Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Roni Caryn Rabin, Apoorva Mandervilli and Shawn Hubler discuss the U.S.' reconsideration of plans to lift COVID-19 recommendations and restrictions in the face of the Delta variant, while Mike Hager points out the expert response to the push by some Canadian premiers to eliminate masking requirements. Nikolaj Skydsgaard and Jacob Gronholt-Pederson report on the WHO's warning of another wave in Europe (driven in substantial part by spread through sports venues and bars), while Derek Hawkins reports on an 85-person outbreak at a single Illinois summer camp. And Emma Tranter reports on the Yukon's COVID crisis which has broken out despite it being Canada's most-vaccinated jurisdiction.

- Joe Roberts highlights how most of the support governments have provided throughout the pandemic has served to prop up corporate interests rather than people's well-being - raising the question of when we'll insist on building something better than an exploitative economy. 

- Matthew Klein argues that we should be looking to err (if it all) on the side of overshooting what's needed to build the economy and society we want, rather than once again falling short. And Diane Francis (!) writes that the U.S.' downfall as a society can be traced to the systemic cultivation of distrust in government which has allowed bad actors to run wild.

- PressProgress discusses new research showing the difference between younger people who want the facts about issues such as climate change and systemic racism, and older ones with a preference for false "neutrality". Crawford Kilian writes about Thomas Piketty's analysis of Canadian politics - confirming that the Cons' base in particular is aging and insular while strong patterns as between the NDP, Greens and Libs are far more difficult to find. And Paul Willcocks notes that Erin O'Toole is only exacerbating his party's weaknesses by playing to ignorance and bigotry.

- Finally, Mumilaaq Qaqqaq discusses her reasons for not celebrating a legacy of colonialism and genocide. And Cindy Blackstock writes that the long-overdue moment of awareness has come about only after years of activists screaming into a void, while Suzanne Shoush wonders whether Canada is finally waking up to the cries of Indigenous peoples for relief and justice.

On technological preferences

Shorter Diane Francis:

I don't much like Facebook, but this Google machine is neato. I just typed in "Harper Conservative Talking Points", and it practically wrote my column for me!

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Mark Gongloff takes a look at social mobility research from multiple countries, and finds that there's every reason for concern that inheritance is far outweighing individual attributes in determining social status. And Left Futures notes that the problem may only get worse as our corporate overlords become more and more sophisticated at cannibalizing our commonwealth for profit.

- Speaking of which, Jake MacDonald offers an insightful (if maddening) review of how farmers are suffering from the demolition of the single-desk Canadian Wheat Board.

- Andrew Jackson comments on the Cons' glaring failure to do anything to combat child poverty. And Cameron Dearlove discusses why we shouldn't pretend that child welfare is merely a family matter:

Child poverty should be of concern not only to parents and those who work with children, it must be of concern to the whole community. The experience of poverty has detrimental impacts on any individual, but when it's experienced through childhood development, the impacts are even more acute. 

Not having enough to eat, or not being able to afford healthy foods, impacts a child's concentration in school and can lead to lower academic achievement, along with negative effects on physical health. The stresses of poverty affect psychosocial development, with higher rates of behavioural problems and emotional and mental health challenges. 

The connection between a poorer diet and poorer health are obvious, but research has shown an even larger association with poverty's impact on cognitive development. One study of children entering kindergarten found 72 per cent of the non-poor children were proficient in recognizing words, compared to only 19 per cent of children experiencing poverty. These differences are shown to compound throughout life into adulthood. 

The impacts of poverty on development are not equal across ages. The detrimental effects of poverty are most severe in early childhood brain development, when future cognitive, social, and emotional functions are being shaped. This makes early intervention in childhood poverty even more pressing.

- Theophilas Argitas reports on new polling showing that while the tar sands may be the Cons' one and only priority, Canadians on the balance would prefer that we not focus on developing them further. Bruce Johnstone links that public concern with the inherent dangers of resource reliance as reason for concern about our economic direction. And Jon Queally writes about Kinder Morgan's failed injunction against the people seeking to defend Burnaby Mountain.

