Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- PressProgress offers its annual reminder not to be taken in by the Fraser Institute's anti-tax spin. And Robert Frank reports that support for a more fair tax system in the U.S. extends even to millionaires, a majority of whom approve of a wealth tax for fortunes above $50 million.

- Fiona Harvey writes about the continued growth in greenhouse gas concentrations to level never seen in human history. And Helen Briggs points out how all kinds of species ultimately suffer from a growing wave of plant extinctions, while Al Jazeera reports on the threat posed by warming oceans.

- Meanwhile, Gordon Laxer implores the Trudeau Libs not to waste any more public money on the Trans Mountain pipeline or other fossil fuel infrastructure. John Paul Tasker reports on the Parliamentary Budget Officer's conclusion that a federal carbon price needs to be doubled in order to meet even Stephen Harper's emission reduction targets. And Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood warns about Canada's backsliding on what were already pale excuses for action to avert a climate breakdown.

- Tabatha Southey discusses how the Scheer Cons are needlessly providing platforms for hate speech even while claiming to want nothing to do with it. And Doug Cuthand comments on the importance of recognizing genocide for what it is - and working on ensuring that we end it rather than perpetuating it. 

- Finally, Andray Domise offers a painfully apt summary of politics as practiced by the Libs:

Canada’s centrist Liberal party—for the millions of dollars it collects in donations, and the ability it has as a governing party to reshape our most pressing national issues such as housing policy, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, immigration and refugee policy, electoral reform and, of course, the environment—seems to find it completely out of its power to follow through on the political interests of the voters who elected it to begin with. For this party, politics is the aesthetics of hope, the promise of technocracy to solve our problems and the utter incapability of mustering the power to deliver on either within our lifetimes.

Politics, in other words, has long ceased to be the art of the possible for the Liberal Party. It is the art of procrastination, the art of kicking the can down the road, pledging that things will get better once we find an end to our endless crises, and simply trust that, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, we’re all in this together. Which raises the question: if the Liberal party were truly a corporate consulting firm operating under the auspices of party politics, how would its track record be any different?

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Leslie Hook offers a reminder of the dangers of methane as a particularly damaging type of carbon emission which is both associated largely with fossil fuel production, and poorly tracked when it is emitted. And the Edmonton Journal makes the case for Jason Kenney to abandon his campaign rhetoric about scrapping any carbon tax (along with so much of the simplistic talking points which propelled him to power). 

- Merran Smith highlights the transition toward clean energy which is already taking place. And Tabatha Southey points out the glaring gap between the media's minimal recognition of existing clean energy, and its ostentatious cheerleading for the oil sector the face of economic and environmental reality.

- J. David Hughes examines the real reasons for increasing gas prices in British Columbia (contrary to the spin of fossil politicians trying to pretend it has anything to do with the TransMountain pipeline). And PressProgress points out that residents are well aware that it's big business that's making fuel unaffordable - which is exactly why renewables which aren't subject to the same scarcity represent a superior option for everybody but the privileged few accustomed to leveraging their closely-controlled resources into windfall profits.

- Kelly Crowe points out the Trudeau Libs' international position of trying to suppress information about the causes of exorbitant prescription drug prices. And NPR takes note of the continued pattern of exploitation by big pharma, as a new gene therapy treatment is being priced at a record $2.1 million per dose.

- Finally, Julia Conley writes about the growing income gap between CEOs and other workers. Joe Neel discusses new polling on the financial insecurity and lack of access to health care in the rural U.S. And John Cairns reports on Ryan Meili's rightful criticism that Scott Moe is utterly failing to address the root causes of crime and other social illnesses, while Kevin Doherty's return as a lobbyist offers a reminder as to how immediate profits for donors and insiders have always been the Saskatchewan Party's only focus.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Marshall Shepherd writes that the U.S. is facing a true national emergency in the form of climate breakdown. And Michelle Goldberg theorizes that the unlikely election and presidency of Donald Trump may open the door to a transformative response, including the possibility of the Green New Deal.

- Ed Finn argues that pharmacare should be a key issue in this year's federal election - though even before Justin Trudeau's decision to give in to big pharma, Finn would have been right to note the dangers of relying on a Lib promise to help people at the expense of corporate profits.

- Duncan McCue offers a reminder that Canada has long been a laggard in fighting corporate corruption.

- The CP reports on the Saskatchewan NDP's call to fight child hunger and poverty. Scott Moe of course couldn't be less interested when there are oil barons to be shilled for.

- Finally, Tabatha Southey comments on the Ford PCs' callous disregard for families with children with autism - both in their policy choices designed to leave children without the treatment they need, and their threats and attacks on anybody who dares point out that reality.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Gary Younge discusses how regardless of the outcome of the U.S.' midterm elections, democracy is on the defensive against a Republican attack on voting rights. Janet Reitman goes into detail about the consequences of the U.S.' law enforcement system failing to do anything about the dangerous buildup of violent white nationalism. And Tabatha Southey rightly points out the lack of any reason to hand a platform to a demagogue, while also offering some suggestions as to how any debate including Steve Bannon should have gone.

