Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Kevin Young, Tarun Banerjee and Michael Schwartz discuss how capital uses the exact tools it's working to take away from labour - including the threat of strikes - to impose an anti-social agenda on the public:

Capitalists routinely exert leverage over governments by withholding the resources — jobs, credit, goods, and services — upon which society depends. The “capital strike” might take the form of layoffs, offshoring jobs and money, denying loans, or just a credible threat to do those things, along with a promise to relent once government delivers the desired policy changes.

Government officials know this power well, and invest great energy and public resources in staving off fits by malcontent capitalists. The profoundly rotten campaign finance system is just one manifestation of business’s domination over government policy. The real power resides in the corporate world’s monopoly over the flow of capital.
...
Dewey’s analysis calls for the elimination of concentrated economic power — that is, the elimination of capital’s capacity to disrupt a nation by withdrawing investment. Only by targeting the “substance” of corporate power — rather than its shadow, the government — can major progressive change be achieved and sustained.

Expanding on this insight, we believe that progressive social movements should directly target business elites. They are the main enemies of change, but they also have the power to facilitate reforms if they face sufficient pressure. If movements can alter capitalists’ cost-benefit calculations, government action favorable to popular interests becomes much more likely.

Workers’ rights movements in the 1930s and civil rights struggles in the 1960s succeeded largely by exerting pressure on business owners, who eventually supported progressive policy reforms as a way of cutting their own losses. Business elites’ structural power was greatly mitigated — and in fact harnessed to movement goals — when activists imposed high enough costs.

Ultimately, the capital strike teaches us that reform is not enough. Power over investment brings power over the political process.

- Speaking of which, Bill Curry and Sean Silcoff report that Bill Morneau's hand-picked economic advisers are pushing the Libs to delay retirement for working Canadians.

- Jean Comte reports on the EU's efforts to develop a common list of tax havens - with Canada currently looking to be among the candidates for facilitating tax evasion.

- Jim Edwards examines how the UK's economy is only getting more unequal with time, due in large part to the gap between homeowners benefiting from soaring property prices and renters facing stagnant wages and higher costs.

- Toni Pickard argues that progressives should make the case for a fair and generous basic income to ensure that a policy receiving support across partisan lines isn't used to undermine the welfare state. And Poverty Free Saskatchewan's submission to SaskForward points out some transformational changes which could end poverty in the province.

- Finally, the Star's editorial board highlights why we shouldn't take a bare request to "trust us" as the basis for providing unaccountable power to a surveillance state. And Elizabeth Thompson reports on the use of public resources to monitor peaceful activists for an inquiry into murdered and missing Indigenous women.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Sarah-Taïssir Bencharif discusses her experience facing prejudice against Muslims in Canada. But Ashifa Kassam reports on the growing public response to violence, as communities across the country formed "rings of peace" around mosques during their prayers on Friday.

- Meanwhile, Maher Arar points out how Canada's security state has been built around Islamophobia. And Manisha Krishnan argues that any real security threat comes from the radical right.

- But then, Kyle Curlew makes the point that we should be more skeptical of the basis for an unaccountable and intrusive security state to begin with. And CSIS' wanton intrusions into personal privacy (which it can't even be bothered to document) look to reinforce the position that the only reasonable direction to pursue is that of dismantling baseless surveillance.

- Finally, the Star's editorial board writes that it's long past time for the federal government to stop breaking its promises and obligations to Canada's First Nations.

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Claudia Chwalisz points out that in addition to relying on a distortionary electoral system, the Trudeau Libs' majority was built on a bubble which now seems likely to pop. Michael Harris wagers that Canadians will remember the broken core promise when they go to the polls in 2019. John Ivison highlights how Trudeau's personal choice to nix electoral reform feeds into exactly the cynicism which he claimed to want to end, while Aaron Wherry traces the shift from promising better to delivering the same old betrayal of the public trust. Alison documents some of Trudeau's past false statements about being open to something other than his own preferred system. And Stephen Tweedale and John Geddes expose the patent absurdity of the Libs' excuses for breaking a crucial commitment.

- Meanwhile, Brent Patterson notes that oil barons have had no problem getting their slightest whims catered to by Trudeau and his government - including by having an anticipated NAFTA renegotiation biased toward oil exports rather than any other public priority.

- Theda Skocpol offers a guide to rebuilding the U.S. Democratic Party which should serve as a useful checklist for progressive organizing elsewhere as well. And CBC reports on Elections Saskatchewan's report on the 2016 election - pointing particularly to the lack of voter turnout.

- Geoff Leo reports on still more evidence trickling out about the Saskatchewan Party's Global Transportation Hub scandal - this time confirming that the most damning decisions were made solely at the political level without the knowledge of the officials whose organizations were used to make land purchases.

- Finally, Ashley Cowburn reports on the UK Labour Party's move to study a basic income in advance of the next election.

Saturday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your weekend reading.

- George Monbiot examines how politics in the UK and the U.S. are dominated by unaccountable corporate money. And Stephen Maher and B.J. Siekierski report that both the Libs and Cons are fully on board - as Rona Ambrose managed to take (however justified) umbrage at Justin Trudeau's vacation on a private island while she herself was being entertained on a billionaire's yacht.

- Alex Hemingway points out the similarities between the corporate infrastructure giveaways being planned by Trudeau and Donald Trump alike. And Paul Krugman discusses the particular menace raised by Trump in dealing with the world:

(T)his administration doesn’t seem prepared on any front. Mr. Trump’s confrontational phone calls, in particular, don’t sound like the working out of an economic or even political strategy — cunning schemers don’t waste time boasting about their election victories and whining about media reports on crowd sizes.

No, what we’re hearing sounds like a man who is out of his depth and out of control, who can’t even pretend to master his feelings of personal insecurity. His first two weeks in office have been utter chaos, and things just keep getting worse — perhaps because he responds to each debacle with a desperate attempt to change the subject that only leads to a fresh debacle.

America and the world can’t take much more of this. Think about it: If you had an employee behaving this way, you’d immediately remove him from any position of responsibility and strongly suggest that he seek counseling.

- Graham Readfeam exposes how the coal industry has turned its inaccurate talking points into the basis for far too many policy choices.

