Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Jonathan Malesic writes that while millennials may be facing the worst of an economy set up to push workers into precarity, the workforce as a whole is dealing with high levels of burnout. And Jacques Marcoux and Katie Nicholson report on research showing that work-related deaths in Canada are severely underestimated in official statistics.

- Bloomberg News reports on the growing number of Canadians who can't meet their financial obligations. And Andrew Jackson points out that the problem is one of private exploitation, not taxes which are actually entirely manageable:

In 2016, the “average Canadian” paid an effective combined federal-provincial income tax rate of just 9.0 per cent – just nine cents for every dollar of income from employment, investments and government transfers. While that figure does not include sales taxes and social insurance contributions, it will surely strike most as quite a modest amount considering all of the benefits of public spending in the form of income support programs, social programs and public services.
...

The data also rebut the common view that the income tax “burden” has been increasing. In fact, the average effective rate has fallen from a peak of 11.3 per cent in 1997, two decades ago, to 9.0 per cent in 2016, and the effective rate on the top 1 per cent has fallen from 34.5 per cent at the peak in 2007 to 30.6 per cent in 2016. The effective tax rate on the 75th percentile has fallen from 19.1 per cent to 15.8 per cent over the same period.

So why all of the populist tax rage? One can only speculate, but perceptions are clearly not being shaped by the facts. Stagnant or falling real incomes for many Canadians are the result of low rates of growth of earnings and other forms of income, not rising income taxes.

- John McDonnell makes the case to make a definitive turn away from Thatcherism and austerity in 2019. 

- And finally, Bob Hepburn discusses the Ford government's moves behind the scenes to push privatized health care.

Thursday Evening Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Colin McAuliffe charts the increasing share of U.S. income going to profits and the already-wealthy. And Dani Rodrik writes about the importance of a progressive movement which seeks to shift the balance of power in how our economy functions, rather than settling for trying to redistribute wealth concentrated in the hands of a few:

There is now growing recognition that tax-and-transfer policies can go only so far. While there is much room for improving social insurance and tax regimes, especially in the US, deeper reforms are needed to help level playing fields in favor of ordinary workers and families across a broad range of domains. That means focusing on product, labor, and financial markets, on technology policies, and on the rules of the political game.

Inclusive prosperity cannot be achieved by simply redistributing income from the rich to the poor, or from the most productive parts of the economy to less productive sectors. It requires less-skilled workers, smaller firms, and lagging regions to be more fully integrated with the most advanced parts of the economy.

In other words, we must start with productive re-integration of the domestic economy. Large and productive firms have a critical role to play here. They must recognize that their success depends on the public goods that their national and sub-national governments supply – everything from law and order and intellectual property rules to infrastructure and public investment in skills and research and development. In exchange, they must invest in their local communities, suppliers, and workforce – not as corporate social responsibility, but as a mainline activity.

- David Sirota examines how Wall Street funds exacerbated the housing crisis arising from the 2008 financial crash. Alexander Sammon points out the plight of communities which offer massive incentives based on the promise of corporate jobs - only to find that those fall far short of producing any security or prosperity for residents. And David Macdonald writes that while Canada's first social impact bonds predictably produced plenty of profits for consultants and advisors, they were grossly inefficient in trying to improve social outcomes (with 60% of funding getting diverted from the supposed end goal).

- Wanyee Li rightly notes that in the wake of a series of deaths of homeless people trying to find warm clothing in donation bins, the core solution is to work on reducing poverty and homelessness - not to merely restrict access to the bins.

- Finally, Andre Picard discusses the predictable breakdowns in a health care system which is understaffed over the holidays when resources are needed most.

New column day

Here, on Scott Moe's apparent view that the only voice which deserves to be heard or amplified is that of the oil industry.