- Meanwhile, Paul Krugman comments that it's impossible to square support for the Republicans with either a clean conscience or any grounding in reality.

- The CCPA's latest Monitor examines the relationship between finance and the citizenry - including Michal Rozworski's piece on the connection between Canada's urban housing crisis and its increasing personal debt. And Al Jazeera interviews Leilani Farha about the global effects of treating housing as a means to accumulate wealth rather than a human right.

- Murray Mandryk writes that whatever plausibility the Saskatchewan Party has tried to claim for its Global Transportation Hub plans is going up on smoke as it appears more and more likely that the only private-sector participants had to be gifted land and services to go along.

- Finally, Michael Mann comments on the connection between climate breakdown and the increasingly extreme weather seen this summer. And David Olive writes that Doug Ford and other climate change denialists and obstructionists are positioning themselves firmly on the wrong side of history.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

-The UK's Association of Directors of Public Health speaks out (PDF) about the importance of giving children the best possible start in life - including through security in the essentials of life.

- But Christina Gibson-Davis and Christine Perchenski write about the increased inequality that is leaving a large majority of families in the U.S. with no safety net. And Matthew Stewart breaks down the U.S.' income brackets into the .1% which is accumulating wealth faster than it can spend, the 90% which is falling behind, and the 9.9% between the two which has mostly held its position.

- Melissa Davey comments on the lack of investigation and punishment of wage theft in Australia. But David Marin-Guzman reports on one noteworthy example of an employer being sentenced to a meaningful jail term - if only for contempt of court after the employer breached an order to retain funds to pay workers. 

- Christian Breyer summarizes new research showing that a 100% renewable energy system is entirely feasible and affordable. And David Fickling notes that for that reason, the next key developments in energy figure to involve storing the product of intermittent renewable sources, not looking for excuses to keep extracting and burning fossil fuels.

- Meanwhile, Wal van Lierop calls for a reality check about the future of an oil-dependent economy (and the construction of pipelines intended to extend that dependence).

- Finally, Tabatha Southey examines the parallels between Doug Ford and Donald Trump as overgrown children of privilege trying to use populist language to further indulge the advantages they've held. And Paul Wells writes about Andrea Horwath's campaign as she offers Ontario a positie alternative.

Monday Morning Links

Assorted content to start your week.

- Luke Savage comments on Justin Trudeau's phony war against inequality:

His embrace of Keynesian economics has been equally ethereal. In 2015, apparently rebelling against the prevailing economic orthodoxy of austerity, the Liberal leader pledged to stimulate the economy through modest, deficit-financed social investment.

Upon implementation, however, some $15bn was channelled into an “infrastructure bank”, geared to attract private financing. The promises of “socially useful, non-commercial projects like childcare or affordable housing to cash-strapped cities” will take a back seat to those with “revenue-generating potential”. And while investors are likely to see big returns, it is the public who will shoulder much of the risk.

Trudeau has also remained ambivalent towards the kind of big programs that could actually redistribute wealth in a meaningful way. On childcare, for example, he favours a means-tested approach, rather than the universal, public provision of a desperately needed service. And in a 2016 conversation with a low-wage worker he dismissed the prospect of raising the minimum wage, echoing the talking points of the Canadian business lobby: “Maybe everything just gets more expensive or we have jobs leaving. We have to be very careful about that.” (A 2011 University of California, Berkeley study found the effects of raising the minimum wage on prices to be negligible at best. And the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has argued that service sector jobs that tend to pay the minimum wage are by their very nature immobile, which suggests the threat of mass job flight is a myth.)
...
(W)hile the prime minister calmly informs struggling workers that raising the minimum wage may have unintended consequences, the country’s wealthiest corporate executives get to keep their cushy tax advantages. The phony war rages on.

- Jennefer Laidley offers some suggestions to ensure income security in Ontario. And Eleanor Aigne Roy reports on Jacinda Ardern's push to find shelter for every homeless person in New Zealand before its winter hits - serving as a prime example as to what social policy can look like when it's actually aimed at meeting people's needs rather than putting off action.

- Ethan Trudeau comments on the value of organized labour and cooperative businesses in ensuring that prosperity is widely shared. And Jake Johnson offers a look at the regrets of workers who voted for Donald Trump based on the false promise of right-wing populism.

- Finally, Tabatha Southey writes about the real threat posed by the ignorant rage of the anti-woman alt-right.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Spencer Piston argues that it's unreasonable to blame people living in poverty for not participating in political structures designed to exclude them - while noting that many Americans want to see a far more progressive tax system which politicians have made no effort to pursue.