- The CP reports on yet another Tundra Energy oil spill in Saskatchewan - which should remind us how little claims about corporate responsibility have to do with reality.

- Finally, Deborah Aarts highlights the approach millenials take to the workplace - and notes that a reasonable expectation that they not be subjected to abuse is being read as being "coddled" by the higher-ups wanting to be able to exploit them.

Friday Evening Links

Assorted content for your Friday reading.

- Aditya Chakrabortty writes about the devastating combination of an urgent need for collective action on the key issues we face, and a deeply-entrenched political aversion to anything of the sort. And Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett highlight how the UK Cons are going out of their way to exacerbate the crisis of inequality while pointing out the only means to combat it:

Inequality is not driven by forces beyond our control but by politics and policy choices. The Resolution Foundation report says that the cuts in benefits to working-age people over the next four years are the main reason why inequality will rise. In the past, income differences widened because the incomes of the richest rose fastest. But the Resolution Foundation say that in future, living standards will fall among almost the entire bottom half of the working-age population. That will not simply make people more uncomfortable. It will damage democracy and the whole social fabric, making us a more antisocial society.
...
Previous major reductions of inequality have depended on powerful political movements. Inequality was very high in the 1920s but then declined – at first rapidly and then more slowly – from the 1930s until the 1970s. The modern rise in inequality started in about 1980 with neoliberal economics under Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, and has now returned us to 1920s levels of inequality. This pattern of declining inequality in the middle decades of the 20th century reflects the rise and fall of the labour movement and the fear of communism. The rise and fall of trade union membership is, in one country after another, almost a mirror image of trends in inequality. As trade unions got stronger, inequality declined and vice versa.
...
Studies have shown that people in more equal societies are more willing to help each other, trust each other, and to take part in community life. The evidence also suggests that they are less out for themselves and more responsive to the common good. But with rising inequality all that fades: trust and community life decline and violence increases...
...
Some academics argue that it takes a catastrophe to reduce inequality. But there is no shortage of solutions. What we need, and what is now beginning to emerge, is a mass movement capable of driving egalitarian policies forward. Taxes and benefits should be more redistributive than they are, but above all we need to reduce inequalities in incomes before tax. 

- Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood examines what the Trump administration and the end of the Trans-Pacific Partnership mean for trade - particularly in creating a new opportunity to include labour and the environment in our trade discussions if anybody cares to do so.

- Rachel Grey offers ten reasons why Canada needs a national housing plan. And Adetayo Bero discusses how stable housing can be crucial to mental health treatment.

- Meanwhile, Sarah DelVillano rightly criticizes the trend toward criminalizing poverty and the poor.

- Finally, Allison Hanes warns against letting casual hate slide when it can far too easily give rise to violence. And Caroline Biotteau reminds us that the people responsible for protecting security have long been aware that the most imminent risk of that violence originates in right-wing bigotry - even as both government and media have gone out of their way to fabricate other threats.

Musical interlude

Three Drives - Greece 2000

New column day

Here, on how we shouldn't be impressed with our political leaders' reactions to the bigotry on display in Donald Trump's Muslim ban and the Quebec City mosque shooting - but should see the popular response as a far more useful starting point for progress.

For further reading...
- I posted here on how Brad Wall has pushed exactly the same anti-immigrant messages underlying Trump's ban.
- Lama Mourad argues that Canada can't plausibly treat the U.S. as a safe destination for refugees who have been declared in advance to be persona non grata. And Sukanya Pillay looks in more detail at how we can respond to Donald Trump's Muslim ban.
- But Kathleen Harris reports on the Trudeau Libs' intention to do nothing whatsoever in the face of obvious humanitarian dangers.
- Jasmine Ramze Rezaee discusses how both provincial and federal politicians have stoked the anti-Muslim prejudice that led to the Quebec City shooting. And Rachel Lau reports on the spate of hate crimes that followed it.
- Finally, Shaun King offers a U.S. perspective on the mosque attack, while rightly arguing that injustice anywhere needs to be recognized and fought everywhere.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Andrew Coyne and Rob Mason each discuss Justin Trudeau's broken promise of a fairer electoral system. Chantal Hebert observes that the commitment itself - however frequently and fervently repeated - looks to have been little more than a cheap campaign prop. And Karl Nerenberg highlights how the Libs sucked in "strategic" voters with a promise they've done nothing but try to avoid keeping, while Ethan Cox places the false hope of electoral reform within a pattern of Lib lies.

- Andre Picard comments on the key issues which need to be addressed in Canadian health care - and particularly the importance of properly defining and funding medically necessary services, rather than letting user fees serve as a barrier to access.

- Carmen Lawrence asks who's really running Australia at a time when government choices seem to be oriented solely toward enriching corporate supporters:

It’s clear Australians are increasingly wary of the power of big business; in the latest post-election survey by researchers at the Australian National University, 74% responded “yes” to the proposition that “big business has too much power”, with 56% (up from the last survey) agreeing that “government is run for a few big interests”.
...
In the face of frequent revelations about corporate wrongdoing and corruption – including participation in foreign bribery, accelerating levels of tax avoidance and evasion, fraudulent misrepresentation of financial products, systematic underpayment of wages, and environmental vandalism – governments, state and federal, have not responded with robust measures to deter such practices. Nor have they made good use of the powers they already have to take effective action, despite evidence of clear abuses of corporate power.  

- And Sarah Cox raises similar concerns in British Columbia, where the Clark Libs are engaged in a scorched-earth campaign to stifle critics while pushing the controversial (but business-friendly) Site C project to the point where the public can't vote to stop it.

- Finally, Elise Stolte reports on a positive development out of Edmonton's City Council, which has voted to apply a subset clause to private reports to make sure they can be publicly reviewed once information is no longer sensitive.

On false change

The Libs have made it official that they're breaking their promise of electoral reform with no reason other than their own blinkered refusal to acknowledge the consensus in support of a more proportional system. But particularly in light of Justin Trudeau's past claims that all anybody really wanted was a change in government, let's remember exactly what it is that made a change in government and a change in electoral systems seem so tightly tied together - and what Trudeau is ultimately endorsing.

