Randy Robinson highlights why demanding that small businesses stay open in the face of a wave of community spread won't actually help their survival rate.

- Jason Warick reports that Saskatoon's intensive care units are already over capacity as Saskatchewan faces an alarming rise in new COVID cases.

- Sarah Anderson and Margon Rathke write that the activist energy used to mobilize voters in the U.S. is now being turned toward the pursuit of pandemic relief.

- Finally, Jonathan Soros highlights why we should be seeking revenue from the capital class rather than looking primarily to struggling workers. And Carly Stern points out what the U.S. (and other countries) can learn from Norway's success with a wealth tax.

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Eric Doherty, and Eric Galbraith and Ross Otto, respectively write that the response to the coronavirus shows how it's possible to imagine and implement needed changes along the lines of a Green New Deal. And Heather Mallick theorizes that it can also be a first step toward living more intelligently.

- The Star's editorial board points out how the pandemic has shown gaping holes in our existing social safety net, while Martin Regg Cohn writes that many people are just now learning how precarious much work has become. And Justin Ling rightly criticizes how marginalized people including prisoners and asylum seekers are being endangered by the Libs' choices.

- Jim Stanford writes that what's needed for the future goes far beyond mere stimulus:

There is enormous need for urgent rebuilding required in our economy and our communities. Repairing and strengthening health care infrastructure comes first, but other priorities, too, are urgent: like sustainable transit, green energy, non-market housing, aged care and early child education.

The case for mobilising resources under the leadership of governments and public institutions, and employing millions of Australians to do that work, is compelling. We can repair the damage of this crisis (and better prepare for the next one), deliver valuable services, and create millions of jobs. All we need is the willingness to imagine a different model of organizing and leading economic activity.
...
The failure of financialized, neoliberal capitalism will be laid bare more clearly than ever in coming months. The private sector will definitely be unable to get the economy back on its feet after this crisis. So we need to look elsewhere for economic leadership.

Just as World War II ‘solved’ the Great Depression by mobilizing enormous resources in an urgent attempt to meet a huge threat (global fascism), we now need another, peaceful war – a war on poverty, on epidemics, and on pollution.

And by organizing ourselves as society to fight that war, we will actually make ourselves better off right now: creating jobs and incomes, providing needed care and services, generating taxes. And we will benefit in the long-run by winning those ‘wars,’ and building a safer, sustainable world.

- Finally, Anna Stansbury and Lawrence Summers examine the connection between a decline in worker bargaining power and the erosion of the U.S.' economic performance. And Thomas Piketty highlights how Bernie Sanders' campaign is making a desperately-needed attempt to give the U.S.' democracy a boost.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Stephen Buranyi laments the reality that the public's increased awareness and concern about our ongoing climate breakdown isn't being reflected in political decisions. And Noah Smith writes that while the rapid drop in prices for renewable energy may help us avoid the worst possible climate outcomes, we shouldn't doom ourselves to the massive damage expected from a business-as-usual scenario.

- Erin Baerwald calls out the gross inaccuracy of Doug Ford's anti-wind crusade. Jeremy Klazsuz reviews Jason Kenney's year of attacks, while Scott Schmidt discusses the threat the UCP's war room poses to the public's freedom of expression. And Morgan Modjeski reports on the laughably overwrought shrieks of protest in response to a fairly standard Oxbow Christmas pageant which dared to include environmental themes.

- Eion Higgins reports on the spread of the #wouldyoushootmetoo hashtag in response to the news that the RCMP was prepared to shoot to kill peaceful land defenders.

- Chelsea Whyte discusses the tragic - and entirely avoidable - return of measles to the U.S. as a result of antivaxxers.

- Finally, Heather Mallick points out the economic and environmental damage we do by relying on Amazon. And Brendan Kennedy reports undercover on the working conditions facing Amazon's delivery drivers.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Christopher Ingraham reports on the reality that extremely wealthy Americans are now paying lower systemic tax rates than workers. And Andrea Germanos writes that Michael Sayman is among the plutocrats calling for his own class to pay its fair share.

