Saturday Afternoon Links

This and that for your weekend reading.

- Genevieve Guenther and Michael Mann offer a reminder that climate denial - from Donald Trump or anybody else - won't avert the consequences we're already seeing as a result of carbon pollution. And Marta Serafinko reports on the threat climate change poses to biodiversity as natural habitats are eliminated. 

- Meanwhile, Gaye Taylor discusses how clean energy is replacing dirty diesel in remote Canadian communities. And Susanna Twidale reports on new data showing that wind and solar power contributed more to global power supply than fossil gas in April, showing that a transition is well underway even as we're told we have no option but a choice between fossil fuels. 

- Ken Collier discusses how Mark Carney's choice to wind down pharmacare threatens Canada's wider public health care system. And Bruce Campbell writes about the risks to the public interest posed by deregulation and privatization. 

- Thor Benson talks to Chris Hayes about the dangers of artificial intelligence - with the erosion of human intellectual development looming as an inescapable result no matter how many of the logistical problems are waved away. Don't Surveil Me is encouraging Canadians to take action to protect privacy online in the face of yet another "lawful access" bill intended to eliminate anything of the sort. And Mike Benson discusses how public opinion is turning against mass surveillance once its presence is identified. 

- Finally, Justin Briley writes about the need to defend and promote fair taxes as the price of community and civilization, rather than echoing anti-social talking points in pursuit of the false hope of temporary political gain. 

Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Samantha Hancox-Li discusses the need to ensure the rampant violence and corruption of the second Trump term is met with prosecutions, rather than another round of calls to sweep criminality under the rug yet again as long as it's being committed from sufficiently powerful positions. Alan Elrod points out the need for the Democratic Party to lead that effort (no matter how much more comfortable its legislative leaders are trying to pretend that Republican fascists are their friends). 

- Jonathan Watts discusses the dangers of trying to keep countries addicted to fossil fuels by force even as cleaner and more affordable options become readily available. And Carl Meyer examines the similarities between the anti-regulation, pro-dirty energy structures put in place by the Trump regime and the Carney government. 

- Sophie Hurwitz weighs in on the reality that opposition to data centres is one of the few truly unifying issues across party lines in the U.S. And Tom Chivers points out that young voters are particularly skeptical of artificial intelligence.

- Joseph Cox reports on the FBI's plans to buy U.S.-wide license plate reading technology to effectively allow for total surveillance of anybody with their own vehicle. And Michael Geist writes about the Carney Libs' continued push to impose absolute online surveillance on Canadians. 

- Finally, Luke Savage calls out the small-c conservative demand that the plebes work until they drop (toward the purpose of further enriching the ruling class). 

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Uday Rana reports on new polling showing that a supermajority of Canadians will never trust the U.S. the same way again. And John Paul Tasker examines the ways the break from reliance on the U.S. is playing out in practice. 

- But Desmond Cole and Martin Lukacs discuss how Pierre Poilievre is trying to import as much of the Trump regime's anti-immigrant violence as people can be forced to consume. And Muhad Hemmadi reports on Mark Carney's echoing of the U.S.' blind faith in AI as a substitute for real development, while Dale Smith discusses how the Libs' online surveillance legislation reads as little more than a gift to a Trump-style militarized state. 

- Linda McQuaig writes that any forward-looking plan for national projects should be starting with a massive commitment to clean energy. And Darius Snieckus and Natasha Bulowski report on the Canadian Climate Institute's estimate showing that Alberta's oil and gas sector alone is blocking any prospect of reaching our climate commitments in both the short and medium term. 

- Kevin Crowley, David Wethe and Dave Merrill report on the groundwater pollution and resulting geological instability being inflicted by the oil industry in Texas (with the full support of petropoliticians). Olivia Lee reports that a project in Brighton is showing how toxic runoff can be cleaned up - while highlighting the absolute failure to make that a priority elsewhere. And Gary Fuller reports on new research showing that air pollution affects people's sleep among other profound effects. 

- Finally, Emily Atkin discusses how Charlie Kirk's hate (like much of the fascist right's noise machine) has been funded by fossil fuel tycoons. Adam Serwer notes that the definition of free speech in the U.S. is now limited to parroting administration talking points, while Moira Donegan wonders who's next to be silenced after even the most mainstream of comedians are being yanked off the air for daring to incorporate the U.S.' president in their material. And David Moscrop writes about the need for universal condemnation of political censorship. 

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Jason Sattler writes about the importance of working together to oppose fascism rather than acquiescing to its ends. Juse Joffe-Block and Shannon Bond examine the racist roots of the Trump regime's anti-immigrant memes. And Hamilton Nolan notes that Trump's imposition of white supremacy at the government level has turned commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion into a crucial indicator as to businesses' loyalties.  

- Tom McDowell discusses how Canada's federal and provincial governments alike are using the threat of U.S. fascism to eliminate consultation and democratic decision-making in favour of top-down corporate service. David Pugliese reports on the imposition of new secrecy rules against Canadian defence workers. And Juan Sebastian Pinto discusses how Palantir - which is being welcomed into Canada by Mark Carney while collaborating with the Trump regime - poses broad-based dangers to human rights around the globe. 