For further reading...
- Jie Jenny Zou is among many to have discussed the oil industry's track record of funding science denial in the interest of being able to pollute freely and take short-term profits while leaving long-term liabilities.
- And in case one didn't think there was enough astroturf around already, John Ivison has highlighted one new propaganda outlet connected to Brad Wall and the Sask Party's donors, while David Climenhaga pointed out another under development.
- Climenhaga has also written about both the Alberta NDP's publicly-funded PR work on behalf of the oil industry, and the UCP's even more extreme demands. And he's also noted how the University of Calgary has served as a mouthpiece for big oil.
- Finally, Arthur White-Crummet reported on Scott Moe's direct intervention to push for police to silence the Justice for our Stolen Children camp. Stephanie Taylor reported on Moe's explanation for selecting a fossil fuel rally alone as one to receive his participation and attention after previously claiming to consider himself above protests. And Charles Smith discusses how galling that was this week in particular, following as it did on the heels of both an empty Sixties Scoop apology and the advent of national protests against violations of Indigenous sovereignty in the name of fossil fuel development.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Roderick Benns points out the disruptive effect of the cancellation of Ontario's basic income trial - signalling the importance of being able to plan on a stable source of income. And Jessica Chin reports on an anticipated wave of renovictions to push tenants out of their homes in an effort to goose property rents.

- George Monbiot discusses the devastating health effects of air pollution - and the roadblocks the fossil fuel lobby has put up to try to avoid a shift toward cleaner air and improved public health. But Umair Irfan notes that the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Exxon's attempt to suppress its own knowledge of the dangers of climate change now that some states are seeking to hold it accountable.

- Tom Parkin highlights how the Libs are more focused on playing games with by-elections than on accomplishing anything progressive voters would have expected from them as a government. And Murray Mandryk contrasts Scott Moe's words about the Sixties Scoop against his continued refusal to work even on such basic injustices as the systematic removal of Indigenous children from their families and communities.

- Finally, Seth Klein writes about the need to move past cynicism and participate in building the change which people both want and need:

(T)he truth is any of us as progressive activists, with the courage to see the world as it is and the conviction to seek to remake the world as it should be, walk a razor’s edge between hope and despair. We feel and know both. And maybe we should be more open about that.

And yet, I do see hope. I see it in the slow but sure progress of our movements. I see it in our research, which tells us that the world we want is possible given the political will. I see it in the activism and good will of people I’ve gotten to meet around the province in this job. I see it in the values of our fellow British Columbians and Canadians. From time to time, we at CCPA do polling on values (not much, it’s expensive). And when we do I’m always struck that, as a society, whenever we are given a choice between a private gain like a tax cut and a public good like spending on enhanced public services or tacking homelessness and poverty, for most people, the public good wins every time.

And so, here’s what I believe after 22 years in this job: the values of British Columbians are — in the main — good and progressive and caring. We just need a politics that allows people to give those positive values proper expression.

Tuesday Evening Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Matt Bruenig discusses how Sweden's 70% tax rate on its top income bracket fits into an economy with high incomes along with lower inequality than the U.S. among other countries.

- Roland Tanner rightfully argues that the proliferation of high turnover, low pay jobs doesn't ultimately serve employers' interests - even as Rocco Rossi and his ilk lobby furiously to preserve the ability to treat workers poorly. And Maria Hangeveld writes about the "purpose paradigm" as a means to push workers to accept the corporate framework which allows for their continued exploitation.

- Dan Gearino points out the emergence of clean energy in the U.S.' Midwest region. But Sharon Riley reports on one of the subsidies that's keeping the fossil fuel industry and its associated pollution at an artificially high share of Canada's economy, as the Alberta public is on the hook to reimburse landowners for the money owed by delinquent oil operators.

- Finally, the Globe and Mail's editorial board argues that 2019 should be the year when Canada implements a national pharmacare system:

When it comes to getting medical treatment from a doctor or a hospital, Canada has universal health insurance. In the United States, it’s what the Democratic Party’s presidential aspirants are about to start pitching to American voters, under the banner of “Medicare for All.”

But when it comes to drugs, the Canadian system is the broken American system. If you’re hospitalized and you’re given prescription meds, it’s free. But once you walk out of the hospital with a prescription to fill, you may be on your own. Coverage is a mix of private insurance and out-of-pocket spending, with the provinces and territories filling some of the gaps with a grab bag of local programs, each unique to its jurisdiction, for groups such as seniors and the poor.

In terms of pharmaceutical coverage, Canada in 2019 still looks a lot like Canada circa 1964.

...