After all, the Harper majority which came before Trudeau was built on a systematic appeal to the vulnerabilities of FPTP. Unlike any other electoral system under consideration, that system rewarded a strategy aimed at targeting 30% of voters as firm supporters and another 10% as marginal ones - no matter how much the rest of the country was left out.

That's how we ended up stuck with absolute power in the hands of a Prime Minister whose views were far to the right of a strong majority of the country - and with the disastrous governance that resulted.

Now, Trudeau has chosen to saddle us with the continued potential for exactly that type of perverse result on us for election cycles to come, even after making a core promise to change matters for the better.

So we've confirmed today that just because it suits his own purposes in the short term, Trudeau is perfectly happy with a system which could hardly be better designed to favour the next Stephen Harper to exploit its distortions. Which means that in addition to not delivering the real change he promised Trudeau is personally trying to ensure we're stuck with more of the same to come.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Peter Martin reports on the Australia Institute's recent study showing that corporate tax levels have little to do with foreign investment:

New research ridicules the Prime Minister's claim that cutting the company tax rate will boost foreign investment, pointing out that almost all of Australia's foreign investment applications already come from countries with much lower tax rates.

The analysis by the Australia Institute finds that 97 per cent of the applications to Australia's foreign investment review board come from countries with lower company tax rates. By value, 71 per cent of applications come from countries with lower rates.

"All of this raises the question – if Australia is already successful at attracting foreign investment why would we give tax cuts to foreigners?" said the report's author David Richardson, a senior research fellow at the self-described progressive think tank.

"History shows that when Australia's company tax rates were adjusted in the past, foreign investment did not go the way expected. When the rate climbed to 49 per cent in the 1980s there was a rise, not a drop in investment."

- Dennis Gruending challenges Chrystia Freeland's unquestioning devotion to free trade agreements which haven't benefited anybody other than the wealthy few in practice. Patrick McDonnell writes about the effects of NAFTA and its possible repeal on Mexico - featuring the observation that the pattern of workers seeing little benefit from a corporate-driven trade deal applies just as much to the country which started with the lowest wages. And the ITF highlights how a trade deal with China may lock in ongoing abuses against workers.

- Rank and File provides a handy mythbusting guide to the effects of a more fair minimum wage.

- Finally, Jordon Cooper offers a reminder that more strict rules against panhandling don't do anything to change the social factors which drive it.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Benched cats.

Juxtaposition

So which of these quotes conflating immigration with terrorism is from the bigoted autocrat provoking protests around the world for his widely-acknowledged lack of human decency...

[The leader] is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering [his country] until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.
...
[The leader] stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life."

...and which one is from the premier currently trying to get in front of the parade headed in the opposite direction only when it suits his political interests?

[If] even a small number of individuals who wish to do harm to our country are able to enter [it] as a result of a rushed refugee resettlement process, the results could be devastating. The recent attacks in Paris are a grim reminder of the death and destruction even a small number of malevolent individuals can inflict upon a peaceful country and its citizens.
...
[My jurisdiction] will be fully supportive of any delays in resettling...refugees in order to ensure appropriate screening and security checks...
...
I note that refugee resettlement is one of the items to be discussed at our meeting next week. With that in mind, I am asking that you would have the appropriate officials provide [leaders] with a complete intelligence briefing on the terrorist threat that exists [in our country] today and on how the federal government plans to ensure that no ISIS-trained operatives are able to enter [the country], either as part of a refugee resettlement or in any other manner.

Suffice it to say that Byelection Brad's sudden claim to be an advocate against bigotry is about as credible as Donald Trump's past bloviations about defending the public from the greed of the financial sector.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Terry Glavin argues that Canada's response to Donald Trump's Muslim ban needs to consist of more than the platitudes offered by Justin Trudeau, while Tom Parkin and Chantal Hebert point out that even Trudeau's words to date have unduly downplayed Trump's dangers. And Andrew Coyne writes about the common hatred behind multiple attacks on Muslims - along with the politicians and pundits who have encouraged it.

- Meanwhile, Owen Jones writes that it will take a strong popular resistance to answer Trump's abuses of power. Martin Lukacs notes that the same principle applies to pushing for more humane refugee and immigration policies in Canada, while Heather Libby makes a compelling case that we need to offer more than thoughts and prayers in response to the Quebec mosque attack. And PressProgress highlights Ed Broadbent's suggestions as to how to make a difference.

- Jeremy Nuttall reminds us that Trump isn't the only recent U.S. president to facilitate the use of torture - and that Canada is still waiting on the Libs to reverse the Harper Cons' willingness to play along.

- Robin Sears discusses the importance of journalists in exposing and countering the power of a corrupted state.

- Finally, Karl Nerenberg examines Donald Trump's selective interest in limited government - as he's fully dedicated to using the power of the state to enrich himself and his corporate cronies. And Charles Pierce takes a look at the consequences - both intended and unintended - of the demolition of a functional regulatory system.

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Branko Milanovic offers his take on how the U.S.' version of liberalism paved the way for Donald Trump and his ilk both by buying into corporatist assumptions about success, and by treating electoralism as the basis for political organization:

In economics, liberalism espoused “neo-liberalism” which was the replacement economic ideology for social-democracy. It championed, especially under the Clinton-Blair duo, financial liberalization, much smaller welfare state, and so-called “meritocracy” which essentially meant the ability of the rich to place their kids into the best schools out of which 90% would graduate and thus “meritocratically” claim later in life huge wage premiums. Free trade agreement privileged, as Dean Baker has written, the interests of the rich in advanced economies through protection of patents and intellectual property rights and with scant or no attention to labor rights.
...

Corruption.  A corollary of this hyper-economicism in ordinary life was the corruption of the elites who espoused the same yardstick of success as everybody else: enrichment by all means. Avner Offer documents this shift in his analysis of where social-democracy went astray with “New Labor” and “New Democrats”. The corruption of the political class, not only in the West but in the entire world, had a deeply corrosive and demoralizing effect on the electorates everywhere.  Being politician became increasingly seen as a way to acquire personal riches, a career like any other, divorced from any real desire either to do “public service” or to try to promote own values and provide leadership. “Electoralism”, that is doing anything to be elected, was liberalism’s political credo. In that it presaged the populists.

...

