Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Stephanie Soucheray examines how COVID-19 can cause lasting damage to the brain even without causing severe initial symptoms, while the British Heart Foundation points out the soaring rates of cardiovascular disease during the course of the ongoing pandemic. And Lisa Lundberg-Morris et al. find that vaccination helps to prevent long COVID. 

- But while there has been (and remains) ample room for public policy to reduce the spread of COVID, Alanna Smith reports on the complete lack of return on the UCP's $80 million investment in giving Ottawa the middle finger. 

- Jason Markusoff highlights how Preston Manning's publicly-funded COVID inquiry report is a work of fiction. And Bob Hepburn rightly asks why the Canadian media is largely giving Pierre Poilievre a pass on his refusal to engage with the real world of policy development. 

- Markham Hislop talks to Janet Annesley about the culture of secrecy in Alberta's oil sector which precludes any honest discussion of the dangers of fossil fuel extraction and dependency. And Marco Chown Oved points out the folly of building new carbon pollution infrastructure (including fossil gas electricity generation) and pretending it's somehow a climate solution. 

- Finally, Cory Doctorow discusses how the dominant tech giants have succumbed to long-foreseen enshittification - and points out how institutions can be set up and managed to avoid that outcome. 

Thursday Morning Links

This and that to start your year.

- Ian Welsh comments on the challenges we face in trying to turn wealth increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few into a better world for everybody:

The irony is that we have, again, produced a cornucopia.  We have the potential to create an abundance society, the world over and eventually off this world.

We have much of the technology necessary, and we could direct our research and development towards the remaining technology we need.

Instead, we rely on markets controlled by oligarchs and central banks captured by oligarchs to make most of our decisions about our future.

We have systematically dis-empowered ourselves. Going from mass conscription armies and industrial warfare and mass markets driven by relatively egalitarian citizen-consumers in democracies, to oligarchies with unrepresentative armies increasingly filled with drones (and effective ground combat drones will be here in 10 to 20 years), surveillance states bordering on police states, and democracies which are hollow, where we can choose from Oligarchical faction one, two or maybe three.  The differences between them, while real, are within the broad agreement to keep giving the rich more.

And so, we come back to, how do we change the direction of our societies?  Our society, for the world is more and more one society.

- And Dacher Keltner discusses the connection between wealth, inequality, and the empathy deficit which offers the most obvious opportunity for improving the society in which we live:



- Meanwhile, Cameron Roberts makes the case for a guaranteed annual income from an environmental perspective. Zoe Williams writes that we should appreciate the ability to benefit from paying our fair share of taxes toward public benefits. And Bernie Sanders nicely summarizes the progressive vision we should be working toward.
 
- The Star's editorial board writes that we can't expect meaningful social progress in Canada without a federal government willing to work toward it.

- Finally, Paul Adams highlights Preston Manning's eagerness to throw democracy out the window in Alberta as a compelling example of phony right-wing populism designed only to entrench corporate interests. But Owen Jones is hopeful that genuine popular movements are building up which can offer alternatives to business as usual.

On deflection

Shorter Preston Manning:

Mike Duffy openly flouted the Parliamentary Press Gallery's rules for years by seeking to trade his celebrity for a patronage appointment. When Stephen Harper was the only Prime Minister willing to offer that deal for political gain, Duffy proceeded to flout every new set of rules which applied to him as a Senator while serving as the Conservatives' most prominent fund-raiser, setting up a scandal and cover-up reaching to the top levels of the Prime Minister's office.

Obviously, this story demonstrates there's a problem with the Parliamentary Press Gallery, and no other person or party involved. So leave my buddy Steve alone.

Needless to say, Susan Delacourt's response detailing the actual role of the Parliamentary Press Gallery is worth a read.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Public Interest Alberta takes a closer look at that province's rhetoric about taxes, and finds that in fact most Albertans pay more income tax than they would under the more fair and progressive systems applied in other province:

“Albertans who believe the myth that we pay the lowest taxes in Canada will be surprised to see that they are paying more income tax than if they lived in BC or Ontario. At the same time, people in Alberta with very high incomes are paying tens of thousands less in income tax than in other parts of Canada,” said Bill Moore-Kilgannon, Executive Director of Public Interest Alberta.

An Albertan with a taxable income of $1 million will pay $41,095 less than if they lived in BC and $75,157 less than if they lived in Ontario. However, an Albertan with a taxable income of $70,000 will pay $1434 more than if they lived in BC and $919 more than if they lived in Ontario.