...While most Canadians have workplace drug insurance, part-time workers, the self-employed and the precariously employed or unemployed usually aren’t among them. Even for those with insurance, it’s contingent on remaining with the same employer. Government programs are limited and selective, creating a safety net that’s filled with holes.

...

In a largely privatized system, the government has little ability to control costs. That’s true across the U.S. health-care system and in Canada when it comes to meds. Canadians are the world’s third-highest spenders on drugs, at nearly $1,100 per person in 2017. The British, in contrast, spend barely more than half as much. Their public system gives them the ability to negotiate better deals and put downward pressure on drug prices. 

Canada has the opportunity to do better; to improve the average Canadian’s access to necessary medicines while lowering the bill for businesses, taxpayers and citizens.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Playtime cats.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Henry Bewicke charts the worst offenders when it comes to per-capita carbon pollution - with the U.S. and Canada sharing an ignominious place at the top of the list. And the Star's editorial board points out that we shouldn't trust politicians who claim there's some free magic bullet to fight climate breakdown without a cost - though we should pay attention to the offsetting benefits of a just transition to a clean energy economy.

- George Monbiot writes about the role of advertising both in shaping preferences, and in causing stress and dissatisfaction. And John Ivison and David Climenhaga each point out new additions to what was already a blaring right-wing noise machine in Canadian politics.

- Anne Helen Petersen discusses how a combination of relentless stressors and limited opportunities for stability has resulted in widespread burnout among millennials. 

- Finally, Tom Parkin comments on the connection between the Libs' attitude that younger workers can't expect anything but precarious lives, and their cynical choice to put off by-elections which could force them to answer for their failings.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Paul Krugman examines the economics of a higher tax rate on extreme high-income individuals:

Diamond, in work with Emmanuel Saez — one of our leading experts on inequality — estimated the optimal top tax rate to be 73 percent. Some put it higher: Christina Romer, top macroeconomist and former head of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, estimates it at more than 80 percent.

Where do these numbers come from? Underlying the Diamond-Saez analysis are two propositions: Diminishing marginal utility and competitive markets.

Diminishing marginal utility is the common-sense notion that an extra dollar is worth a lot less in satisfaction to people with very high incomes than to those with low incomes. Give a family with an annual income of $20,000 an extra $1,000 and it will make a big difference to their lives. Give a guy who makes $1 million an extra thousand and he’ll barely notice it.

What this implies for economic policy is that we shouldn’t care what a policy does to the incomes of the very rich. A policy that makes the rich a bit poorer will affect only a handful of people, and will barely affect their life satisfaction, since they will still be able to buy whatever they want.
...
(W)hen taxing the rich, all we should care about is how much revenue we raise. The optimal tax rate on people with very high incomes is the rate that raises the maximum possible revenue.

And that’s something we can estimate, given evidence on how responsive the pre-tax income of the wealthy actually is to tax rates. As I said, Diamond and Saez put the optimal rate at 73 percent, Romer at over 80 percent — which is consistent with what AOC said.

- Lana Payne writes about the continued class war being waged by the rich, while Sharmini Peries interviews Cornel West about the need to build a stronger collective movement to fight back. And Lynne Fernandez and Shauna MacKinnon discuss the connection between a "right to the city" movement and social justice generally.

- Jonathon Schuldt and Y. Connie Yuan write that the vast majority of Americans are far more favourable toward fighting climate change than their political leaders, while David Akin notes that same holds true in Canada. David Roberts warns that right-wing blather about "innovation" doesn't reflect any serious attempt to address the climate crisis, particularly where it's aimed primarily at shoveling free money toward polluters. And even as the Sask Party's waste of billions of dollars on CCS technology fits squarely into that category, D.C. Fraser reports that Scott Moe is pushing any emission reduction enforcement whatsoever into 2021 at the earliest. 