Pensée unique. Liberalism introduced a dogmatic set of principles, “the only politically correct way of thinking” characterized by identity politics and “horizontal equality” (no differences, on average, in wages between men and women, different races or religions) which left actual inequality go unchecked. A tacit hierarchy was introduced, where the acceptance of these watered-down principles of equality combined with economic success, was the requirement to be “non-deplorable”. Others, those who did not do well economically or did not adhere to all the tenets of the mainstream thinking, were not only failures but morally inferior.

- John Cavanagh points out that free trade negotiations ultimately have far less to do with the relative bargaining power of the countries at the table, than with generally stacking the deck for businesses against people in all jurisdictions involved.

- Sarah Kendzior discusses the fallout of Trump's election, with even employees within the national park service being turned into enemies of the state for failing to devote themselves solely to the promotion of the president.

- Dylan Matthews writes about the cruelty which forms the animating principle behind Trump's refugee ban, while Benjamin Wittes is struck by the combination of malevolence and incompetence.  And Stephen Smith reports on a call for Canada to do the least it ought to - which is to end an agreement which bars refugees merely because they've set foot in what's supposed to be the safe haven of the U.S.

- And finally, George Lakoff offers one example as to how to start reframing the choices we face: rather than accepting a corporate-focused assumption that regulations represent "red tape" to be trashed at the first opportunity, we should treat them as essential protections from corporate misdeeds.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Naomi Klein writes that Donald Trump's cabinet represents a direct takeover of the U.S. government by the corporate oligarchy - and comments on what the progressive movement needs to do to fight back:

Let us be clear: This is not a peaceful transition of power. It’s a corporate takeover. The interests that have long since paid off both major parties to do their bidding have decided they are tired of playing the game. Apparently, all that wining and dining of politicians, all that cajoling and legalized bribery, insulted their sense of divine entitlement.

So now they are cutting out the middleman and doing what every top dog does when they want something done right — they are doing it themselves. Exxon for secretary of state. Hardee’s for secretary of labor. General Dynamics for secretary of defense. And the Goldman guys for pretty much everything that’s left. After decades of privatizing the state in bits and pieces, they decided to just go for the government itself. Neoliberalism’s final frontier. That’s why Trump and his appointees are laughing at the feeble objections over conflicts of interest — the whole thing is a conflict of interest; that’s the whole point.

So what do we do about it? First, we always remember their weaknesses, even as they exercise raw power. The reason the mask has fallen off and we now are witnessing undisguised corporate rule is not because these corporations felt all-powerful; it’s because they were panicked.
...
All this makes Trump incredibly vulnerable. This is the guy who came to power telling the boldest and brashest of lies, selling himself as a champion of the working man who would finally stand up to corporate power and influence in Washington. A portion of his base already has buyer’s remorse, and that portion is just going to grow.

Something else we have going for us? This administration is going to come after everyone at once. There are reports are of a shock-and-awe budget that will cut $10 trillion over 10 years, taking a chainsaw to everything from violence-against-women programs, to arts programs, to supports for renewable energy, to community policing. It’s clear they think this blitzkrieg strategy will overwhelm us. But they may be surprised — it could well unite us in common cause. And if the scale of the women’s marches is any indication, we are off to a good start.

- Meanwhile, Vikram Patel highlights how extreme inequality in India - which doesn't seem to be improving with economic development - fits into the broader global political picture.

- Sarah Boseley reports on Neena Modi's research showing the stark connections between childhood poverty and a wide range of health problems. And CBC discusses how workplace instability too is linked to health issues, as restructuring and layoffs tend to lead to sick leave and depression.

- Reuters reports on the latest major oil spill to highlight the dangers of rubber-stamping pipelines without recognizing the risks to the environment around them. And Emma Gilchrist notes that British Columbia's much-repeated talking points about "world-leading" oil spill responses don't mean for a second that anybody is prepared to deal with foreseeable disasters.

- Finally, Chantal Hebert examines where the Libs now stand on electoral reform, and points out that even their attempts to stack the deck in favour of false majorities have been met with strong public pushback.

Musical interlude

Iris - Guide On Raging Stars

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- The Canadian Labour Congress offers its suggestions as to how international trade agreements can be reworked to ensure a more fair global economy. But Bill Curry reports that we're first more likely to see public interest regulation undermined from within Canada as the provinces sign away their authority to prioritize anything but corporate profits.

- Norm Farrell points out how Christy Clark's B.C. Libs have poured hundreds of millions of public dollars into the pockets of their donors to buy power which was never needed. And Murray Mandryk argues that it's long past time to allow for the direct quid pro quo between donors who benefit from public spending, and a premier whose income is tied directly to their unlimited partisan contributions.

- Rachel Giese is rightly appalled by the fact that a child suicide crisis within Canada's First Nations is being ignored by the media and the federal government alike. And Gloria Galloway exposes an internal report confirming that on-reserve health services in general continue to be grossly underfunded.

- Marc Lee discusses the "green paradox" which is resulting in far too much effort being put into quickly extracting and exporting as many fossil fuels as possible while other countries are still willing to burn them. And the Star-Phoenix' editorial boards reminds us why we need to be highly skeptical about the Wall Saskatchewan Party's refusal to acknowledge or admit the environmental dangers posed by the sector.

- Meanwhile, Rachel Cleetus examines how the undermining of environmental regulators such as the EPA has immediate and destructive effects on citizens.

- Finally, Robert Cribb and Marco Chown Oved weigh in on Canada's role in facilitating tax evasion by enabling corporate coverups. And Dave Seglins, Rachel Houlihan and Zach Dubinsky offer some proposals to fix the system.

New column day

Here, on the hope that this past weekend's protests will be just the start of an activist response to Donald Trump and his corporatist and authoritarian allies.