- University College London finds that air pollution caused by oil and gas is responsible for 91,000 deaths each year in the U.S. alone. Mitch Anderson points out that any assessment not funded shows that dirty energy is headed for a decline within the next few years at the latest, even as our petropoliticians insist on perpetual expansion with no regard for either economic viability or environmental consequences. And Isobel Farquharson reports on the work by private actors to build an EV charging network in Canada. 

- Finally, Ken Chapman writes about the goals of the Forever Canadian movement which is providing a needed response to the UCP's separatist posturing.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Sonya Angell examines the connection between extreme weather events caused by the climate breakdown and adverse health effects, while noting that there's a need for far more attention to the health effects of the climate crisis. And Anelyse Weiler and Susanna Klassen make the case for improved heat protection for farm workers. 

- You Xiaoying discusses how China has been able to set up a clean energy system in Antarctica - even as petropoliticans continue to pretend they're not feasible even in ideal environments. Claire Brown discusses how tech giants are falling far short of their climate commitments even without accounting for the fact that they're dedicating immense amounts of processing power to the extraction and burning of dirty fuels. And Barry Saxifrage warns that Canada is falling behind in the transition to electric vehicles due to a series of policy retreats, while Natasha Bulowski discusses the health costs of those choices. 

- Elizabeth Warren highlights why the rich and powerful are trying to stop Zohran Mamdani's to win election by prioritizing the many rather than the few. And Austin Jefferson discusses new polling showing that Mamdani's policy plans are wildly popular. 

- Meanwhile, Adrienne Tanner calls out the Canadian right's irrational hatred of bike lanes and other elements of a liveable community. And Euan Thomson report on the Calgary Police Service's continued insistence on scraping personal images from social media using facial recognition software as part of its public surveillance. 

- Finally, Rebecca Solnit writes that systemic misogyny and violence against women go far beyond the the Epstein files, making it dangerous to treat the most prominent examples as an aberration. 

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Armine Yalnizyan offers a warning about the spread of the tapeworm economy in which corporate profiteers wriggle their way into public services and siphon off resources.  

- Julia Velkova discusses how reliance on tech monopolists undermines the capacity to decide and deliver on social priorities. And Allen Best points out the absurdity of subsidizing massive data centres which inevitably cause environmental harm and strain on public infrastructure. 

- Andrew Nikiforuk discusses the precarious state of Alberta's water supply - and the utter lack of any government response to avert disaster. And Dana Nuccitelli writes that the tar sands are singlehandedly preventing Canada from living up to its climate commitments - while also resulting in our oil sector generating far worse carbon pollution per capita than even the U.S.'.  

- Michael Haederle points out new research finding microplastics to be present in every new human placenta. And Sandee LaMotte writes about use of predigested slurries to keep people from having their hunger fulfilled. 

- Finally, Ethan Cox exposes how the federal government has lied and withheld information about its use of private spies who are actively monitoring journalists. And Bryan Carney reports on a special report from Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne on the RCMP's systematic violations of privacy through undisclosed online surveillance. 

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Alex Hemingway points out that British Columbia has a long way to go in raising readily-available revenue in order to provide even the essentials of life for its residents. And Toby Sanger examines the foreseeable distribution of Jason Kenney's tax slashing scheme - with the wealthy few (including foreign investors) predictably walking away with a windfall, while most people end up significantly worse off.

- Meanwhile, Andrew Nikiforuk argues that Alberta voters need to make their decisions based on realities rather than wishful thinking about the future of fossil fuels. And Kim Conway writes that current oil sector workers know better than to buy Kenney's line of spin.

- Arthur White-Cummey reports on the dozens of Saskatchewan schools which are being forced to operate over capacity due to the Moe government's refusal to provide adequate funding. And Stephanie Taylor reports on the Saskatchewan NDP's push to protect GSAs from meddling social conservatives.

- Sarah Ghabrial and Sheetal Rawal discuss the reality of Trudeauvian Liberalism which allows for diverse representation in theory only so long a single privileged white male remains entitled to dictate terms to everybody. And Karl Nerenberg examines the pitiful set of default options between Trudeau's fecklessness and Andrew Scheer's frightfulness. 

- Finally, Paul Willcocks offers five reasons to worry about the RCMP's secret monitoring of social media.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Tracy Smith-Carrier comments on the importance of addressing poverty as an issue of human rights rather than charity:

It is not a matter of being down on your luck or misfortunate, as if people are somehow fated to live a life of poverty. It is the building blocks of society that reproduce poverty. Work conditions, unequal social relationships and the economy are all part of the problem: Some groups have historically been subject to racism, discrimination and inferior treatment while others have been accorded wealth and privilege.

For example, dynamics in the economy and labour market cause poverty. How many jobs are available, the nature and quality of those jobs, the availability of child care, the accessibility of advanced education and training, the affordability of housing, the extension of appropriate accommodations in the workplace, the accessibility of transportation systems, the ability for certain groups to climb the social ladder, the extension of income-security programs to buffer people in times of crisis: These are all factors that influence people’s slide into poverty and their ability to move out of it.