- Heather Mallick comments that the UCP is setting Alberta up for failure, while Max Fawcett discusses how Jason Kenney's budget is based on little more than a stubborn refusal to acknowledge a future which includes a transition away from fossil fuels. And Noah Smith notes that the oil age is coming to a rapidly-approaching end around the globe, while Jillian Ambrose reports on the ability of offshore wind turbines to fully power the world.

- Meanwhile, Rachel Level and Zach Goldstein point out how lower-income people are paying the price for the Trump administration's choice to side with the coal industry against climate science.

- Judith Sayers takes a look at what it will mean for British Columbia to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. And the Yellowhead Institute examines (PDF) the reality of land dispossession in Canada, along with some of the options to remedy it.

- Finally, Laurie Monsebraaten reports on Ontario 360's call to treat people receiving social assistance with respect, rather than confronting them with the language and strategies of the prison system. But then, Jodi Viljoen and Gina Vincent write that an effective criminal justice strategy would also include less incarceration and more work on risk mitigation.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Heather Mallick discusses the pattern of right-wing governments obsessing over undoing the good done by their predecessors, rather than paying the slightest attention to the public interest. And Mariana Mazzucato and Josh Ryan-Collins examine (PDF) about the importance of having leaders who work on building public value, rather than reacting only to perceived market failures.

- Matthew Yglesias points out that a contrast in views over public policy which further enriches the wealthy represents one of the most promising wedge issues to split votes away from the U.S. Republicans (not to mention an issue worth pursuing in its own right). David Coletto observes that a similar trend applies in Canada. And Kate Aronoff writes that regardless of any philanthropic contributions, an economic system which generates isolated billionaires rather than widespread power and prosperity is absolutely ill-suited to address the threat of a climate breakdown.

- Joe Vipond and Kim Perrotta highlight how climate change denial is making Albertans sick. James Riley notes that Jason Kenney and Doug Ford are missing the point as to the value of energy efficiency. And Gordon Laxer discusses how the Libs' multi-billion-dollar pipeline purchase and trade sellouts fit into a general lack of serious action to transition toward clean energy.

- Finally, Paige Towers points out how to reduce harmful noise pollution at an individual level. And the Globe and Mail's editorial board suggests that Canadian cities take the lead in turning down the volume at a municipal level.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Jessica Corbett writes that Earth's atmospheric carbon concentration has reached levels not seen in 80,000 years, while Jonathan Watts reports on a new study showing that climate change may be pushing our planet toward a "hothouse" state which might threaten human life. The Daily Mail reports that the California city of Imperial recently saw the hottest rain recorded on record. And Simon Lewis writes that while it's not too late to avert the worst possible climate catastrophe, we need large-scale and immediate political change to do so.

- Meanwhile, Norm Farrell compares the virtually-nonexistent punishment for the corporate sector's deliberate environmental destruction to the lock-'em-up attitude being displayed toward environmental activists.

- The Economist's Bartleby writes about the constant stress facing American workers.

- Tuomas Maraja highlights the psychological benefits of receiving a basic income rather than heavily conditional welfare payments. Jessie Golem discusses the disappointment of having the prospect of financial security stripped away by Doug Ford's PCs out of nothing but contempt for people facing poverty and precarity. And Stephen Tweedale wonders whether the better path toward a basic income involves incremental benefits for everybody, rather than small-scale pilot programs which exclude most citizens.

- Finally, in the wake of John Tory's promise to use new strongman powers to impose austerity on Toronto, Heather Mallick offers a reminder that tax revenue is vital for a population to thrive.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Penney Kome raises the question of who will be responsible for the damage wrought by climate change. And Trish Audette-Longo reports that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is set to start examining how human behaviour contributes to, and is affected by, a changing climate.

- But Adam Klesfeld notes that the IMF looks to be enforcing about the least fair assignment of responsibility possible by squeezing Barbuda at a time when it faces the need to rebuild from Hurricane Irma. And Jonathan Ford discusses how privatized water infrastructure in the UK seems aimed at little more than extracting money from citizens.