For further reading...
- Robert Booth and Alexandra Topping reported on last weekend's rallies from a global perspective. Tanara Yelland discussed the march on the ground in Washington, while Caroline Mortimer commented on the protest in Sandy Cove, Nova Scotia and Morgan Modjeski wrote about the one in Saskatoon. And Kate McInturff rightly criticized far too many commentators for downplaying the significance of a widespread, international and women-based protest.
- On the subject of areas crying out for further activism, Human Rights Watch highlighted Russia's steps to minimize domestic violence and its perpetrators. And Adam Bienkov wrote about Theresa May's plans to make the UK in to even more of a haven for corporate tax avoidance, while Dave Seglins, Rachel Houlihan and Zach Dubinsky again reported on Canada's own poor track record in that area.
- Finally, I again mention SaskForward as a prime opportunity to start shaping what Saskatchewan's popular agenda will look like in the years to come.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Scott Sinclair offers his take on what we can expect Donald Trump to pursue in renegotiating NAFTA, and points out that while there are some options which might boost Canadian manufacturing and other sectors, it's also possible that matters could get far worse for the citizens of all three included countries.

- Dave Seglins, Rachel Houlihan and Zach Dubinsky report on how Canada's lax system of corporate transparency and lack of enforcement allows us to be used by international tax evaders. And Justine Hunter highlights Bev Sellars' clever move to expose British Columbia's easily-abused system of mineral title by herself staking a claim to the land owned by Minister of Energy and Mines Bill Bennett.

- Emma Paling reports on NASA's latest video showing how the Earth is warming, while Arthur Neslen examines the more extreme weather and other climate change fallout anticipated for Europe. And Bob Weber reports on new research showing how even small amounts of fracking fluids cause substantial damage to fish and other wildlife. 

- PressProgress takes a look at the latest study showing that the effect of an increased minimum wage is to boost pay without affecting employment numbers.

- Finally, David Climenhaga writes about the case of Sudden Apocalyptic Deficit Syndrome which Brad Wall is trying to inflict on Saskatchewan:

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Downward facing cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Owen Jones writes that we should give credit for the failure of the Trans-Pacific Partnership to the popular opposition which will be need to push back against Donald Trump, rather than pretending it represents a win for Trump himself:

That Trump has any ownership over TPP is a travesty, and a damning indictment of the Democratic establishment. The new president’s rightwing populism combines xenophobia, protectionism and policies which directly enrich the Donald Trump class. Yes, American workers have suffered years of stagnating or falling wages and the decimation of industries, devastating the communities they sustained. Both Republicans and establishment Democrats are responsible, and never considered the possibility they were creating anger and resentment which one day a vulgar demagogue would exploit.
...
Progressives oppose trade deals like TPP because they cost jobs, shift wealth and power to large corporations, drag down workers’ terms and conditions in a race to the bottom and threaten democracy. TPP – like the hopefully fatally wounded Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership – gave multinationals the ability to sue elected governments in secret courts for policies that threaten their profits. Here is an example of capitalism on a collision course with democracy and sovereignty.
...
A programme of investing in US infrastructure may provide a much-needed short-term boost to the US economy, but combined with tax cuts for wealthy Americans and big business, Trumpism represents a grave economic danger. As is the style of rightwing populists, scrutiny – let alone dissent – will be portrayed as treachery. All the more reason for US progressives to stand firm.

Nothing that Trump does is motivated by the interests of the average American. A megalomaniac plutocrat like Trump scapegoats foreigners while promoting policies which directly enrich his associates. Don’t fall for a single thing he does. Resist, don’t normalise, isolate him, exploit divisions within the Republicans. Don’t fuel the impression that Trump is anything other than a charlatan who encourages working Americans to blame anyone but the men like him who are responsible for the multiple ills that define this wealthy but unjust society.

- John Christensen, Nick Shaxson and Duncan Wigan discuss (PDF) the "finance curse" facing countries which rely unduly on oversized financial sectors (with damaging consequences for neighbours as well). And Alex Cobham points out that even if Theresa May's first inclination is to barge ahead with a plan to make the UK even more of a tax haven, the EU has no incentive to play along in negotiating Brexit terms.

- Sally Weale writes that the gender pay gap which persists in today's workplaces starts as early as childhood, with girls receiving less allowance and on more strict conditions than boys.

- Lizanne Foster slams Christy Clark for looking out only for number one even as her government has ignored or actively exacerbated the needs of British Columbia's most vulnerable citizens.

- Finally, Tom Parkin takes a look at Guy Caron's campaign to lead the federal NDP - with a particular focus on his work to ensure public policy furthers the cause of equality, rather than being used to favour banks over people.

Monday Evening Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Rahul Kalvapalle reports on the latest Ipsos poll showing how younger Canadians expect to lead a worse life than the generations who went before them.

- PressProgress examines how inequality has been burgeoning under Christy Clark's B.C. Lib government. And Maimuna Majumder notes that the toxic effects of higher inequality include an increased number of hate crimes.

- Jacqueline Sullivan reports on a UC Berkeley study showing that a $15 minimum wage in Fresno substantially improved wages without any net effect on employment.

- CBC reports on the Stoughton oil spill - which took place on Friday, but concealed from the public until today. And the Council of Canadians rightly calls for the provincial government to start being open and honest about pipeline inspection results given the risks which keep materializing, while Ian Johnston and Tom Batchelor report on Australia's attempt to bury a damning report on climate change.

- Finally, Geoff Leo reported on the latest Global Transportation Hub coverup, as the provincial government used unlawful delay tactics to avoid offering the truth about the GTH scandal.

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Bessma Momani writes that Donald Trump's plan to leave the U.S. at the mercy of unregulated financial markets figures to cause another crisis comparable to - or worse than - that of 2008:

Nearly 10 years ago, the U.S. financial industry was exposed as a glorified Ponzi scheme that bundled toxic assets and failing mortgages into seemingly respectable pension plans and investment schemes that were sold across the world. The Obama administration spent its first term, with global support of the G20 and other countries focused on tighter international standards, to introduce regulations that the financial industry bitterly fought but lost. These regulations, loosely known as the Dodd-Frank act in the U.S. Congress, are about to be dismantled, bit by bit.
...

But it can get worse. In an era of what economists call secular stagnation, where we have a global savings glut, fewer global investment opportunities and low interest rates, global money is also pouring into the United States on expectations of a surge in infrastructure spending, a clampdown on offshore corporate tax havens and the lowering of Dodd-Frank financial regulations.