- Finally, Ellen MacArthur points out the prospect of planning intended to achieve a virtuous circle of responsibly managing resources - in contrast to the current economic model based on short-term profits and disposability.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Dennis Gruending writes about the difference between genuine populism focused on the interests of the public at large, and the discriminatory politics of the right which are often given the same label:

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a populist as someone who is “a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.” That is just what Douglas and others, such as Ontario MP Agnes Macphail, were doing in the early to middling years of the 20th century. The rural community was being exploited by banks, railroads, grain buyers and farm machinery companies, with the complicity of most politicians in the old line parties.
...
Populists, including Douglas and Macphail, were engaged in movements to bring about economic and social reforms which were badly needed. They were also dedicated to winning those reforms through the ballot box. As democratic socialists they pushed the limits of liberal democracy while remaining committed to its structures and practices.
...
There remains a need today for popular movements to challenge elites – including Canada’s 100 highest paid CEOs who, according to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, took home salaries and benefits equal to 197 times more than the average worker in 2017. The pursuit of economic and environmental justice demands research, organization, and yes, appeals to emotion. But let’s not confuse those efforts with incitements by today’s demagogues to greed, violence and racism.

[Update: IP's Twitter response is worth a look in clarifying the academic definition of "populism" to include elements of both left and right.]

- Molly McCluskey discusses the lasting positive effects of Quebec's affordable child care program - along with the fact that there's room for improvement in ensuring that everybody has access to quality public care.

- Reuters reports on Google's offshoring of tens of billions of dollars in 2017 alone. Jeff Stein examines how much more revenue the U.S. would have to improve people's lives if it applied reasonable tax rates on extreme income and wealth, while William Horobin writes that a crackdown on tax compliance has become one of the latest achievements of France's gilets jaunes protests. And Owen Jones comments on the need for the UK's fat cats to start paying their fair share.

- Aimee Picchi reports on the thousands of U.S. drug price increases resulting from the Trump administration's willingness to let big pharma dictate the terms for access to necessary medication. And Aris Folley reports on just one tragic example of a 26-year-old diabetic who died for lack of access to insulin.

- Finally, Duane Bratt writes that while anger may be a useful tool as part of an effort to take power, it's useless as a guide to exercising it.

Musical interlude

CHVRCHES - Warning Call

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Doreen Nicoll makes the case to reinstate the basic income plan eliminated by Doug Ford in Ontario. Danielle Kurtz examines a few of the ideas being proposed by U.S. Democrats in the lead up to the 2020 presidential campaign (including their own basic income model), while Steven Vogel comments on Elizabeth Warren's arguments to reduce inequality at the predistribution phase. And Brian Dew proposes a "people's dividend" drawn from the growing concentration of unneeded corporate cash. 

- Kristin Annable reports on one Manitoba patient's discovery that chemotherapy pumps used for her treatment are regularly left uninspected. 

- Amanda Vyce discusses how a national public pharmacare program may be the only way to ensure a fair deal for Canadians in light of extended monopolies over biologic medicines.

- Finally, Takashi Tsuji and Yasu Ota report on a further push through WTO structures to hand corporations the ability to keep crucial information secret regardless of any public interest. And Rodrigo Samayoa reminds us why corporations can't be allowed to throttle neutral access to the Internet:

For years, Big Telecom has been telling us that the internet requires greater flexibility to innovate and invest in the new 5G networks that will allow us to safely ride self-driving vehicles and use remote health-care apps.

We have heard this from Verizon, AT&T, Bell, Rogers and Ajit Pai, the chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. But none of that is surprising, is it?

Of course they want greater flexibility. Wouldn't they love to charge you extra to hook up your car to the 5G network or charge insurance companies more for remote health care?
...
If Canada is to remain at the forefront of innovation and freedom, we need a robust net neutrality framework that doesn't benefit those with deep pockets and vested interests. How could a streaming startup or non-profit news service compete with the likes of Netflix and Google News in a world where your access to broadband is determined by how much you can pay?

For that matter, what guarantees are there that broadband access to telehealth apps won't be determined by how much you can pay?

In the United States, evidence of throttling by ISPs is already evident, even when it comes to first responders. Just last year Verizon throttled the "unlimited" internet connection of a California fire department in the middle of a catastrophic wildfire.

Is that the flexibility we need for net neutrality?

Wednesday Evening Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives' annual report on CEO pay shows that executives are again being handed hundreds as much money as their employees - and that there's also a gender gap even at the executive level.

- The Economic Policy Institute charts the growth of inequality in the U.S. - as well as the role unions play in reducing it. And Maxime Quijoux and Guillaume Gourges point out how France's gilets jaunes protests (unlike their Canadian astroturf counterparts) could offer an opportunity to rejuvenate the labour movement.