The decisions people make are ultimately shaped by these larger systemic forces. People might reduce their hours of work as they cannot find quality child care, or they might be reluctant to pursue post-secondary education with the prospect of crushing debt. These decisions are ultimately shaped by a lack of opportunities, not by personal deficiency. And then there is the psychological toll poverty takes: Mental-health issues can develop in the face of lingering unemployment.
...
Charity – the primary solution in place to address poverty through breakfast programs, soup kitchens, food banks, community gardens, and the like – can only provide some measure of emergency relief. It cannot eradicate poverty. No one gets out of poverty by using charitable programs. The fundamental problem – a lack of financial resources – remains unchanged.

It is time to shift away from the charitable model to a rights-based approach, guaranteeing people the right to food. People must have access to an adequate income that allows them to obtain their own food, and do so “in normal and socially acceptable ways,” ensuring personal dignity and choice. The perpetuation of food banks ensures the charitable-food model is preserved, and people remain hungry.

- David Leonhard argues that our current mean of measuring the economy tend to focus on the concentration of wealth rather than economic security for most people.

- Jedediah Purdy points out how the U.S. has turned the principle of freedom of speech into a mechanism to ensure most people are drowned out by the privileged few who can afford to dominate the media. And Adam Federman reports on the private surveillance of environmental activists in Canada as a similar example of money infringing on basic freedoms.

- Michael Harris offers a reminder that Canada is far better off holding off on any NAFTA deal than signing onto Donald Trump's plan to further enrich the American corporate class. And Janyce McGregor reports that like so many corporate trade deals, the CETA has fallen far short of its supposed economic promise.

- Finally, Colleen Flood, Bryan Thomas, Asad Ali Moten and Patrick Fafard examine some of the options available to establish a national universal pharmacare system.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Kaylie Tiessen offers some important lessons from Ontario's child poverty strategy - with the most important one being the importance of following through. And Christian Ledwell encourages Prince Edward Island's MPs to lead a push toward a basic income, while PressProgress calls out the Fraser Institute for trying to badger the new federal government into ignoring inequality and poverty altogether.

- Lisa Sachs and Lise Johnson write that the TPP is designed to entrench rules which favour wealthy investors while ruling out the public interest altogether in most government decision-making. Christopher Smillie notes that Canadian trades workers in particular look to lose out as a result of the TPP's open door to temporary foreign workers. Mark Dearn writes that the latest round of agreements involving Europe is designed to give disproportionate power to the oil sector in particular. And David Dayen points to a case where even dolphin-safe labelling was held to violate WTO rules as an example of the corporate intrusion into basic regulations.

- Meanwhile, Rick Salutin writes that ill-advised trade deals which undermine the livelihood of citizens only play into the hands of xenophobes and the politicians who encourage them. And Omer Aziz questions Justin Trudeau's decision to discriminate arbitrarily against male Syrian refugees.

- Michael Harris points out the RCMP's demand for unlimited online surveillance and makes the case for wariness in response.

- Finally, Lana Payne discusses the potentially dangerous effect of polls, with particular reference to Newfoundland and Labrador's election where policy seems to have been thoroughly wiped off the map.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Noah Smith weighs in on the effect of cash transfers in improving all aspects of life for people living in poverty. But Angus Deaton recognizes that individual income will only go so far if it isn't matched by the development of effective government. 

- Maude Barlow discusses how the negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other corporate rights agreements may render moot any effort for global action against climate change.
And Bill Tieleman raises the question of why Justin Trudeau and the Libs are willing to take the Cons' word for it on the TPP even as they rightly brand Stephen Harper as untrustworthy elsewhere:

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, a former World Bank chief economist, warns about the TPP.

“The real concern is that the whole thing is being written by corporations behind closed doors ... the consumers, who are not at the table, get screwed,” Stiglitz says.

But Trudeau is neither concerned nor opposed, saying last week: “The Trans-Pacific Partnership stands to remove trade barriers, widely expand free trade for Canada, and increase opportunities.”

So on TPP, Harper says “trust me” while Trudeau says “trust Harper” and trust free trade.

Trusting Trudeau on C-51 didn’t work – neither will it on the TPP.

- Cory Doctorow examines the TPP's draconian crackdown against basic computer security measures in the name of strengthening the hand of media giants. And Kent Roach and Craig Forcese argue that the Cons' bluster about security has done plenty to attack our rights while doing nothing at all to actually make Canadians safer.

- Joe Fiorito writes that the Cons' idea of relief for refugees is to leave some of the world's most vulnerable people in limbo for a year or more.

- Finally, Jack Knox discusses the combination of nationalism and racism that's represented the Cons' main campaign theme. And Michael Harris reminds us that we need to prove Harper wrong in betting on a combination of cheating, hatred and apathy to eke out another term in power.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Ryan Meili reminds us of the harmful health impacts of inequality. And Susan Perry discusses the effect of inequality on health in the workplace in particular:

The rise in income inequality over the past three decades or so is taking a major toll on the general health of American workers — and not just because stagnant or falling wages have made it increasingly difficult for many workers to afford high-quality health care.