- Stephen Gordon points out how a lack of awareness as to how privileged Canada's upper middle class is contributes to an unduly narrow public discourse, while Heather Mallick notes that more progressive taxes on the wealthy are generally a political winner as well as desirable public policy. Paul Willcocks discusses how easily-exploited loopholes make it impossible to develop a fair tax system. And the Canadian Labour Congress applauds the Libs' first step in dealing with a few particularly glaring ones - while pointing out the need to go much further, including by keeping their promise to end the stock option loophole.

- Meanwhile, Shannon Rohan and Kevin Thomas write that the business lobby which is attacking a fair minimum wage is missing the forest for the trees in arguing against wages which can support a stronger economy.

- Aruna Dhara writes that Canada can learn from Australia's example in establish a national pharmacare plan.

- Finally, Roderick Benns interviews Gary Bloch about the value of a basic income in overcoming both structural barriers to access to income, and stereotypes which result in poverty being seen as acceptable.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Allan Woods looks into the pitiful responses to states of emergency declared by First Nations, as well as a decade and a half worth of neglect of cries for help from Pikangikum First Nation in particular. Kristy Kirkup reports on the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's latest order requiring the federal government to stop dragging its heels in providing social services. And Kate Heartfield rightly argues that we need to treat Third World conditions on First Nations as matters of injustice which require correction - not merely a basis for charity.

- Meanwhile, Richard Wolff discusses the U.S.' example of racial disparity as an example of how discrimination and capitalism can feed off of each other.

- Heather Mallick looks at the development of pay-for-plasma schemes as the latest example of the commoditization of anything that can be exploited.

- Marco Chown Oved reports on the missing $40 billion which have been diverted offshore from Canada in the last year.

- Gary Mason reports that Christy Clark's big-money fund-raisers are translating directly into increased income for her due to a party top-up beyond her salary as premier, then rightly questions the ethics involved in that income stream.

- Finally, Donald Savoie summarizes what Canadians governments are doing well in their current form (which is unfortunately mostly limited to managing communications), and what they could do better by paying attention to the public services they're supposed to be delivering. 

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Paul Theroux comments on the gall of corporations who move jobs to the cheapest, least-safe jurisdictions possible while trumpeting their own supposed contributions to the countries they leave behind. And Wilma Liebman sees more progressive labour legislation as one of the keys to encouraging workers to organize and secure better working and living conditions.

- The Star's editorial board writes about the need for far more debate about poverty and precarity in Canada's federal election. And Max Ehrenfreund discusses the connection between income and life expectancy, while noting that inequality is going up (and the poorest class is seeing absolute declines) in both.

- Hilary Beaumont, Rachel Browne and Justin Ling report on the Libs' apparent plans - in both their platform and Justin Trudeau's own public statements - to unleash large-scale domestic surveillance on Canadians. (And the apparent clarification that they don't know what they're actually promising doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their general interest in civil liberties, including their vague tut-tutting about C-51.)

- Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt contrasts the option of an inclusive, multicultural society against that of a Con-approved "snitch state" where everybody's looking for reason to report everybody else as unCanadian.  And Neil MacDonald sees the Cons' deliberate discrimination as the barbaric cultural practice we should be concerned about.

- Finally, Heather Mallick summarizes how the Harper Cons have gone out of their way to ruin Canada.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Andrew Jackson writes that the Cons have gone out of their way to destroy the federal government's capacity to improve the lives of Canadians:

When the Harper government took office, federal tax revenues (2006-07 fiscal year) were 13.5% of GDP, a bit shy of the 14.5% peak in 2000-01. In the most recent fiscal year, 2014-15, they are projected in the most recent federal budget to be just 11.4% of GDP, which is lower than in the mid 1960s before the creation of much of the modern welfare state.

With total GDP now just under $2 trillion, a seemingly small decline in federal tax revenues of 2.1 percentage points of GDP translates into foregone annual revenues of $41.5 billion. To put that in perspective, in 2014-15 federal transfers to the provinces for heath care and social programs combined came to almost as much, $44.7 billion.

If federal capacity were at the same level as in 2006, Canada could afford 8 national child care programs on the scale proposed by Opposition Leader Tom Mulcair. Or we could increase by 7 times the current level of federal funding of transit and municipal infrastructure.