- Saira Peesker reports on some of the Ontario employers who are following through on improved wages and working conditions, rather than taking Doug Ford's invitation to move backwards.

- Finally, Philip Doe argues that fracking would never be permitted if its effects approached the privileged people most likely to be pushing it for the sake of short-term profits. And Fiona Harvey offers some reasons to be optimistic about the environment in the year to come.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Decorated cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Glen Pearson discusses the glaring gap between what citizens actually value, and what gets done by the governments they elect through distorted political systems:

This past weekend, I wrote a column for the London Free Press, in which I stated the following:

“What polls continue to reveal is that the coming generations of leaders and voters are increasingly bent on achieving social justice, environmental reform, gender equity, affordable housing, stronger communities, and a political order in line with those values.”
...
A look at 2018 Pew and Gallup polls revealed some fascinating realities about American views in the midst of a white-hot Trump era.  Consider these:

• 70% of Americans support medicare for all
• 74% favour strong environmental laws
• 82% want equal pay for women
• 59% agree with free child care
• 58% favour breaking up the big banks
• In something of a shocker, 75% favour immigration within proper quotas
• 62% support labour unions
• 61% want the minimum wage increased in their respective states
• Surprisingly, 61% wish to see cuts to the military budget
• 71% are pro choice

This is not the America we hear about or see every day and yet it is part of the reason for the successful Democratic mid-term wave.  We are convinced that our neighbour to south is a culture of guns, but then learn that 78% of Americans don’t even own a gun.  The United States is more than we are seeing right now and what isn’t being recognized is how progressive it is.

The problem, then, is really one of politics, and much of the blame for that lies not with the politicians but with citizens themselves.  It shouldn’t surprise us to learn that 46.9% of Americans who could vote didn’t bother.  That is 106,516,046 people – almost three times the population of Canada.  With that number of citizens staying home, the majority of whom, as research and polls show, significantly support the above values, then it’s inevitable that that those of the opposite view prevail in elections and public policy.  And, yes, the electoral college in the U.S. often works against the popular vote (which conservatives lost by more than three million votes in 2016 and yet still prevailed).  What kind of democracy is it when the majority loses?  There are numerous answers to that question, but the point is that democracy itself is not served by such realities.

The other real problem is the grouping of the political, financial and corporate elites who have overseen our political and financial order and yet have failed to keep pace with the progressive instincts of their respective populations.  Voters trusted their promises, only to see jobs disappear, the environment continue under increasing threat, women still not receiving equal pay, and electoral reform frequently getting squelched.  That trust is now eroding.  The key job of the elites was to solve the primary problems of the entire citizenry, not maintain the status quo.

- Michael Sainato writes about the push toward a union by Amazon's warehouse employees seeking a more fair balance of power against an exploitative employer. And Simon Murphy exposes a UK employment agency whose appalling practices including fining workers for being sick.

- Alan Freeman comments on the combination of waste and mistreatment of employees that resulted from the Cons' and Libs' choice to impose the Phoenix pay system on the federal civil service.

- The Canadian Press reports that rural internet access is among the infrastructure which the Libs are holding hostage to the goal of finding private-sector profiteers. And Spencer Macnoughton and Conall Jones report on the desperate measures being taken by patients in need of insulin which has been priced far beyond their means.

- Finally, Paul Krugman discusses how it's possible to lay the groundwork for needed action to avert climate breakdown on an urgent basis even in the U.S.' political system where a denialist executive branch will prevent any immediate progress.

Monday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your year-end reading.

- Kenan Malik comments on the many forms of classism. And Roderick Benns examines how Ontario's basic income recipients were able to make use of their increased income security - including by spending more time with friends, with family and volunteering in their communities.

- Susan writes about the distinction between an Alberta NDP government which treats people with dignity and respect, and Jason Kenney's UCP which goes out of its way to try to strip anything of the sort from minority group members.

- David Leonhardt discusses the fundamental importance of climate change compared to every other area of public policy debate.