For, as a commentary published recently in the American Journal of Public Health points out, income inequality has also been accompanied by changes in the workplace that increase workers’ stress in ways that negatively affect their health.

Those changes include a less stable job market, work weeks that repeatedly exceed 40 hours (for individuals working full time as well as for those working two or more part-time jobs), work schedules with unpredictable or irregular hours, greater “job intensification” (employers requiring workers to take on more tasks and responsibilities with less pay), lack of paid sick leave and higher out-of-pocket health costs (which erode discretionary income).

- Meanwhile, Andrew Dobson and Rupert Read write that it's time to stop pretending that growth for its own sake in a developed economy serves any useful purpose - especially when a top-heavy approach exacerbates inequality. But then, Chuk Plante points out that inequality acts as a barrier to development in any event. And Naomi Klein reviews Steve Fraser's The Age of Acquiescence as nicely describing the need for concerted public action to overcome the concentration of wealth and power.

- Matthew Ingram rightly argues that we shouldn't be willing to accept unfettered Internet surveillance as the new normal, while Christopher Parsons reminds us that we're already subject to monitoring and disruption without a law authorizing anything of the sort.

- Haroon Siddiqui makes the case that we should be far more scared of the Cons than of the phantoms they're trying to invent for political purpose. And Joseph Heath discusses Stephen Harper's warmongering under circumstances where it makes no sense at all to obsess over military buildup:

Canada does not need a fighting military. Americans often accuse other Western nations, particularly some European states, of free-riding on U.S. military power. And while this may not be true of some nations, it is certainly true of Canada. Part of what’s nice about having the world’s largest undefended border with the U.S. is that they would never tolerate the invasion of Canada by a hostile power. As a result, we have to be prepared for minor border skirmishes, but we don’t really need to have a full-scale military, sufficient to defend the country from attack.

The fact that the Canadian military is essentially otiose provides one way of understanding our past enthusiasm for peacekeeping – at least it provided some rationale for maintaining something like an able fighting force. Take away the peacekeeping, and what becomes the new raison d’être for the Canadian military? The Conservative government has yet to provide one — indeed, it seems not to be even aware of the need to. The boyish enthusiasm for the military that you find in the current government is essentially a matter of personal temperament and political ideology, but it lacks any underlying national or geopolitical rationale.

- Finally, Michael Harris weighs in on the reemergence of Reform's most irresponsible elements. Susan Delacourt wonders whether early-career Stephen Harper would recognize what he's since become. And Jeremy Nuttall reports on Harry Smith's work to ensure that the Harper Cons don't stay in power any longer than we can avoid.

Sunday Morning Links

Assorted content for your Sunday reading.

- D.L. Tice writes that it's becoming more and more difficult for the right to ignore the spread of income inequality - and the reality that only public policy, not faith in the market, can produce a more fair distribution of income. Which is particularly important in light of Doyle McManus' recognition that an overly high level of inequality is unsustainable.

- Simon Kiss and Peter Graefe discuss the connection - and in some cases the tension - between populism and progressive values:

Left populist campaigning around cost-of-living issues on significant non-discretionary (at least in the short-term) expenses like heating and auto insurance provide a way to speak to these voters. Yet this kind of pocketbook politicking, for all of its populist potential in taking on insurance companies and big natural resources firms, remains profoundly individualist in its potentials.  It closes down spaces to make a more collective argument, namely that paying for public services through taxes is the best deal going for working people. 

This presents a deep challenge for social democrats, who, at their core, are marked by their commitment to the notion that the state can be – and ought to be – a solution to pressing social problems, rather than being a source of problems.  This presents both an opportunity and a challenge for social democrats. On the one hand, tax increases on privileged groups can easily fit with a populist rhetoric.  This might be electorally viable and might even make fiscal sense and create the opening for Canadian social democracy to advance, rather than stand still. On the other hand, an argument for tax increases on the citizenry as a whole in order to finance public services for the citizenry is the opposite of populism. It caters to enlightened – not narrow – self-interest and avoids catering to desires for punishment of the enemies of the undivided “people”. 

- Lana Payne observes that the widespread abuse of temporary foreign workers shoud come as no surprise to anybody who's paid attention to the issue, while Michael Smyth tells the story of the 21-year-old whistleblower who exposed McDonalds' misuse of the program. Ishmael Daro notes that the exploitation of temporary workers represents just a small part of a meaner immigration policy. And Rick Salutin writes that the use of TFWs only serves to make matters worse for workers of any point of origin.

- Jesse Brown muses about the relative lack of outrage against online surveillance in Canada, while pointing out that the answer likely lies in what we don't yet know:

America’s outcry over the NSA’s overreach occurred in response to specific revelations. In Canada, we still don’t have the foggiest notion about the nature or extent of the surveillance state — we just know that we are, to some extent, living in one. Canadians have been criticized for not taking action against these intrusions. But how could we when we know so little?

