Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Paul Krugman discusses the need for people who have been responsible about limiting the spread of COVID-19 to start speaking out and taking action to ensure that the reckless and nihilistic aren't able to impose avoidable disease and death. Adia Benton, Maimuna Majumder and Gavin Yamey write that the selfishness of rich countries - both in refusing to allow lower-income countries to produce their own vaccines, then hoarding the ones which are manufactured - stands to extend the ongoing pandemic until as late as 2028. And Ashleigh Stewart reports on David Fisman's resignation from Ontario's science advisory table due to Doug Ford's refusal to provide accurate information about an impending fourth wave. 

- Meanwhile, Paul Sakkal and Aisha Dow write about the importance of a ventilation revolution to stop the spread of COVID-19 through indoor environments including workplaces and schools. 

- Frederik Pleitgen, Claudia Otto, Angela Dewan and Mohammed Tawfeeq write that much of the Middle East may soon be uninhabitable as limited water reserves disappear due to our climate breakdown. Jonathan Tirone notes that newly-constructed refineries will lock in additional carbon pollution for decades to come.  And Kevin Crowley discusses how the fossil fuel industry is splitting in its response to global determination to protect our planet - though it can't escape notice that it's the worst climate offenders who are determined to double down on spewing greenhouse gas emissions.  

- Tony Seskus writes about the need for farmers (and consumers generally) to have a right to repair, rather than seeing major purchases rendered worthless by the whims of corporate intellectual property rules. 

- Matt Bruenig highlights how gratuitous Republican cuts to unemployment insurance in the U.S. led to added poverty and precarity without producing any of the promised increase in available employment. 

- Finally, Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks comment on the need to tax billionaires out of existence, rather than allowing them to dictate public policy in the interest of extreme wealth accumulation. 

Sunday Morning LInks

Assorted content for your Sunday reading.

- Peter Moskowitz highlights why we shouldn't be counting on crowdfunding or other private sources to address social needs. And Lana Payne calls out the attitude of entitlement on the part of the wealthy which has bled our public sector dry.

- Meanwhile, Rob Gillezeau points out the Libs' uncosted platform commitments to First Nations - as well as the importance of following through rather than perpetuating the pattern of broken promises.

- Peter Kuitenbrouwer reports on the Libs' plans to ramp up the marketing of weapons in the Middle East. And Stephanie Nebehay and Angus McDowall remind us of the consequences of shipping arms to regimes which don't even pretend to have an interest in human rights.

- Claire Cain Miller examines how wages tend to drop in jobs which are occupied by increased proportions of women.

- Finally, Linda McQuaig offers some insights from her time in politics:

(F)or a few days, my comment sparked a minor media rumpus that seemed to reinforce the case for tight political messaging based on the rule, as reported by Susan Delacourt in her book Shopping for Votes: "Do not talk of sacrifice, collective good, facts, problems or debate."

In other words, avoid complexity and controversy -- or anything else that assumes the voter is capable of accepting the responsibility of citizenship.

Interestingly, however, the NDP reached the height of its public support last spring when it ignored this conventional wisdom, risking controversy and complexity by standing up against legislation that initially seemed popular -- the Conservatives' "anti-terror" legislation, Bill C-51.

Back in my perch in journalism (with no plans to run again), I'm wondering if we're well served by a conventional wisdom that has reduced the voter to a simple-minded consumer who's only out for herself.

Could it be that the voter is actually hungry to be treated as a citizen -- that is, treated as someone (to paraphrase Canadian author Gilbert Reid) who's an adult, has an attention span, some knowledge of history and empathy for others, is patient, open to debate, and even willing to make sacrifices for the common good?

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Chrystia Freeland discusses the developing view that inequality can serve to stifle growth and development, while more equitable tax systems and social supports can encourage them:

Set aside any moral or political concerns you may have about rising income inequality – worries about poverty, justice, undue political influence or even social mobility. According to Mr. Dervis, a growing number of economists suspect that once inequality passes a certain point, it may jeopardize economic stability and economic growth.

As his book argues, “rebalancing of the distribution of income may play a role in unlocking the U.S. economy’s growth potential in a sustainable way.”

Now that is a truly radical thought, and it brings us back to Mr. Milanovic’s earlier view that income inequality was a forbidden subject in the United States.

Worrying about the poor is one thing. To contend that equality is necessary for growth is an altogether different and more radical idea. Three decades later, trickle-down economics has met its antithesis. We are set for one of the great battles of ideas of our time.

- And Paul Krugman rightly paints the U.S.' recent election as a well-defined class clash - and one where the public interest won out:

(T)he disappointed plutocrats weren’t wrong about who was on their side. This was very much an election pitting the interests of the very rich against those of the middle class and the poor.