Tax cuts have clearly been a much greater priority for the Harper government than investments in programs or services, or balancing the federal budget.
...
One thing is clear. A progressive alternative to the Harper government and ambitious investment plans will be possible only if some part of the massively eroded fiscal capacity of the federal government is restored.

- Meanwhile, Lana Payne comments on the Cons' economic failures. Nora Loreto examines how Canada's immediate recession and broader stagnation are affecting people in their everyday lives. And Heather Mallick notes that the Cons' fixed election date has played a significant (if less than conclusive) role in forcing Stephen Harper to answer for his broken economic promises.

- Indivar Dutta-Gupta, Peter Edelman and LaDonna Pavetti discuss new research showing how extreme poverty is on the rise in the U.S. And Deborah Orr points out how the UK's court system is creating systematic injustice for people too poor to hire a lawyer or pay a mandatory fine.

- Sara Mojtehedzadeh reports on a study finding that unionized construction workplaces are far more safe than non-union ones.

- Finally, Wendy Martin reports on just how far the Cons' vote suppression efforts have reached, as a former provincial party leader in Nova Scotia is unable to cast a ballot.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Sheila Block points out the problems with the spread of low-paying, precarious jobs. And PressProgress fact-checks the CFIB's attempt to make as many workers' lives as precarious as possible by suppressing minimum wages and standards.

- But Sara Mojtehedzadeh reports that Ontario's provincial government is making matters worse by handing millions of dollars to the same temp agencies who are most aggressively flouting employment standards laws. And the Star warns of the need to ensure that Toronto's plan to fight poverty actually leads to action.

- Meanwhile, Ezra Klein points out the importance of how we label life without stable work in discussing the radically different perception of involuntary unemployment compared to early retirement:

Saying "I'm unemployed" is very different than saying "I retired at 32, and it's amazing." The question is, can someone who doesn't start with much social status — Ferriss is a Princeton graduate, Mr. Money Mustache an ex-software engineer — manage the same trick?

This is one of the questions that will decide whether a post-work world becomes a dystopia. Does whatever replaces work get branded more like unemployment or more like extreme retirement? What happens when you tell someone you just met on Tinder that you don't have a full-time job, but you really love hiking?

I am not worried that a post-work world can't be a good world. I am just worried that it won't be — that guilt-free early retirement will be a luxury reserved for people who can get good jobs, and denied to people who can't.

- Finally, Heather Mallick writes that we should all learn from Harry Leslie Smith's experience about the importance of a functioning society. And Duncan Cameron reminds us that it's only a tiny group of financial elites who stand to profit from the austerity that does so much damage to the vast majority of citizens.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Janine Berg writes about the need for strong public policy to counter the trend of growing inequality. And Gillian White traces the ever-increasing divergence between worker productivity and wages in an interview with Jan Rivkin:

White: Some say that the decrease of collective bargaining has played a role in creating the gap, how true do you think that is?

Rivkin: There are a number of causes, one is the underlying shift in technology and globalization. Another is systematic underinvestment in the commons, which is a set of shared resources that every business needs in order to be productive: an educated populace, pools of skilled labor, a vibrant network of suppliers, strong infrastructure, basic R&D and so on. A third is shifts in institutions and politics and bargaining power, which is embodied in the decline in collective bargaining and the weakening of labor unions. There's no question that that is part of the story. How large a part? I don't think anyone has a well-informed perspective.
...

White: Is there a way to rectify the situation, to close the gap or at least create better outcomes for workers?

Rivkin: There are some forces at work that are unstoppable and we probably wouldn’t want to stop them even if we could. Forces of globalization, technological change—those genies are out of the bottle. But there are other parts of they dynamic that are purely choice. The damage done by underinvestment is a self-inflicted wound.

We need a movement toward cross-sector collaboration for rebuilding the commons and for sharing prosperity. We're seeing multiple examples of businesses that have realized that it’s in their interest to make sure that their workers are well educated, are skilled, that their supply networks are healthy, that the infrastructure in the cities where they operate is strong.