Still, Canadians haven’t been totally complacent. Canadian Journalists for Free Expression has been monitoring and reporting on information about CSEC as it breaks. The intrepid Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto has attacked the problem from a different angle, demanding answers from Rogers, Telus, Bell and 16 other telecommunications companies as to what information they share with authorities and under what circumstances. Meanwhile, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association has launched a class-action lawsuit against CSEC, on behalf of every Canadian who has used a wireless device since 2001. The idea is, if CSEC has not been spying on all of us, let them prove it.

If authorities refuse to answer reasonable questions based on legitimate concerns, we mustn’t stop there. We can go around CSEC and its masters, we can remind them constantly that they owe the public answers, and we can make ourselves available to anyone out there who, like Edward Snowden, possesses information that their consciences won’t allow them to conceal.

- And finally, Daniel Wilson notes that the Cons' cynical education legislation looks like just the latest example of a hostile federal government seeking to divide and conquer Canada's First Nations.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Hakan Bengtsson offers some useful discussion about the challenges facing Sweden's social democratic system - as the same factors being used to prevent the development of a more equitable society in Canada and elsewhere are being cited as excuses to tear down the model many countries aspire to reach:

The Swedish experience has shown that deregulation has not resulted in a considerable number of non-profit alternatives, as many people believed and which they used as an argument for change. Instead, it has meant the emergence of private companies, large corporate groups and venture capitalists in the Swedish welfare system. This was hardly envisaged when these “reforms” were discussed and implemented. There is every reason for other countries to study developments in Sweden in this respect. Today a much more stringent regulation of schools and medical and care services is on the agenda. This is, at any rate, what the labour movement is currently discussing and proposing.
...
The future of the welfare state touches on, by implication, how much of our consumption should be handled by individual citizens in their private capacity, and how much should be paid for jointly in the public sector and in collective forms. The question of the rate of taxation will have to be discussed. The Swedish welfare model covers many areas and relies on financing via taxation to a considerable extent.

As early as the late 1950s, John Kenneth Galbraith was arguing that a greater proportion of our consumption should be channelled through the public sector rather than disbursed in the private sphere – otherwise the private sector would become rich and the public sector poor. This risk is just as obvious today.

- And Larry Hubich writes about the need to deal with a massive (and growing) income gap in Saskatchewan.

- CBC reports on the Cons' latest attempt to revive lawful access legislation (this time while talking about cyber-bullying instead). Paula Simons recognizes the civil liberties at stake when telecoms are encouraged to hand over sensitive personal information to the state without notice to anybody affected, while David Fraser is working on a thorough review of the bill.

- Finally, Tim Harper and Mohammed Adam both take a moment to highlight Chris Montgomery as the lone person advising the upper echelons of the Cons' leadership who spoke out against the bribery and cover-up carried out by the PMO and its Senate flunkies. But Montgomery's role only highlights the unethical behaviour of the rest of the individuals involved - who can't claim they merely went along with a plan that wasn't questioned by anybody, but who actively labeled a public servant who pointed out its ethical frailties as "the Problem" while pushing ahead with their scheme.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Bill Curry reports on the Cons' continued refusal to provide accurate information to the PBO - with the end result being that an office intended to provide a fully-informed, unbiased perspective in evaluating government action is now being forced to make Access to Information requests in an attempt to do its job.

- If it's seldom easy to unite Canada's provinces behind a single cause, the Cons can at least take credit on that front - as their no-consultation, poorly-thought-out jobs grant has managed to win unanimous disapproval from our premiers. And Matthew Mendelsohn discusses a few of the problems:

The programs that the federal government plans to cut — delivered under the Labour Market Agreements — are those that fund training for Canadians who are not eligible for Employment Insurance. These workers are typically the most vulnerable and hard to serve. Many of the programs that could be cut are those that support the essential literacy and numeracy skills that are critical for unemployed Canadians to re-enter the workforce.
...
The federal government is proposing to use the $300 million diverted from the Labour Market Agreements to create a new program called the Canada Job Grant, which would pay employers to train workers through educational institutions. Employers would have to kick in one-third of the funds, and provincial governments would likewise have to come up with an additional third.

This would act as a windfall subsidy to employers who already provide the type of training covered by the program — mostly large employers — who could see their training bill fall by two-thirds. But it would probably be too complex and bureaucratic for many small and medium-sized employers to access.

Given that the maximum grant from the federal government would be $5,000 per trainee for short-duration programs, it is hard to see how this would actually help provide workers with the advanced skills they need to take the high-skill jobs where there really are labour shortages. There is simply no evidence to suggest that these small subsidies to large firms would be more effective than the current programs that provinces and communities have been building over the past decade to help unemployed people get jobs.

- Meanwhile, Jeff Jedras makes the case against the Cons' attempt to exercise control over access to the Internet. And Lee Berthiaume reports on their push to turn Canada into an arms dealer.