- Finally, Haroon Siddiqui points out how the Cons' exploitative mindset fits with Canada's historic colonial attitude toward First Nations and the environment they rely on. And while Diane Francis is a bit too focused on profits, she too recognizes that it's long past time to stop shirking our responsibilities.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Not surprisingly, plenty of commentators have weighed in on the latest set of Senate scandals engulfing Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin, Nigel Wright and Stephen Harper among others. Diane Francis takes the opportunity to point out that the Senate is an institutional anachronism (a point with which I of course agree). Murray Mandryk notes that the Cons' story involves the belief that their clan can do no wrong, Chantal Hebert sees the Cons having simply changed the party name in the Liberal culture of entitlement they once claimed to despise, while Andrew Coyne views the latest incidents as an example of the Cons' general distaste for audits and other accountability mechanisms. And Tabatha Southey nicely details just how many laughable claims one would have to believe in order to take the Cons' side in defending their Senate abuses.

- Meanwhile, Aaron Wherry points out that as far as Jim Flaherty is concerned, expensive, publicly-funded self-promotion is the new accountability.

- Don Lenihan theorizes that the Cons would be well-positioned to create a sustainable development charter if they wanted to. But "if they wanted to" is a rather important qualification - particularly given that they seem to have put J. Wellington Wimpy in charge of the sales pitch for environmental action ("I'd gladly regulate them next decade for an increase in profits today!")

- Nathan VanderKlippe writes that TransCanada has roughly matched the Cons' level of interest in dealing constructively with anybody who raises concerns about pipelines - which serves as one of the main reasons why it's run into so much opposition. And Esther Hsieh contrasts the massive public benefits provided by Norway's resource development plan against the glaring lack of a development strategy in Canada.

- Jason Kenney makes it abundantly clear that family-class immigrants in less-than-wealthy families aren't welcome in his country - singling out for particular scorn anybody who "(goes) back to being poor" after being joined by family in Canada.

- Finally, Robyn Benson makes the case for engagement - on whatever level possible - as a key to reaching positive outcomes within unions and other organizations.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

Reaching out

Not surprisingly, Diane Francis' blog post about receiving a request for input from Jack Layton includes at least a couple of predictable shots. But it's worth noting that even Francis seems to have come away impressed at Layton's willingness to seek out a wide range of ideas, particularly compared to Stephen Harper's deliberate decision to listen to nobody:

(W)e talked about the mess made in Ottawa by Prime Minister Stephen Harper (with 38% electoral support) who made an unnecessary, mean-spirited attack against the opposition parties, leading to a coalition to try and unseat the Tories.

Why I asked?

Harper decided he didn’t have to listen to opposition parties because he assumed we were weak, said Layton. “Instead of focusing on the economy he focused on destroying the opposition. He should have done what Bill Davis used to do and said give us your best ideas, publicly and privately, and take one of those ideas from each of the parties,” he said...

It’s interesting to note that Layton called me out of the blue before all this Tory nonsense erupted into a crisis because he wanted to tap into ideas from political across the political spectrum. Like Bill Davis used to do.

“I’ve been calling people around the country. You and I haven’t always agreed, but I want to get advice from everyone as to what levers of state should be used, which shouldn’t and what should policies look like?” he said...

He asked about regulation and the financial chaos and I said I supported global governance because there was a vacuum which led to the meltdown.

Layton listened and we debated some issues unlike, apparently, (sic) Stephen Harper has ever been willing to do with those outside his party.

Now, it's downright embarrassing that Francis could take a story about Layton's willingness to listen and tag it with a title about "Chairman Jack". And that may signal that there's a long way to go for Layton to dispel even the most outrageous myths about the NDP.

But it's certainly for the best that Layton is proving himself to be the national leader most willing and eager to look for the best solutions to Canada's economic difficulties - regardless of where an idea may come from. And the more people he gets a chance to reach out to, the easier time he and the NDP should have in responsibly exercising the power they're able to secure.