 And the Obama campaign won largely by disregarding the warnings of squeamish “centrists” and embracing that reality, stressing the class-war aspect of the confrontation. This ensured not only that President Obama won by huge margins among lower-income voters, but that those voters turned out in large numbers, sealing his victory.

The important thing to understand now is that while the election is over, the class war isn’t. The same people who bet big on Mr. Romney, and lost, are now trying to win by stealth — in the name of fiscal responsibility — the ground they failed to gain in an open election.

- Stephen Maher and Glen McGregor dig into the details of Elections Canada's continued investigation into Robocon - including complaints in 56 separate ridings. And Sixth Estate puts the latest news into context, wondering why it's taken this long to start seeking even basic contact information for the parties responsible.

- Finally, the Star nicely sums up how the Cons' latest round of international belligerence (this time trying to bully the Palestinian Authority into withdrawing its since-approved application for observer state status at the UN) is only marginalizing Canada on the world stage.

Guest Post: On governing authorities

Dan Tan offers another guest post - this one responding to a bit of misplaced advice from Embassy with a helpful reminder as to how policy is formulated within the NDP:

The foreign-affairs publication 'Embassy' recently published the following article: Advocates hope new Opposition leader shifts NDP position on Israel

The election of Thomas Mulcair as leader of the New Democratic Party could signal a coming shift in the party's policy on Israel, some advocates predict...

I am sure many NDP members will treat its content as a sort of "prophecy". But in reality, the article is actually engaging in advocacy, not analysis. The article has no intention of examining NDP policy on Israel/Palestine. Rather, its intention is to send Thomas Mulcair himself a rather crude message.

In an article ostensibly about Mulcair & the NDP's Israel/Palestine policy...it's telling that none of those topics are actually explored. Though Mulcair's name comes up, his Israel/Palestine policy statement (released during the leadership campaign) is completely ignored. The NDP's existing policy is reduced to one sentence from the foreign affairs critic. The grass-roots collaborative NDP policy-making process is totally disregarded.

Instead, the article chooses to highlight various winks & nudges from Canadian advocates of the Israeli government. And in case those advocates were too coy, the author (Ingrid Walter) concludes by presenting Mulcair with an absolutely bizarre claim. Walter cites an Ipsos exit poll of Jewish-Canadian voters. In it, the Conservatives scored a majority of 52%. Without wincing, Walter attempts to convince Mulcair that a "pro-Israel" NDP would also score 52%.

It never crosses Walter's mind that many Jewish-Canadian voters were simply responding to economic policies or a fatigue of minority parliament. [Ed. note: Nor that it's possible to test whether "pro-Israel" policies actually tend to move votes and other support.] Instead, the mere sight of Thomas Mulcair echoing the Cons' foreign policy is somehow supposed to move Jewish-Canadian voters en masse toward the NDP.

Many NDP members (like myself) trust that Thomas Mulcair is intelligent enough to recognize the desperation & comedy behind such an inducement. But for those members who still have doubts, the NDP constitution provides clarity as to where the party's policy is developed:

Conventions are the supreme governing body of the Party and shall have final authority in all matters of federal policy, program and constitution.
...
The NDP Federal Council shall have full authority to issue policy statements and election statements in the name of the Party, consonant with the decisions of the Convention, and to initiate policy statements consonant with the philosophy of the Party in matters not yet considered by Convention.

Leadership 2012 Roundup

Thanks to an end-of-week conference it's been a few days since I've done a general roundup on the NDP leadership race. And based on the pace of activity, it looks like we're into the home stretch as candidates enter the last couple of weeks in which to sign up new members.

- Niki Ashton unveiled the support of MP Carol Hughes before participating in the National Student Day of Action.

- Nathan Cullen earned a column's worth of discussion from Chris Selley, albeit with the conclusion that his electoral co-operation plan likely won't fly.

- Paul Dewar unveiled a plan for women's equality, then used the profile of the leadership campaign to host a fund-raiser for locked-out Caterpillar workers in London just before the plant's closure was announced.

- Thomas Mulcair won endorsements from UFCW Canada and Howard Hampton.

- Peggy Nash released policies on post-secondary education (featuring both dedicated transfer payments and reduced interest on student loans) and northern issues. And she also launched a slick video to boot.

- Romeo Saganash set out his plan to work toward peace in the Middle East - earning plenty of points for ambition in the process.

- Martin Singh released his environmental policy, featuring a noteworthy choice to implement a carbon-pricing system without offsets.

- And finally, Brian Topp unveiled his plan to build the NDP (with a particular focus on increasing participation at all levels of the party), while also warning against trying to outshout the Cons.

[Edit: added second Topp link.]

Monday Morning Links

An assortment of reading material to start your week...

- Gerald Caplan offers up a suggested Middle East reading list for Cons willing to learn about the true state of the world. Which should come in handy just as soon as they return from the unicorn riding academy.