- Finally, Ish Theilheimer argues for a Marshall Plan aimed at improving the lot of people living precarious lives around the globe. And Mark Bittman sees some hopeful signs in the movement toward a living wage in the U.S.' fast food and retail industries.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Kathleen Geier makes the case for greater progressive activism at lower levels of government - and the point applies with equal force in Canada:

(T)hose of us who want to build a more progressive America would be well-advised to pay relatively less attention to presidential races and more attention to politics at the state and local level. Here are a few reasons why:

1. Because state and local races tend to have lower turnout, you get more bang for your activist buck. A relatively small but well-organized and committed group of activists can make a big difference in a low-turnout election. And because local campaigns are cheaper than national ones, your donations can be more powerful. Think about it: to whom was your marginal political dollar worth more in 2012, Barack Obama in his campaign for president, or Wendy Davis in her campaign for the Texas state senate?

2. Mass political movements with the most staying power and popular support often are enacted first at the grassroots level. Only later do they work their way up the political food chain. Case in point: the modern American conservative movement. In the 50s and 60s, conservative activists tended to focus on local issues, such as school board elections, as this and other histories of that movement document. Only after over 20 years of intense activism did the conservatives finally get their dream president, Ronald Reagan.

3. One way to ensure you’ll have strong progressive candidates for national office (the presidency and the U.S. House and Senate) is by electing strong progressive candidates at the state and local level. That’s where those national candidates are recruited from, after all.

- The Washington Post updates how the U.S.' security apparatus collects and compares personal information from a number of websites to carry out online surveillance. And Timothy Ash writes that plenty of familiar IT businesses have been entirely happy to play along with state surveillance requests.

- Meanwhile, leftdog notes that the vulture capitalists are circling SaskTel among other Saskatchewan Crowns.

- Finally, Stephanie Levitz reports on the Cons' deliberate choice to underfund Canadian culture - and it's not for lack of available projects to be funded:

Figures from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration suggest at least $5 million a year hasn't been disbursed since 2007, and the department's marquee funding program has seen nearly 40 per cent of available funds go unused.

So the department is scaling back the amount of money it sets aside for community multiculturalism projects, despite the fact that an internal government audit suggests demand for the cash remains high and that the government itself is partly to blame for the fact it isn't being spent.
...
In 2010-2011, about $14 million was spent under the program to fund 140 projects and events.
But that money represented only 63 per cent of what was set aside, according to documents from the department obtained via the Access to Information Act.

That year, 751 proposals were received, with the total value of requested funds being nine times the available cash, a 2011 audit found.

Though 567 projects were considered eligible, only 39 were recommended to the minister for approval and only 25 per cent were funded.

"The approval process for projects and events was identified by many stakeholders as the single biggest impediment to the effective operation of the program," the audit said.

"The lack of transparency and lengthy timelines associated with this process made it very difficult for program staff to manage their clients or expend their budgets."

But when it came to spending seven figures to rebrand the military based purely on their own whims, the Cons couldn't burn through public money fast enough. 

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Polly Toynbee writes that there's no magic involved in collecting fair tax rates from the rich - only a need for the political will to fund public priorities:

Cutting the 50% top rate suggests no great enthusiasm for rigorous taxing. Last week's ONS figures revealed gigantic avoidance of the 50% top rate. It could have been collected but George Osborne needed to prove it didn't work. The Treasury estimated raising the rate to 50% should bring in £6.2bn, but the actual return was a puny £100m.

In year one, before its official start date, high earners gamed the tax by rushing to take dividends and bonuses early. They paid more into pensions, gaining undeserved higher tax relief. Or they used trusts, or took income as capital gains. (That can be stopped, by fixing capital gains, as Nigel Lawson did, at the same rate as income tax, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies advocates.) Once Osborne announced the top rate would fall to 45%, high earners gamed it again. Incomes Data Services reports a massive delay in bonuses until after 6 April, when they leapt up by 107% in the finance sector to catch the new 45% rate. That could have been forestalled.

To Osborne it proved there's no point in taxing the rich. But the IFS says Denmark successfully collects its high top rate because it has no dodges: the rich can be taxed if reliefs are blocked. But this government never worried over income being sucked up from middle to top, with the share of national income taken by the top 1% now having risen to 14%, as GDP shifts from pay to profits. Osborne redistributes taxes the wrong way. Even raising tax thresholds sees most gain go to the top half, not to low earners.
...
Tax cheating should be Labour's chance to tell honest political truths: you get what you pay for, you can't have Swedish services on US tax ideology. Tax is the price we pay for civilisation. At elections, all parties promise the impossible, more with less and cuts in "bureaucracy" to pay for everything. Treating the public like children on tax does nothing for trust in politics. The door has opened for that conversation.

- Meanwhile, Miles Corak notes that we can't make any strides toward equality of opportunity without treating more equal distribution of wealth as a priority:

Relatively less upward mobility of the least advantaged is one reason why intergenerational mobility is lower in the United States than in other countries to which Americans are often compared. But it is not the only reason. Intergenerational mobility is also lower because children of top-earning parents are more likely to become top earners in their turn. An era of rising inequality is more likely to heighten these differences than to diminish them.

Inequality lowers mobility because it shapes opportunity. It heightens the income consequences of innate differences between individuals; it also changes opportunities, incentives, and institutions that form, develop, and transmit characteristics and skills valued in the labor market; and it shifts the balance of power so that some groups are in a position to structure policies or otherwise support their children’s achievement independent of talent.