Investing in the commons should not be a substitute for raising wages, but wages are determined in a competitive market. It's impossible, for a company to justify paying an employee more if that employee hasn't been appropriately productive for the company. I think that business leaders just need to recognize that companies can't thrive for long if their communities are struggling.

- But of course, it's rather difficult to encourage public action to solve a serious problem when individuals can be punished merely for pointing it out. And Alina Tugend reminds us that without the protection of either a union or a constitution which limits the action of a government employer, workers may be risking their jobs merely by commenting on political matters. 

- Kate McInturff answers some key questions about the wage gap between male and female workers. And Heather Mallick decries the increased expectation that young workers will put up with providing unpaid labour.

- Ted Fertik and Dan Cantor offer some lessons which progressives in the U.S. and elsewhere should draw from Syriza's rise in Greece, with these in particular standing out:

Lesson 2: Against the oligarchs and the "totalitarianism of the market" which serves as a cover for their interests, we, the forces of democracy, have to fight back.

Only a few benefit from the oligarchs' policies, but they have the power and they have a grip on the political system. The oligarchs prevent the creation of a genuinely fair electoral playing field via a rigged campaign finance system and the rollback of voting rights. The oligarchs bring in cheap immigrant labour but prevent immigrants from getting citizenship. The oligarchs buy politicians.
Democracy -- real democracy -- is a threat to them.

America gave birth to the idea of popular sovereignty, but who in America today believes that it is the people who rule? We will get policies for the rest of us when the rest of us have real political power.
...
Lesson 8: No mourning for the golden days.

The immediate policies that the new Greek government proposes to implement are all rollbacks of "reforms" that were forced on them by their creditors. That could have been presented as going back to some tolerable previous status quo. Instead, the new government has denounced the old as corrupt and undemocratic, saying that it intends to destroy once and for all the grip of the country's oligarchs on power.

In the U.S., even as the "great compression" of the post-Second World War era produced steadily rising living standards for the (mostly white) middle class, it will be not enough to merely "restore the middle class." That slogan may poll well, but the challenges we face require new thinking and a new level of political energy. 

There is no going back to 1965. Young people in particular -- and who can deny that the youthfulness of Syriza and Podemos is part of their appeal? -- will not be moved by policies purporting to return us to an America of which no one under 45 has any living memory.

- Finally, Tabatha Southey laments the surface popularity of a terror bill whose glaring flaws would almost certainly sink in with a reasonable amount of study. Tonda MacCharles discusses the type of more-effective soft security which is being ignored in favour of the Cons' push for barely-fettered secret police. Michael Geist points out how dishonest the RCMP has been in exercising far less power than security services would have under C-51, while Jim Bronskill notes that the Cons are seeking to foist sweeping powers on CSIS after having broken a promise to create effective oversight. And Pete Dolack comments on the criminalization of dissent in Canada.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Cameron Dearlove laments the fact that Canada is failing to recognize and replicate other countries' successes in using the social determinants of health to shape public policy:

Today we know that social and financial inequities — particularly the experience of poverty — has a greater impact on our health than our healthcare system, genetics, even lifestyle choices. For a society facing spiking healthcare costs, the social determinants of health (things like housing, food security, social inclusion, early childhood development, employment, and working conditions) arguably present the greatest public policy opportunity since the creation of our social safety net, after the Second World War. While Canada is at the forefront of research in the social determinants of health, we are laggards in turning this research into healthy public policy — while Finnish babies benefit from sleeping in their care-filled boxes, Canadian children rest outside the box.

If the social determinants of health hold such promise, what are we doing locally, provincially, and nationally to apply these ideas? How do we rewrite conventional wisdom so that governments, institutions and communities are using the powerful social determinants framework to encourage longer, healthier, happier lives?

- Meanwhile, Donald Hirsch writes about the changing - and sadly spreading - shape of child poverty in the UK. And Barbara Howard offers a moment of perspective on how the disasters which some people can easily brush off cause far more problems for the working poor.

- Paul Krugman notes that the Republicans' tax policy continues to reflect little more than bare class warfare by other names in cutting taxes on the rich while raising them for everybody else.