- Finally, Sonia Sodha writes that rather than accepting the food industry's spin on health regulations as reflecting an excessive nanny state, we should be concerned about the unhealthy diet we're pushed to eat by corporate giants:

“What about our free will?” the anti-nanny-staters will cry at the idea of forcing manufacturers to act. But we don’t see people with placards in the street protesting against the thwarting of our right to eat a slice of bread with as much salt as a packet of crisps. The beauty of food reformulation is that because it happens gradually, our palates adjust and we simply don’t notice that certain foods are 30% less salty than a decade ago.

The free-will question needs turning on its head. The dirty secret at the heart of the food industry is that the deliciously unhealthy stuff – fat, sugar, salt – is also cheap. Cram foods full of them and it’s not only consumers who love them, but shareholders. And this, together with changing eating habits, including the popularity of ready meals and eating out, has driven up the unhealthiness of our food over time. As the food that lines supermarket shelves gets fattier, saltier and more sugary, our palates are reconditioned to crave more of it. There’s no free choice about the industry reshaping our tastes to benefit its profit margins without us even realising.

That’s why it’s not just the usual suspects who are arguing for a compulsory approach, but some industry voices as well, including the British Retail Consortium. They know that unless all food manufacturers are forced to play by the rules, progress will be limited as even responsible manufacturers are held back by first-mover disadvantage.

That won’t stop the libertarians crying foul. Perhaps what motivates some of them is a belief that this is all about individual willpower, a disdain for people just too greedy to leave some of their dinner on their plate. But it’s not Christmas levels of gluttony primarily driving our obesity crisis. An irresponsible food industry has got a lot of lives to answer for.

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Paul Barratt discusses the results of a roundtable addressing inequality in Australia - with plenty of lessons worth keeping in mind elsewhere:

...(I)nequality is increasing significantly in Australia and, without a change in public policy, the problem will continue to worsen. Australia’s social security system is no longer adequate; it imposes unacceptable constraints on the growing numbers of people dealing with the consequences of poverty, unemployment, homelessness and general social disadvantage. Australia’s poor record on closing the gap between Indigenous and other Australians and between men and women is unacceptable. So is the inappropriate influence on policy decisions wielded by the corporate sector and those in the upper percentiles of wealth and income, and the failure of the current political structures to curb that influence.

The roundtable participants repeatedly drew attention to the inadequacy of the current economic model, its dependency on endless growth, its failure to engage with ecological and climate limits, and its assumption that unconstrained markets can respond to the need for the dignity and wellbeing of the whole population.
...
We all deserve basic human rights: food, clothing, shelter, education and modern healthcare. But we should aspire to go way beyond that, to be a genuinely intelligent and inclusive nation guided by an agreed set of national values.

It is time to reject the politically charged distinction between “lifters” and “leaners” that undermines our identity as a people committed to a fair go for all. The overwhelming majority of Australians want to have a job. They want to feel that it is a job that has meaning and they want to do it well. How productive they are depends not only upon how hard they are prepared to work but how well they are trained, how well they are led and managed, and what equipment they are furnished with.

In our wage fixation processes we need to reintroduce the concept of the living wage. We must recognise the benefits of investing in people’s education, vocational training, improved access to healthcare, public housing and a decent living standard for those who find themselves unemployed. Elimination of tax benefits like the capital gains tax discount and uncapped negative gearing against personal income, and an effective assault on multinational avoidance, could provide the wherewithal to tackle the problem.

- Matt Bruenig discusses three classifications of populist policies which can rebalance our economic structures, and notes that the three can and should be complementary to each other.

- Dawn Foster points out how social housing has been undermined in the UK by privatization and class segregation. And Joshua Schneyer and Andrea Januta report on the private operators who have turned housing for the U.S. military into a source of exorbitant profits for substandard accommodations.

- Peter Gosselin highlights how workers in their 50s and up are being pushed out of the jobs they thought would last until a standard retirement age.

- Lisa Naccarato reports on a push by Ontario doctors to ensure that migrants have access to needed health care.

- Finally, Kira Lerner discusses how deliberate confusion prevents American voters from seeing their choices reflected through elections.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Joe Vipond and Noel Keough highlight the gap between the global impetus to avoid climate breakdown and the narrow self-interest of the Alberta oil industry. Michael Bueckert discusses Jason Kenney's attempt to turn the government apparatus against the exercise of fundamental freedoms through boycotts. And Markham Hislop comments that violent rhetoric from Kenney and his supporters is entirely counterproductive. 