Thus, those who are concerned about equality of opportunity should also care about inequality of outcomes.

- The CP reports on Canada's role in spying on allies through CSEC's electronic surveillance.

- Frances Russell comments on how both the federal ethics commissioner and the RCMP have all too willingly functioned as servants of the Harper Cons rather than the public interest.

- Finally, Sean Holman writes about the corrosive effect of excessive party discipline on Canadian democracy:

(I)t’s reasonable to assume “there’s got to be times, random chance if nothing else, that some of us disagree with what we’re voting on.”

But the fear of talking about what happens in caucus and cabinet – the private spaces where MLAs, MPPs and MPs are allowed to voice dissenting opinions about public issues – means that Canadians have little understanding of why their representatives make such compromises.

An example of that fear: during a background interview, one politician told me that, as a first-time provincial candidate, “I knew I was part of a larger franchise and I would only be able to sell drinks in the same size cup as everyone else. But I did think I would be able to at least decorate my store the way I wanted and have my own customer service approach.”

But when we sat down for what became a sweaty, two-hour on-camera interview, the politician talked about being a supporter (of) party discipline.

The politician later told me about suffering “sleepless nights” contemplating what may have been said during that interview, which I left on the cutting room floor.

New column day

Here, on how Canada's federal privacy law actually prohibits our own federal government from conducting secret surveillance (so long as it's actually followed) - as well as how little that law means if countries don't recognize that privacy applies beyond their borders.

For further reading...
- Michelle Shepard reported here on Canada's history of surveillance activities. 
- The federal Privacy Act is here. See in particular section 11's obligation to public lists of personal information collected by each government institution, as well as the treatment of exempt data banks in section 18. 
- CSEC allows Canadians to make requests for their own information here. But it points to this generic list of personal information banks, rather than mentioning that any set of "data trails" on Canadians might be collected.
- Meanwhile, CSEC points proudly to its "foreign intelligence allies" here - with a couple of countries well known for excessive surveillance looming prominently on the list. And Peter MacKay is trying to use the "foreigners" dodge in responding to questions about CSEC's activities - while pogge highlights why we need international pushback against the surveillance state. 
- I don't see much value in the proposal floated by Jack Harris and Hugh Segal to brief a small number of parliamentarians on spying activity - as the provision of information which can't be used as part of a public discussion only figures to make it more difficult for anybody to ask tough questions.
- Finally, Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart has weighed in with her own confirmation that metadata should be treated as protected personal information.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Jason Fekete reports that the Harper Cons are taking the side of international tax evaders against other G8 leaders trying to implement an effective enforcement system. And CBC reports that the Canada Revenue Agency has repeatedly turned down the opportunity to access information about tax cheats based on a policy of not offering enforcement rewards.

- In the wake of revelations about the U.S.' PRISM surveillance system (summarized by Mathew Ingram), Michael Geist warned that Canadians should be equally concerned about their privacy. And that observation looks particularly apt in light of Colin Freeze's revelation that Peter MacKay personally approved the revival of a dormant program which "incidentally" intercepts online communications.

- John Cotter reports that the Cons are once again slashing basic regulation - as the Canadian Food Inspection Agency will let livestock producers decide for themselves whether it's worth doing anything to curb the spread of anthrax. And the CFIA is being particularly explicit in confirming that public health is being treated as a "business decision":

“It is very much a business decision or a cost-benefit decision on the basis of the producer and their veterinarian,” said Dr. Penny Greenwood, national manager of domestic disease control for the CFIA.

“When it is a business decision, it is really not appropriate for CFIA to be involved in the control of those diseases, as opposed to diseases that are very difficult to control.”

- Finally, Andrew Potter's take on Rob Ford is well worth a read. But I'll particularly highlight this point as to the type of personality issue that actually should concern voters assessing Ford and his enablers:

(T)here’s something more basic to Ford’s personality, and there’s nothing that appealing about it: the man has zero self-control. From reading while driving himself to work, drinking to excess at official functions, going to KFC while on a much-publicized diet or allegedly smoking crack and hanging out with drug dealers, it is clear that Ford is simply incapable of resisting temptation or delaying gratification.

And — it is crazy that this needs pointing out — there is nothing politically or morally praiseworthy about this. From Plato to Freud and everyone in between and since, self-mastery of the passions by our capacity for reason has been recognized as the key to being a proper-functioning adult and to the proper functioning of the city. No one has seriously made the case that rule by the passions, the id, the animal instincts, is a viable way to run a polity of any size. More to the point, no one has credibly argued that this is any way for a grown-up to behave.

Except, that is, Ford’s enablers, whose greatest fear is that he will go to rehab and expose their ongoing support for what it really is: a dangerous and foolish egging-on of a very sick man. Which is what makes Ford less of a buffoon and more of a tragic figure.

Tuesday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your day.

- Kayle Hatt's blog looks to be a must-read from here on in. And his post on what to draw from the latest polls is particularly worth a read:

Every poll that has been released since Thomas Mulcair was elected leader of the NDP has showed the NDP on an upward path but there was some debate about if that was just a ‘Honeymoon Blip’ or a new reality. While time will always be the final judge on political predictions, I’d suggest this poll (which has a large enough sample size to break down in depth) suggests a big shift is underway in the Canadian Political landscape.