- Heather Mallick traces the demise of Sun News to its constant bullying, while Christopher Waddell sees it as having been based largely on a failed attempt to game Canada's broadcasting system.

As an aside, others are asking how it is that a network seemingly set up to further the Cons' interests didn't actually get enough preferential treatment to survive despite its lack of merit. But I'll note that the government isn't the only force which could have kept the network afloat - and given the massive amount of money put into corporate communications, it's telling also that Canada's plutocrats didn't have any interest in footing the bill for a media outlet which seemed to fit their political interests.

- Finally, Craig Forcese and Kent Roach offer a detailed look at the contents of the Cons' terror bill. Thomas Walkom - who deserves plenty of blame as the media originator of the theory that no opposition party would oppose C-51 - is finally beginning to recognize that the NDP is in fact standing up for civil rights against the Cons' fearmongering. Stephen Maher talks to a former CSIS officer and finds even more reason for concern with what the Cons are trying to pull. And Don Lenihan writes that he sees the Cons primarily as having made Canadian politics more authoritarian rather than more conservative - though I'm not sure it's an either-or proposition.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- James Baxter discusses why there's no reason to buy into the Harper Cons' fearmongering in the first place:

Let’s accept a basic truth: There’s only so much money we’re willing to ‘invest’ in having the government to protect us from bad things and, when you get out of bed in the morning, terrorism is very, very far from the top of the list of dangers you’re likely to face.

The budget for the Department of Public Security and Emergency Preparedness is more than $6 billion and growing by leaps and bounds. Add to that the Department of National Defence, which handles our ‘Five Eyes’ clandestine eavesdropping, and the Department of Justice’s secret courts and prosecuting services and you realize the bill for countering terrorism is at least in the realm of $8 to $10 billion per year. And that doesn’t take into account the less obvious costs that come from missed opportunities and the reduced creativity that inevitably comes with constant surveillance.
...
(B)efore we allow ourselves to be intimidated by our own politicians into believing we have to be terrified — that we have to give up more of our rights and money to protect us from this new “threat” — why don’t we ask the government to do something more about those old, less politically-sexy scary things … like pollution, medical malpractice, drunk drivers, legal semi-automatics in the hands of idiots, and, yes, bed sores (imagine the lives that would be saved by just a few more nurses and orderlies) … you know the stupid preventable stuff that really kills people all too frequently.

FDR famously said that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Let’s not lose ourselves, and our country, to politically-motivated hysteria.

- But for those who think there's still some room to give the Cons the benefit of any doubt as to whether there's a meaningful threat to be addressed, Anna Mehler Paperny points out that entirely common actions can be classified as "terrorist" activity under the Cons' alarmist definitions, while Steven Chase and Daniel Leblanc point out that Stephen Harper himself is criticizing opposition parties for caring in the slightest about civil liberties. Jeremy Nuttall describes how the Cons went out of their way to punish the media for trying to ask important questions about their new bill. Stephen Maher discusses the complete lack of oversight for bodies who would be granted the authority to lock citizens up without so much as charging them. And Heather Mallick places the blather about terrorism in the context of Harper's violent insecurity.

- CBC reports on the mass surveillance which is already happening even in the absence of expanded powers for secretive spy agencies.

- Meanwhile, in case there's any question just how careful the Cons are when throwing accusations around, Victor Malarek reports on a $10 million payout to a businessman wrongfully smeared as having exported controlled goods to China. Though to be fair, that means the "lock-'em-up" approach under C-51 might save money in the short term by making sure the innocent are bound and gagged indefinitely rather than being able to plead their case.

 - Finally, Bob Hepburn discusses how the Harper Cons have undermined democracy at nearly every turn since forming government.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Heather Mallick and Linda McQuaig both weigh in on the connection between income splitting and the Cons' plans for social engineering. And Scott Clark and Peter DeVries point out that a giveaway to wealthy families is as indefensible from an economic standpoint as from a social one:

(T)his tax conversation is simply the wrong one for us to be having right now. Why the rush to cut taxes? More importantly, why these tax cuts — ones which will do nothing at all to jump-start Canada’s anemic economic growth rate?