- Andrew Jackson rebuts a few of the zombie arguments against higher minimum wages. And Scott Clark and Peter DeVries highlight not only why there's ample reason for concern about the federal budget, but also why Jim Flaherty's obsession with austerity and naive faith in the confidence fairy may cause yet more economic problems in the years to come.

- Meanwhile, Chantal Hebert wonders whether the Cons' move to claw back billions of dollars for EI training will lead to a backlash from the provinces involved. And that's doubly so given the question of whether the Cons' purpose has anything at all to do with achieving results, or whether it's simply a matter of wanting to be able to engage in another round of gratuitous self-promotion.

- Geoffrey Stevens and the Macleans editorial board both make the case that it's time to take a serious look at abolishing the Senate.

- Finally, Frances Russell contrasts Preston Manning's one-time concern with building a party and a movement which would be broadly acceptable to the Canadian public against his current embrace of Ron Paul and other dubious figures.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Michael Harris rightly points out that a steady stream of scandals and incompetence from the Cons says plenty about Stephen Harper's own judgment (or lack thereof):

Sooner or later, the country is going to realize that there is something terribly wrong with Stephen Harper’s judgment.

And sooner or later, the Conservative party is going to realize one-man bands are great until the tuba player runs out of breath.

At the moment, judged only by his record in Senate appointments, Harper’s eye for talent appears to be made of glass.

Patrick Brazeau and Mike Duffy have become media migraines for the government. Both have tarnished the Tory brand. They were the PM’s picks. Blow the draft choices, face the consequences.
...
Like some of his appointments, the Senate itself is further evidence of poor judgment by the prime minister. Instead of the refreshing promise of reform, Harper has turned the Senate into a bank machine for the Conservative Party, using his appointees to raise money at endless fundraisers and to fiddle the system.

Harper’s broken promise is bad enough, especially the part about patronage having no role to play in the parliament of Canada. The reality check? No one has outdone the current PM in sending party hacks, bagmen, failed candidates and media sycophants to the trough.

The difference between this PM and his predecessors is that he didn’t stop at stacking the Senate with pork. He remorselessly used it as just another partisan forum, on one occasion deploying a patronage-based Senate to kill a climate-change bill that had already been passed by elected MPs. That hadn’t happened in seven decades.

- Meanwhile, Kelly McParland considers Mike Duffy to be a case in point as to how the Senate is long past its expiry date:

A senator’s primary residence would matter if the Senate still did the job for which it was originally intended, representing provincial interests in Ottawa. But the fact is it doesn’t: the provinces, led by their premiers, do that for themselves, as they have long done.

The leaves the Senate with its other mandate, acting as  a chamber of “sober second thought.”  Except it doesn’t do that either. There may be a small group of senators who add some value to the legislative process in Ottawa, but the majority are of the Duffy type, patronage appointments put there to agree with the prime minister who appointed them. For years the chamber acted as a Liberal nodding shop; more recently Prime Minister Stephen Harper has stuffed it with compliant Tory appointees, whose main job is to agree to reform themselves if and when Mr. Harper ever gets a Senate reform bill to that stage. How qualified can members be if they can’t even identify where they live?

That being the case, the situation faced by Sen. Duffy inadvertently illustrates why the Senate is no longer needed: because it has too many members like Mr. Duffy, whose consumption of public income and resources serves no purpose. Think of how much better served Canadians would be were Sen. Duffy to be retired, enabling him to spend all his time in Cavendish.

- Peter O'Neil reports that Preston Manning and Ed Broadbent have joined Kennedy Stewart's push to encourage a petition process which will at least ensure MPs consider issues of importance to citizens.

- Finally, Sid Ryan and Alex Himelfarb make the case for Ontario to look beyond the pain fixation of austerians:

Cutting our way to growth failed as a budget strategy in the 1930s and it will not work now. As economist Paul Krugman notes, government deficits are a symptom of a greater economic disease, not the disease itself. It follows then, that if we zealously tackle the symptom and ignore the disease, we risk making the situation much worse.

We need to understand how we got into deficit if we are to develop sensible, prudent policies. The evidence here is clear: loss of revenue and increased spending after the financial meltdown (although spending was not our problem before the recession and it isn’t now) and years of tax cuts that mostly benefited wealthy citizens and corporations to the tune of $15 billion while never delivering on their promise of growth and jobs.