This is coinciding with global money leaving many emerging market economies that look geopolitically unsettled, such as Turkey, and those rattled by Mr. Trump himself, such as Mexico. With a euro zone that looks shaky in a post-Brexit era and experiencing a rise of nationalists competing in a slew of upcoming elections, ironically, the U.S. still manages to look like the safest investment for the capital industry. Meanwhile Chinese plutocrats are charging Communist Party members with corruption as President Xi Jinping conveniently also consolidates his hunger for centralized power, causing another slow exodus of Chinese wealth.

Here we have the perfect storm brewing of hot money going into the United States in search of higher interest rates and the likely dismantling of financial regulations meant to place a check on speculative bankers and investors. The end result might just be that we return to the same conditions of the mid-2000s, the eve of the international financial crisis. The sky is not yet falling, but the cracks are getting wider and wider and we ought to start listening to Chicken Little on the global economy.

- Meanwhile, Mike Palecek reminds us how Canadians could enjoy both improved accessibility and lower costs in banking services with a postal bank - so long as the possibility isn't squelched to preserve profits for private banksters.

- Dani Rodrik examines the sometimes-conflicting pressures in trying to reduce inequality at the level of both countries and individuals within them. And the Sunday Times reports on one practice sure to exacerbate both, as Italy is planning to require immigrants to perform unpaid labour in order to seek asylum.

- Finally, Sean McElwee examines why on abortion (and other issues) widely-shared progressive positions are losing out in the U.S. due to the lack of stronger connections between partisan politics and popular movements.

Saturday Evening Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Linda McQuaig discusses the hollow promise of "populist" billionaires who ultimately serve only to enrich themselves and their class. And Lana Payne writes about the growing protest movement which culminated in massive rallies around the world this weekend - as well as the causes of its emergence:

Over a million women were expected to march today, Saturday, in more than 600 locations across the globe, including right here at home, for human rights, for equality, for justice and in solidarity for a better world. They march to push back against the rise of sexism and a growing attack on women’s rights, including by U.S. President Donald Trump.

And they march during a time of rising inequality which has a profound impact on women’s share of the economic pie and, in turn, their rights, and their social and political power.
...
...(T)here is rare global consensus on the dangers of rising inequality. Everyone from the UN, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World Economic Forum has identified it as a massive problem for the world economy and for societies.

Oxfam notes that, “our economy must stop excessively rewarding those at the top and start working for all people. Accountable and visionary governments, businesses that work in the interests of workers and producers, a valued environment, women’s rights and a strong system of fair taxation, are central to this more human economy.”
...
This kind of inequality can’t go unchallenged and governments have a role to play. Indeed, a huge role to play. That’s why it’s not helpful when the federal government reneges on a promise to close a gigantic tax loophole for these CEOs costing federal coffers some $750 million in lost revenue every year.

As Stiglitz points out, the only sustainable prosperity is shared prosperity. And there isn’t much sharing going on.

As women march this weekend, they will be demanding that women’s rights, including their economic rights, mean they get a bigger share of that prosperity.

Because as Oxfam notes, gender equality must be at the heart of a human economy “ensuring that both halves of humanity have an equal chance in life and are able to live fulfilled lives.”

- Owen Jones sees reason for optimism that the U.S.' activist left will emerge anew  in response to the Trump administration. And Andrew Jackson examines Canada's options in a post-NAFTA world (particularly in the event the U.S. begins closing its borders generally).

- Max FineDay points out that no amount of talk will produce meaningful reconciliation with Canada's First Nations if it isn't accompanied by meaningful opportunities for Indigenous people.

- CBC reports on a shameful example of how the Saskatchewan Party's callous cuts to disability assistance are coming into play due to factors beyond a recipient's control such as being forced out of a rented apartment.

- Finally, Roderick Benns talks to Cheri DiNovo about the role a basic income can play (alongside a more fair balance of power in the workplace) in creating security for workers.

Musical interlude

Illenium feat. Joni Fatora - Fortress (Seven Lions Roots Mix)

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Liam Byrne argues that it's long past time to reevaluate an economic framework which has produced only highly concentrated wealth for a lucky few at everybody else's expense. And Graeme Wearden reports on Oxfam's call to rein in both firm-level tax avoidance, and government policy oriented toward eliminating any corporate social responsibility to contribute to public revenue.

- Meanwhile, Aamir Bharmal, Jia Hu and Yassen Tcholakov assess how free trade agreements can be detrimental to social health, both by inflating the costs of medical care and by exacerbating inequality which produces ill effects.

- Russell Hixson reports on LIUNA's call for a review of the use of temporary foreign workers to suppress wages. And Dougald Lamont notes that public-sector jobs typically involve equality and security - which means we should be looking to make private-sector employment more like public-sector work, rather than the converse option of increased insecurity for all preferred by right-wing governments.

- Andrew Simms notes the possibility that it's too late to limit global warming to the generally-agreed target of 2 degrees Celsius, while recognizing that either way we need a substantial push to substitute clean energy sources for dirty ones.

- Finally, Kady O'Malley points out the good which could come from Nathan Cullen's proposal for multi-party participation in developing electoral reform legislation.

New column day

Here, on the options available to the Wall government in responding to a budget deficit other than to renew its attacks on Saskatchewan's public servants - and why we shouldn't trust a premier whose answer to the failure of his anti-worker economics is to amplify the pain.

For further reading...
- In case we need a reminder of the Saskatchewan Party's systematic austerity no matter how much money is flowing into provincial coffers, here are just a few of the examples from 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016.
- Kent Peterson nicely sums up what Brad Wall's position seems to be on his own fiscal management:

This news release on the Sask. Party's latest deficit messaging is bold, if not a little unconventional... #skpoli pic.twitter.com/c4GEZDMTdy

— Kent (@SameOldKent) January 18, 2017

- And I'll note again that SaskForward is offering an opportunity to propose better ways than the Wall slash-and-burn plan.

Thursday Evening Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Peter Goodman observes that any meaningful action to build a more equal economy needs to involve bolstering wages and workers' rights - meaning that the elites-only musings in Davos miss the point entirely:

Davos is — at least rhetorically — consumed with worries about the shortcomings of globalization. About the deepening anxieties of the middle class in many developed economies. About the threat of trade protectionism and its attendant hit to economic growth. About the fear that robots are on the verge of sowing mass unemployment.