The unemployment rate is stuck at seven per cent. The youth unemployment rate remains at around 14 per cent. The labour force participation rate is lower today than in 2008. Long-term unemployment continues at record levels. The employment rate is lower than it was in 2008, while employment growth in the last 18 months has been virtually stagnant, with very few full-time jobs created. Oil prices have dropped by 25 per cent, which will undermine economic growth and government revenues. The IMF has warned that the global economy is entering a period of “mediocre” or “stagnant” growth.

We fully understand the pressures on families to provide childcare, but unless we act now to build a stronger economy going forward, all social programs will be at risk. Tax breaks are nice. But we’ve got far bigger problems right now. Creating good jobs for the many Canadians who need them is the critical first step to an affordable and sustainable childcare program.

- Meanwhile, it's no coincidence that the party which wants to incentivize financial dependence is also the one which refuses to protect women (or anybody else) in the workplace.

- And likewise, the Cons' anti-social tendencies are obvious from the access the PMO repeatedly granted to anti-worker groups to develop legislation to attack unions.

- Anna Mehler Paperny reports on the Cons' consistent message to non-citizens - and particularly refugees and other vulnerable immigrants - that they're not welcome in Stephen Harper's Canada. And Patrick Butler highlights the experience of children living in poverty who likewise don't seem to be priorities for the Cons.

- Finally, Clay Nikiforuk discusses how Michael Zehaf-Bibeau fell through the gaps in a shredded social safety net.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Michael Rozworski observes that the NDP's $15 per day national child care plan has irritated all the right people - while still leaving ample room for improvement in the long run once the first pieces are in place. And PressProgress notes that the Cons' opposition to the plan is based squarely on their view that women fail to raise their own children if they have either careers or care support.

- Meanwhile, Simon Enoch, Canadian Doctors for Medicare and the Saskatchewan NDP caucus are all rightly critical of Brad Wall's attempt to sell for-profit, two-tier medical diagnostics (as a precursor to for-profit, two-tier treatment). And even Murray Mandryk is willing to acknowledge that this particular Wall idea is something short of magical.

- Heather Mallick writes that the consensus that we can't count on burning every available drop of fossil fuel as a resource management strategy extends from Naomi Klein to Mark Carney.

But Alison confirms that any charity daring to lend its voice to the cause will face an immediate crackdown from the Canada Revenue Agency at the Cons' behest - while gun advocates can apparently serve as political foot soldiers with impunity.

- Lana Payne reminds us of the historic misuse of EI funding by Con and Lib governments alike to fund general programs rather than benefits for the workers who have paid into the program. And Dennis Howlett proposes three relatively simple steps which could ensure that there's ample revenue available to live up to our social values.

- Finally, Jane Gingrich observes that strong and visible social programs may result in more predictable voting patterns than comparatively hidden social spending:

Voters in higher visibility states, defined here as that use the tax system to make spending more visible (i.e. by providing generous benefits and taxing them back) find it easier to estimate benefit levels. These voters also attach greater importance to welfare issues in electoral surveys.

The implications of these differences are subtle but important. Voters in higher visibility contexts are not necessarily more pro-welfare or in favour of higher taxes and spending. However, they do tend to weigh these issues more heavily in their political choices. Put differently, they tend to pick parties closer to them on welfare issues, rather than other issues. Of course, the relative importance of the welfare state to voters varies across time and place, depending on how political parties discuss these issues and the spectrum of choices that voters have.vi  Nonetheless, in general, voters in countries with high-visibility welfare states are more ideologically consistent in voting, and in particular, vote in ways consistent with their preferences on redistribution and state spending.

The implications of these findings for the welfare state in the UK are mixed. On the one hand, changes that make spending more visible to either recipients or taxpayers – such as the move to the universal credit for income support benefits – may actually heighten the salience of the welfare state. If voters can better understand what the state is doing, and for whom, they may begin to attach more weight to social policy in their political decision-making. Given how widespread benefit receipt is these movements could galvanise support for the state.