- Ralph Surette nicely pegs what the Harper Cons mean for Canada:

One thing the vast majority of us are distinctly not waiting for is for the Harper government to actually improve anything, especially not to advance the cause of a properly functioning democracy. On the contrary, the drift is ominous: towards a tyrannical control from the Prime Minister’s Office aimed at dismantling large parts of the Canadian state, punishing anyone who questions its aims, manipulating information, and turning the society into an alloy of right-wing religion and big money.

The truly ill-omened part is that Stephen Harper can do this while in a minority. That is, even if the Conservatives do shoot themselves in the head — and they came close by destroying the census long form as a useful public instrument — they’ll keep governing in zombie form if the opposition remains as fractured as it is.

- Erin offers to sell out to BHP Billiton.

- The CP reports on what would need to be done for B.C. to walk away from the HST. But as ominous as the consequences are made to sound by corporate mouthpieces, they really amount to giving back the bribe offered up by the Harper Cons - meaning that other than having wasted time and effort trying to impose the tax, the province wouldn't be any worse off if it's repealed than if it had never been introduced.

- Finally, the Cons are breaking new ground in claiming that minority governments are entitled to hide all political operations from any opposition or public scrutiny. But once again, the "ministerial responsibility" excuse looks all the more ridiculous when the Cons' side is presented by their Pit Bull In Chief rather than, say, the minister who could possibly be responsible for the information suppression at issue.

Support Libby Davies

When it was merely Rob Silver and a couple of other bloggers wilfully misrepresenting Libby Davies then demanding that she be fired for their dishonesty, I figured it best not to give the matter any more attention than it deserved. But now that even a Prime Minister who should seemingly have better things to do is taking the time to join the fact-free pile-on (while some of Davies' defenders are unfortunately going somewhat off the rails themselves), I'm not sure it can pass without comment.

So without any further ado...what Murray Dobbin said. And Pogge, Alison and Cliff are worth a read too.

Update: Dr. Dawg's post is also worth a look.

Unsettled

The Star reports on yet another example of the Cons embarrassing Canada abroad, as Maxime Bernier's trip to try to help broker an Israel/Palestine peace deal hit a snag when it became obvious that Bernier lacked any clue about the issues being dealt with:

A change in direction on a potentially explosive foreign policy issue – or just a new minister unsure of his brief?

That was the question for Canadians here yesterday, the second day of a two-day visit to the Holy Land by Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier.

And the answer is: nobody seemed to know...

The confusion on the potentially explosive issue of Israeli settlements arose Sunday when Bernier was twice asked during a West Bank news conference whether Ottawa – which officially opposes new settlement activity by Israel – makes a distinction between housing construction in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem.

Both times, the Canadian minister pointedly ignored the question. The second time it was asked, he abruptly ended the news conference and left the room.

Of course, it would be even worse if Bernier was indeed trying to send up a trial balloon to selectively support new settlements. But it would seem obvious that if Bernier was indeed seeking to break new ground, he'd at least have been aware of that fact, not to mention willing to make some attempt to defend the position.

Instead, it looks all too likely that Bernier's trip, like so many other Con excursions abroad, is based solely on a desire for photo-ops rather than any prospect that the Con government has anything useful to contribute. And the more discredited the Harper government continues to become around the world, the more reason Canadians will have to wonder why it should be taken seriously at home.

Bit players

PMS' attempt to slip in a strengthened role abroad as one of his government's top five priorities received plenty of attention over the last few months. So how are the Cons doing when it comes to exerting Canada's influence in the Middle East? The Globe and Mail has the answer - and not surprisingly, the Cons have fallen far short of their supposed priority:

Mr. Abbas's top aide suggested beforehand that there was little riding on the talks. He suggested that Canada's decision to cut aid to the Palestinian Authority after Hamas won control of it in elections last year, and its refusal to allow diplomats to meet with PA officials, has diminished whatever influence Canada once had in the region.

In an interview before the meeting, Rafik Husseini, Mr. Abbas's chief of staff, said that because of the 10-month-old boycott, the Palestinian side knew little about the year-old Canadian government.

"Canada is not a big player in general and because, of course, of what has happened with the [economic] siege and with the no-talk policy towards Hamas, we cannot tell the difference between the old and the new government," he said.

If there's any relatively good news, it's that Peter MacKay seems to be backing off the Cons' previous position that essential actors would be deemed unfit to talk to, stating that Canada is willing to talk to any party interested in helping to solve problems in the Middle East. But this being MacKay, it's anybody's guess whether that actually reflects a change in policy or just a detour off message.

Moreover, even if the Cons have indeed changed their tone to be willing to engage various parties rather than presenting a good vs. evil narrative going forward, it's clear that Canada's influence has declined due to the past actions of Harper and company. And if year two of the Cons' stay in power really isn't going to consist of anything more than undoing the damage they did in year one, then it's hard to see why anybody should want to see them hold office any longer than could be avoided.