It is a conversation fueled in part by fear: If the world is indeed in the throes of a populist insurrection, the pitchforks could do worse than to point here. The Davos elites have enjoyed outsize influence over economic policies in recent decades as a growing share of wealth has, perhaps not coincidentally, landed in the coffers of people with a need for bank accounts in the British Virgin Islands, while poor and middle-class households have seen their earnings stagnate and decline.

Yet the solutions that have currency seem calculated to spare corporations and the wealthiest people from having to make any sacrifices at all, as if there is a way to be found to tilt the balance of inequality while those at the top hang on to everything they have.

...
“People talk about inequality, how it’s a major problem, the greatest threat to globalization and the global economy,” Mr. Stiglitz said. “You have to recognize that the way we have managed globalization has contributed significantly to inequality. But I have not yet heard a good conversation about what changes in globalization would address inequality.”

That is not an accident, he surmised. Any sincere list would have to include items that involve transferring wealth and power from the sorts of people who come to Davos to ordinary workers via more progressive taxation, increased bargaining rights for labor unions, and greater protections for labor in general.

Same as every other year, Davos is again plastered with the slogan of the World Economic Forum: “Committed to Improving the State of the World.” But whatever improvements are supposed to be made, one can safely assume they will not conflict with those in attendance continuing to enjoy the state of the world as it is now, with canapés and aged Bordeaux and private jets at the ready.

- Meanwhile, David Ball reports on a reminder from UNICEF's David Morley that Canada is backsliding even compared to other countries in our growing inequality.

- Desmond Cole laments Toronto's decision to take social housing away from people who desperately need it in order to throw more money at expressways and subways.

- Jorge Barrera reports on how Health Canada's callous refusal to fund mental health services in the face of urgent First Nations needs contributed to the suicides of two young girls at Wapekeka First Nation. And Mike De Souza and Riley Sparks note that Justin Trudeau is now explicitly breaking his promise to implement the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission by deciding to suppress the federal government's legal opinions about indigenous rights.

- Finally, Jessica Botelho-Urbanski reports on Niki Ashton's findings in consulting with millenials across Canada - including the glaring need to reverse a sense of hopelessness.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- The Star argues that a crackdown on tax evasion and avoidance is a crucial first step in reining in inequality. Susan Delacourt wonders when, if ever, Chrystia Freeland's apparent interest in inequality will show up in her role in government. And Vanmala Subramaniam reminds us why the cause of developing a more equal society is such a vital one:

So what?

If you’re upper middle-class or rich in Canada, that’s a question you might find yourself asking. Being rich-ish means that you will, for the most part, live a materially comfortable existence, relatively shielded from the day-to-day struggles of the bottom 40 percent of Canadian society. You’ll be able to save and invest a substantial chunk of money, live in a safe, quiet, green neighbourhood with good schools, travel, and put your kids through university so that they don’t graduate saddled with tens of thousands in debt. Inequality, in the short or even medium run, will probably not affect you. 

But if you’re at the two lowest rungs of the income ladder, the impact of inequality is what you see and feel and breathe every single day. Despite those 60 hour work weeks, you continue living paycheque to paycheque. You wonder why your hard work is deemed significantly less valuable than those in the upper echelons of the professional world. Your consumption patterns are, almost always, short-term. When it comes to spending, you cannot see beyond a month, or a week even. Forget saving or investing — those are goals as unattainable as being a unicyclist for Cirque Du Soleil. 

One of the biggest problems with living in a society with a massive income gap is that on an economic level, at least, growth will become unsustainable. “The rich cannot eat away all the money they’ve got because they have too much, but you can be sure that the poor will spend every penny they have because they have so little to begin with,” Armine Yalnizyan, Senior Economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives told VICE Money.

Indeed, increasing inequality reduces demand for basic goods since consumption levels depend more on the wages of those at the lower end of the income scale than the profits of the rich. When households struggle to consume on steady but low wages, they will increasingly rely on debt to maintain their lifestyles, worsening their long-term ability to consume, and save

- Mark Bulgutch warns against the dangers of running government (or public institutions) based on business principles. And Simone Chiose reports on a prime example, as Ontario universities are being required to justify higher education in terms of immediate economic outcomes.

- PressProgress examines how Christy Clark's government has pushed the cost of living ever higher in British Columbia, while Tara Carman discusses the advantages of making child care affordable and accessible. And Sean Boynton examines the public embarrassment arising out of the New York Times' report on the Libs' cash-for-access party operations.

- Reuters reports on China's massive shift away from dirty coal power - including by stopping construction which had already begun in order to move toward cleaner and more affordable alternatives. And James Wilt offers a quick look at the effects of coal power in Alberta, along with the health benefits of shifting away from it.

- Finally, Geoff Leo reports on the Saskatchewan Party's continued stonewalling of any attempt to investigate the Global Transportation Hub scandal.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Companion cats.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Tom Parkin points out that neither austerity nor isolationism offers any real solution to improve Canada's fiscal and economic standing. And Rob Carrick highlights what should be the most worrisome form of debt - being the increased consumer debt taken on to allow people to keep spending in the absence of wage increases:

“If wage growth slows, so does your purchasing power and so does the economy,” said Armine Yalnizyan, senior economist at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. This is our strange economic reality today – people are taking on debt to make up for stagnant or declining purchasing power, but it’s not enough to jolt the economy. Growth is still on the weak side, December’s strong job creation numbers notwithstanding.

Ms. Yalnizyan was one of the economists who contributed to a must-read collection of 75 economic charts that Maclean’s compiled as a guide on what to watch in 2017. Her input was a chart showing the growth rate for the average hourly inflation-adjusted earnings of salaried and hourly employees. The chart is headlined, “Canada just can’t shake off the slowth,” a term that means slow growth.

Unfortunately, the data in the chart may understate the problem of income stagnation. Ms. Yalnizyan said the average data are pulled higher by workers with incomes at the highest levels, and by the skew in our working population toward older workers at the peak of their career earning power.

...

We should probably spend a little less to keep our borrowing more in line with our incomes. But growth in household debt in the third quarter of last year was actually quite modest at 1.3 per cent. The debt-to-income ratio moved higher – to 166.9 per cent from 166.4 per cent in the second quarter – because disposable incomes rose a puny 1 per cent.