On the other hand, my work shows some of the most ideologically consistent voters in wealthy democracies are supporters of lower taxes in Scandinavia, a group that consistently votes for non-socialist parties. More visible spending can also clarify the revenue side, potentially creating support for anti-tax and spending groups.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Deirdre Fulton discusses the UN's 2014 Human Development Report, featuring recognition that precarious jobs and vulnerable workers are all too often the norm regardless of a country's level of development or high-end wealth. And as Dylan Matthews points out (h/t to David Atkins), the lack of worker benefits from increased corporate wealth figures to make a guaranteed annual income into a logical solution:

So here's my takeaway: a negative income tax or basic income of sufficient size would, by definition, eliminate poverty. We still don't know if there'd be much of a cost in terms of people working and earning less. If there is, the effect is almost certainly small enough that a negative income tax can offset the lost earnings and remain affordable. The worst case scenario is that we eliminate poverty but see a modest decline in employment. The best case scenario is we eliminate poverty at even lower cost and don't see much of an effect on employment. That's a gamble I'm willing to take.

- Meanwhile, Andrew Jackson points out that the supposed job recovery following the 2008 recession has been far less than advertised. And Angella MacEwen writes that we should see the steady flow of funds from EI premiums into general revenue as an indication that too many people are being denied benefits - particularly when a strong majority of unemployed Canadians aren't benefiting from a program they helped to fund.

- Tom Henheffer questions why the Canada Revenue Agency is being pushed by the Cons to attack progressive charities, particularly when it's being starved of resources to do its job of actually collecting revenue. Heather Mallick takes a closer look at the CRA's intrusion on Oxfam in particular. And Lana Payne sees the crackdown on charities as part of the Cons' general pattern of silencing any dissenting voices:

Binders full of enemies? Let’s try libraries.

The government has, for all intents and purposes, successfully defunded Canada’s advocacy movement — well, those advocates that disagree with them anyway, like women’s rights and child-care activists, environmental and scientific researchers. They have eliminated funding for roundtable consensus-building initiatives as well as non-governmental organizations dedicated to promoting human rights and equality for women around the globe.

The list is long and depressing.

The government has used, or rather abused, its power in so many ways that Canadians have perhaps grown immune to the attacks on democracy and civil society.
...
Sadly, we have a government that relishes divisions abroad and at home. Divisions create opportunities.

Consider its aggressive attack on anyone and everyone who disagrees with their ideology or policy — charities, unions, feminists, environmentalists, scientists and academics.

And yet when Harper was in opposition, he had an entirely different view of dissent and democracy: “When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent is when it’s rapidly losing its moral authority to govern,” he said.

That time is now for his government.

- But Scott Feschuk suggests we should be a bit more understanding of a figurehead who's so plainly at the mercy of his minions (at least until he's thrown them under various large vehicles).

- Finally, Ryan Meili explains why we shouldn't accept simplistic arguments to the effect that we should run our health care system more like a veterinary clinic (or indeed a European system facing different challenges).

To dream fondly of the day when ads haunt our dreams

Heather Mallick's column about the public's willingness to sell out to the corporate sector for cheap unfortunately meanders off on a few too many tangents before reaching much of a point. But even if she'd connected with a truly incisive take, snark has nothing on Terence Corcoran - who goes to far as to whine that spam e-mails are "essential in a market economy", and to suggest that any legislation goes too far in regulating the digital equivalent of door-to-door sales.

Which leads to the question: exactly how many people - the marketing industry excepted - actually see the constant intrusion of advertisers as a net social good?

To be clear, there are some genuine reasons for concern about the anti-spam legislation in its present form. But it takes a truly fundamentalist consumerist to suggest that CASL's fundamental flaw is that it might allow people a moment's peace from the ever-expanding reach of the corporate sector.

And indeed, if anybody actually wants to test Corcoran's thesis as to the effect of advertising, surely the more likely conclusion is that we'd rather have less of it blasted at us - in person, on the phone, online and everywhere else - rather than succumbing to a future of an endless series of vacuum salesmen pounding on our doors forever.

[Edit: fixed wording.]