Budgets that eliminate waste and reduce debt in good times are prudent budgets. Budgets that cut programs and services, lower wages, and maintain unaffordable tax cuts, especially when the economy is struggling, are neither prudent nor responsible.

It’s time to change the conversation on austerity, to talk about getting Ontarians back to work in jobs that pay a living wage, to talk about revenues and not just cuts, to talk about building a better future together.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Dan Gardner rightly notes that we should be encouraging more public advocacy from charities and other groups with useful input to offer into policy debates - not shutting it down as the Cons are doing:

“Many charities have acquired a wealth of knowledge about how government policies affect people’s lives. Charities are well-placed to study, assess, and comment on those government policies. ... It is therefore essential that charities continue to offer their direct knowledge of social issues to public policy debates.”

That’s the government talking. More specifically, that’s the government’s principle policy statement on the involvement of charities in political activities. It came into effect in 2003. It’s still in force.

And who could disagree? We’re not talking about partisan politics, which charities aren’t permitted to get involved in. Here, “political activity” means debates about whether some law or policy should be changed in some way (or retained, if change is being discussed). Charities develop specialized knowledge about the fields they work in and if they get involved they add an informed perspective. Whether I or anyone else agrees with their views, or whether the government ultimately acts on them, does not matter. They enrich the discussion. And that can make public policy better.
...

(L)leading Conservatives are now using incredibly bellicose language to attack charities involved in what they consider to be inappropriate political activity. Senator Eaton has even suggested that churches — a big part of the charitable sector — have no business getting involved in political activity at all. “I don’t think churches should take political stands,” Senator Eaton said in a recent interview. “I think they should be more about helping people and giving people succour.” 

Of course Eaton’s statement is gibberish, since politics can be an effective way to help people. But this isn’t about logic. It’s about sending a message. And the Senator’s message to charities couldn’t be clearer: Shut up and stay away from politics.

You can bet charities are hearing that loud and clear.

- Erika Shaker exposes a few of the myths behind the reactionary response to Quebec's tuition and civil liberties protests.

- Paul Dechene points out that a list of Canada's most endangered heritage sites includes Regina's Connaught School.

- No, I don't expect that many respondents were actually hugely familiar with the Cons' move to close the Lake of the Woods Experimental Lakes Area until Forum polled about it. But it still seems noteworthy how many of those polled recognized the problem once they were informed about it.

- Finally, shorter Preston Manning, speaking strictly as a neutral and nonpartisan citizen with no interest whatsoever in shilling for the Cons or the tar sands:

WAAAAH! No fair pricing carbon to take into account the costs of pollution unless we also charge more for hydro! And the sun! And the wind! And energy conservation! And...

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Scott Brison is partly right in dismissing the Con-based talk about a possible agreement with the NDP on the budget. But the story only seems to have gone anywhere because the Libs themselves have been so eager to parrot the Cons' spin that the NDP would support the Harper government notwithstanding that its position has been clear on the Cons' corporatist focus:

Mr. Mulcair said the NDP wants future corporate cuts to be more targeted to ensure companies are investing in jobs and productivity.

“If the budget includes the same type of blind, across-the-board corporate tax cut that the Conservatives have been doing in the past, it is highly unlikely that the NDP caucus would ever be able to support such a budget,” said Mr. Mulcair.

- John Ibbitson's year-end review of the Cons nicely highlights Stephen Harper's seven-dimensional ultrachess at work:

The morning of the vote, Lawrence Cannon arrived at the United Nations absolutely confident that Canada would win a temporary seat on the Security Council, according to someone who was close to the situation. His diplomats had assured him they had more than enough written and verbal commitments to win one of the two seats up for grabs.

When Canada came up short on the first round of voting, the Foreign Affairs Minister “was absolutely astounded,” according to one source. So certain were the Canadians of victory in the first round, they lacked a strategy to build momentum in the second round. The delegation sat there, dumbfounded, as votes drained away.

And once again, it's well worth wondering whether the Cons' hubris may well result in similarly surprising results at home.

- Yes, I understand the appeal of using anti-tax language against the Cons. But can we agree that a message that the CPP and EI should be seen as "common villains" might not be one that deserves repeating?

- And finally, Preston Manning offers up a short story about the Underpants Gnome Privatization Theory of Health Care. I'd suggest that he stick to his day job, but he's probably doing less damage as long as he's writing extremely short fiction.