Higher incomes would help contain debt growth, but it’s hard to be optimistic about pay hikes in today’s slow-growth world. A report from CIBC World Markets late last year found that the quality of employment is falling, as judged by the proportion of part-time versus full-time jobs, self-employment versus paid employment and the compensation of full-time jobs....

...

There are two ways for the cycle of debt rising faster than incomes to end. Either an economic shock terrorizes people into borrowing less, or we get to a point where incomes rise faster than debt levels. The federal Liberals talk a lot about helping the middle class. We’ll know they’ve accomplished something if wage increases once again give us an advantage over inflation.

- Meanwhile, Simon Enoch writes about the futility of any attempt to cut one's way to growth - with particular reference to the Saskatchewan Party's ill-advised attacks on Saskatchewan workers.

- Maiji Unkuri examines how Finland's basic income trial should ensure that people are able to seek out desirable work. And Sara Mojtehedzadeh reports that Ontario is just now starting to make some effort to document workplace diseases and ensure that workers receive the support they need in response.

- Charles Marohn discusses the impact of different types of public investment in housing, and concludes that poor neighbourhoods offer a far greater return than affluent ones.

- Finally, the CP reports on Oxfam's latest look at wealth inequality in Canada - featuring the revelation that just two people now have more wealth at their disposal than 11,000,000 of their fellow Canadians.

Deep thought

Some of us might offer a lot more outrage over the histrionics in response to Justin Trudeau's statement of fact on the need to phase out fossil fuels if his own attack dogs hadn't fomented the exact same hysteria when it suited their purposes.

On corruptible structures

Yes, there's no doubt that Kevin O'Leary's suggestion of selling off Senate appointments is nothing short of asinine.

That's not so much because the idea is inherently unconstitutional, but because of its substantive implications. The sale of Senate seats it would involve institutionalizing the worst aspects of the Senate's historical purpose (creating a systemic on behalf of the wealthy against democratic decision-making) and practical use (to reward people based on their ability to shovel money into the political system).

But it's worth noting that the reason O'Leary is in a position to make the proposal at all is the continued existence of a legislative chamber which lacks both a check against abuses in appointments, and any coherent purpose.

At best, any explanation for the continued existence of the Senate (beyond complaints about the difficulty of amending the Constitution) tend to involve the fact that it includes some well-regarded public servants who sometimes use their authority to carry out useful research and analysis of public policy.

But that's a role which precisely the same people could engage in within their own areas of expertise through other structures, without their simultaneously receiving both a lifetime appointment and the ability to generally control the passage of legislation. And so "but sometimes it does good work!" doesn't serve as a particularly compelling argument for the Senate.

Meanwhile, O'Leary's scheme represents a new - yet entirely plausible - worst-case scenario.

To date, the worst the Senate has had to offer is partisanship run amok: appointees whose first and only loyalty is to to the political goals of the Prime Minister, resulting in little check on longstanding governments and potentially insurmountable obstacles to legislative action by new ones, as well as the occasional obstruction of legislation passed by our elected representatives. 

But O'Leary looks to be treating the Senate much as Donald Trump views the U.S.' cabinet: a source of substantial formal power without the constraints of democratic processes, which can be parceled out for the benefit of his corporate cronies. And it's frightening to think what could happen if O'Leary were to get his way, as the wealthy few who could afford to bid on seats would be able to secure the formal capacity to block any public policy which sought to serve any interests rather than their own.

Unfortunately, the Senate as it stands is plainly vulnerable to the whims of a Prime Minister who wants to use it for plutocratic ends. And we'd best ask whether that's something we're prepared to leave in place before O'Leary has sold enough seats to block any potential change.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- David Masciotra offers a cultural case for a basic income:

Reward, purpose and meaning are the abstractions meant to pacify the poor and the working class. The rich have wealth, comfort and pleasure. They also have a universal basic income. In Jacobin, Matt Bruenig recently reported that 10 percent of national income is paid to the top 1 percent of income earners as capital income. It is curious that no one worries about the mental health defects they will experience due to lack of meaning.

What provides most people with the greatest satisfaction, nourishment and fulfillment is high-quality relationships, creativity and contribution to a cause of personal conviction. Conservative commentators argue that the removal of an incentive to “work hard” is a potential problem with universal basic income. It is actually a benefit.

Few people could afford to live solely off of their UBI payment. So, while they would still have careers, they might have more time and energy to devote to the passions and priorities outside of their careers. They could dedicate themselves to the artistic or artisanal project they once felt too tired to consider making part of their weekly routine. They could enjoy more time with family and friends, and they might have the necessary surplus of energy to volunteer for charities and political campaigns that they support. Leisure might also become more abundant, and offer treatment for the addiction of careerist madness, along with the cutthroat competition of many offices, that leads Americans to sacrifice millions of paid vacation days every year.

The belief that most people, if given some free money every month, would transform into gluttonous sloths requires paralytic cynicism. Critics of the UBI are correct that most people want to feel the joys of accomplishment and importance, but it is stunningly narrow to believe that the average adult will spiritually and intellectually profit solely in traditional employment. It is more likely that the typical person will devote available time and energy to pleasurable and purposeful activities, even if they do not pay well or at all.

Universal basic income will not create a utopia — poverty will still exist, and many people will still spend too much time at what one Swiss economist calls “bullshit jobs,” but it will provide the poor with relief, and push everyone else in the direction of work-life balance, and overall sanity.

- Dan Levin's article on British Columbia as the "wild west" of Canadian politics is well worth a read - though it's of course worth noting that nearly all of the same criticisms apply to Saskatchewan's lack of fund-raising rules (and associated party payments to the Premier).

- Meanwhile, Murray Mandryk rightly questions why the lowest-paid public employees in Saskatchewan are bearing the brunt of the Saskatchewan Party's attacks on workers. And Anne Kingston discusses how the spread of private paid blood donation in Saskatchewan stands to affect Canadian health care more broadly.

- Finally, Tabatha Southey rightly recognizes the need to limit the use of "fake news" to content known and intended to be fictitious, rather than merely using it as a catch-all response to stories which contradict one's own preferences.