The poll reports not just minor ‘across-the-board’ increases for Thomas Mulcair’s NDP but sizable shifts in key demographics than have historically trended more Conservative. If this was just a honeymoon, we would expect to see slight increases everywhere but not large swings. Large polling swings are hardly ever ‘blips’.

- John Ibbitson points out that the Cons' lack of an industrial strategy - and worse yet, their claim that catering to the whims of the oil sands is all the economic strategy Canada needs - has led to inevitable clashes between regions of the country. And PLG is duly incredulous that a province which has spent decades talking about building a wall around itself seems shocked that the rest of the country hasn't meekly agreed to abandon any hope of economic development for its sole benefit.

- Meanwhile, the Globe and Mail editorial board is the latest to recognize how worrisome it is that the Cons are determined to suppress the speech of anybody who doesn't share their cheerleading proclivities.

- Andre Picard chimes in on how the Cons' move to deprive refugee claimants of health care is as counterproductive as it is mean-spirited.

-  Finally, we can only hope John Ibbitson is right in speculating that the Cons' latest attempt at online surveillance legislation is indeed dead for now.

Saturday Afternoon Links

This and that for a sunny Saturday.

- Paul Wells discusses the clash shaping up between the Cons and the NDP:

Some 57 per cent of respondents said they’re dissatisfied with the Harper government, compared to 36 per cent who like it. Last month’s federal budget drew more unsatisfied reaction than satisfied, and respondents who associated themselves with “the left” outnumbered those sympathizing with “the right” everywhere except Ontario (where they tied) and the three Prairie provinces.

Those numbers don’t spell Conservative doom. They do suggest a non-Conservative alternative has a fighting chance. So too does another poll from Environics for the fledgling Broadbent Institute, which is dedicated to bankrolling polls that gladden the heart of one-time NDP leader Ed Broadbent. This one sure did the trick. It found majorities concerned about income inequality, willing to pay higher taxes to reduce inequality, and positively eager to watch the rich pay higher taxes to reduce income inequality.

So there’s potential traction for a larger-government alternative to the Conservatives. The more thoughtful people around Stephen Harper admit as much. They don’t think their man has shut down the political left, merely that he has managed to stay one step ahead of it while beginning to build a conservative alternative that can stay in the game for the long haul. More Canadians voted against the Conservatives last May 2 than for them. If those Canadians could unite behind one leader or party, Harper would be in trouble.
...
Today Harper clearly thinks he has global environmentalists on the run. He has dismantled his government’s in-house climate analysis capacity, he’s shutting down arm’s-length advice from the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, and he plans to clamp down on foreign financing of environmentalist groups in Canada. His current environment minister, Peter Kent, can hardly believe how lucky he is to help Harper get all this done.

If the population still believes the environment is worth a fight, such callous disregard for the pieties to which he once paid careful lip service will hurt Harper big time. But that’s a big “if.” Harper’s full-tilt promotion of oil sands development and natural-resource exports has so far caused much less public controversy than, say, his decision to prorogue Parliament unnecessarily at the start of 2010. Harper is betting that in a shaky economy most people will be in no mood to ask fancy questions about sustainability.

- But then, Matt Price points out how the Harper Cons' extreme anti-environmental stance is thoroughly alienating plenty of the B.C. voters who have contributed to their existing western base:

It is an irony that Stephen Harper, a proponent of decentralizing power to the provinces, now wants to override B.C. objections by declaring this pipeline to be a matter of "national interest" and attacking anyone opposed to it. But, now that his Ottawa runs on oil, the industry must get its way, regardless of what the people want.

Has Harper miscalculated? Since going on the attack in January, his party has dropped 16 points in B.C. polls. To be sure, B.C. has pockets of deep blue sympathetic to the Conservative cause, but as with B.C. culture in general, these are populists who don't like to see far-away Ottawa throwing its weight around like a bully.
...
In sum, the battle over the proposed Enbridge pipeline represents the clash of the new oil-driven Conservative coalition versus an unwilling province packed with people who have never been known to roll over and play dead. This will rock the country.

The last time a political party in Ottawa used a "national interest" argument to impose its energy agenda on a province, it poisoned the well there for generations. And as the planet burns, this time around it is about more than political poisoning, but about the actual poisoning of our atmosphere that those generations need for security and prosperity.

- Andrew Leach offers up a primer on some of the decisions to be made surrounding natural resource royalty rates. But it surely can't escape notice that he leaves out one rather important alternative - as there's no reason (other than an ideological refrain from the corporatist right) why profitable resources can't be developed by public entities rather than private ones if the result is a better deal for the citizens who own them.

- Finally, Bruce Johnstone criticizes the Cons for resolutely refusing to learn from their own mistakes. And in that vein, Sheila Dabu Nonato reports that in pushing their online surveillance bill, the Cons are following a path that's just been found unconstitutional when it comes to existing wiretapping law.