- Meanwhile, Janani Whitfield reports on the damage being done to Saskatchewan municipalities by oil and gas operators skipping their tax payments. Janis Searles Jones and Phillipe Cousteau write about the Taylor Energy oil spill which has been polluting the Gulf of Mexico for over 14 years. And Jennifer Ludden reports on the Trump administration's decision to let coal plants inflict mercury and other toxic emissions on unsuspecting citizens.

- Jennifer Keesmat argues that Canada's cities need to be designed for people rather than cars - particularly in light of the death toll piling up as vehicle traffic has been prioritized over pedestrian safety.

- Doug Cuthand writes on the potentially wide-ranging effects of a recent Ontario court decision finding that Canada's treaty obligations should be interpreted to recognize shared ownership and account for modern developments.

- Finally, Taylor Owen opines that after a year of even more outrages than usual, it's time for governments to meaningfully regulate the online platforms which currently exercise massive and unchecked power.

Musical interlude

Matthew Good - Bad Guys Win

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Matt McGrath and Dahr Jamail each point out some of the most important immediate effects of climate change. And Kate Marvel discusses the challenge we face in trying to avoid more severe breakdown in the longer term:

You may have heard that we have 12 years to fix everything. This is well-meaning nonsense, but it’s still nonsense. We have both no time and more time. Climate change isn’t a cliff we fall off, but a slope we slide down. And, true, we’ve chosen to throw ourselves headlong down the hill at breakneck speed. But we can always choose to begin the long, slow, brutal climb back up. If we must argue about what the view will be like when we get there, let’s at least agree to turn around first.

It’s true that we’re not going to get utopia. The planet has already warmed by one degree Celsius. Most of the coral reefs are going to die, and many of the glaciers will melt. Climate change is here, leaving grubby human fingerprints on parched, burned, flooded and melted landscapes. But we don’t have to settle for dystopia. It’s going to be worse, but it doesn’t have to be bleak. We can have a “topia,” an ordinary future where we go about ordinary lives in cities on stilts, missing what we’ve lost but looking forward to better things. There is light in the future that doesn’t come from burning.

- Meanwhile, the Mound of Sound is rightly concerned that international trade agreements will be interpreted as preventing governments from doing what's needed to salvage a liveable climate.

- Claire Cain Miller examines the cost of parenting - and the increasing inequality in how much money is available to be spent on children. And Alex Matthews-King discusses how economic factors can affect a child's brain development for life.

- Finally, Owen Jones writes about the value of the UK's council housing - and points out that MPs who live in communities with a range of incomes and life situations are far better positioned to engage with a full range of constituent concerns than those who isolate themselves in wealthy enclaves.

New column day

Here, on the need for progressive leaders to treat consultation processes as a path to goals worth achieving rather than an excuse not to pursue them - particular in the face of right-wing politicians determined to reverse progress at the first opportunity.

For further reading...
- Ian Bailey notes that Quebec and Prince Edward Island represent the next hopes for electoral reform in Canada after the failure of British Columbia's referendum. And Crawford Kilian raises the possibility that a party merger may be the best short-term option in B.C. now that electoral reform has failed - though that would of course only worsen the problem with a limited range of choices.
- Katy Balls discusses how the UK's Brexit referendum may have turned some voters off for life (while also causing massive damage to the citizenry).
- The Globe and Mail has been tracking the massive damage being inflicted by Ontario based on Doug Ford's belief that having won power without a platform, he's entitled to radically alter policies without any regard for anybody but his cronies and donors. And Emma Graney reports on Jason Kenney's choice to pretend Alberta's next election is a formality - and to impose as much shock treatment as he can on the province if proven correct.
- Finally, Harry Cheadle writes about the Republicans' use of lame-duck sessions to undermine democracy where their opponents might otherwise be able to make use of popular mandates for change. And Ari Berman discusses how in addition to undermining specific elected officials, Republicans are also eliminating the availability of referendum processes after deciding they were being used too effectively to pass progressive policies.