- And Sean Murphy notes that Oklahoma has joined Kansas as cautionary tales about the dangers of  regressive fiscal and economic policy.

- Peter Gowan discusses Rudolf Meidner's model of public ownership as a needed step to ensure people can chart their own future rather than being constrained by capital interests. And Lex highlights the importance of public equity as a check against corporate takeovers.

- Richard Wiles writes that time is running out to start taking meaningful action after 50 years of procrastination in addressing greenhouse gas emissions. But Carol Linnitt points out that a British Columbia inquiry into fracking will deliberately avoid addressing public health risks and climate change. 

- Finally, Tabatha Southey offers a reminder as to what Doug Ford's brand of governance looks like - featuring a complete lack of coherent planning, and a distaste for the public interest. And Kristin Rushowy reports on the better alternative on offer from Andrea Horwath and the NDP, including universal pharmacare, expanded dental coverage, and a needed prioritization of public investments over private profits.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Thomas Edsall discusses the difficulties in trying to address wealth inequality through a money-infused electoral system:

Five years ago, for example, Adam Bonica, a political scientist at Stanford, published “Why Hasn’t Democracy Slowed Rising Inequality?” Economic theory, he wrote, holds that “inequality should be at least partially self-correcting in a democracy” as “increased inequality leads the median voter to demand more redistribution.”

Starting in the 1970s, this rebalancing mechanism failed to work, and the divide between the rich and the rest of us began to grow, Bonica, Nolan McCarty of Princeton, Keith T. Poole of the University of Georgia, and Howard Rosenthal of N.Y.U. wrote.

They cite five possible explanations.

First, growing bipartisan acceptance of the tenets of free market capitalism. Second, immigration and low turnout among the poor resulting in an increasingly affluent median voter. Third, “rising real income and wealth has made a larger fraction of the population less attracted to turning to government for social insurance.” Fourth, the rich escalated their use of money to influence policy through campaign contributions, lobbying and other mechanisms. And finally, the political process has been distorted by polarization and gerrymandering in ways that “reduce the accountability of elected officials to the majority.”

In the five years since their essay was published, we’ve seen all of this play out; in the case of campaign contributions in particular, the authors provide strong evidence of the expanding clout of the very rich.

- Similarly, Dean Baker points out the connection between "centrist" policies which serve primarily to further enrich the people who already have the most, and public disgust with the parties pushing them. And Matt Egan compares the immediate gains from the Trump tax giveaway to the rich - with shareholders being gifted 30 times as much new money as workers even at a point when businesses are trying to put on a show of sharing benefits to lock in their goodies for the long term.

- Meanwhile, Tom Jacobs theorizes that the progressive movement may be able to win over small-c conservative voters with messages based on nostalgia. And the New Economics Foundation discusses how to frame economic discussions in terms of both populist responses to elite control, and our common interests in shared development.

- Tabatha Southey weighs in on the Parkland school shooting - and the gun lobby's response designed to ensure that the U.S. continues to suffer plenty more similar tragedies in the future.

- Finally, Robert Cribb reports on the underrepresentation of minorities on juries in Ontario. And Lana Payne comments on the need to move beyond empty apologies, and instead start acting on the thoroughly-studied steps which could actually move us toward reconciliation in Canada.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Toby Sanger discusses how the Trudeau Libs' obsession with privatized infrastructure only stands to put control over public services in the hands of corporate predators:

Corporations are sitting on hundreds of billions of excess cash in Canada and trillions worldwide — money they aren’t putting into productive investments. So corporations and other investors (including pension funds) desperately want to achieve higher returns. But economic growth is slow (because wage increases are so low and profits so high), which leads to fewer private-sector investment opportunities. So corporations are now turning to the cannibalization of public-sector assets and infrastructure through public-private partnerships or other forms of privatization, including the new infrastructure bank.

The great attraction of these public infrastructure investments for private finance is that high returns are effectively guaranteed for decades through ongoing government payments, and/or through tolls and other user fees. Most forms of public infrastructure involve some form of natural monopoly. This allows private owners to exploit them for monopoly profits — which is why they were established as public assets in the first place!

In another sordid twist, the briefing notes and presentation about the bank that were prepared for delivery by Trudeau and his ministers at a session for foreign investors were developed in conjunction with Blackrock officials, as Globe and Mail reporter Bill Curry revealed, using documents obtained through access to information. In effect, the Liberal government turned over the design and development of this bank to the very people who will profit most from it: the largest private sector and pension investment funds in the world.
...
Numerous critics have outlined major problems with the proposed bank

• it will lead to massive privatization of public infrastructure;
• projects will cost much more, so Canadians will get less bang for their buck;
• projects will require significant increases in user fees, which will restrict access, and punish middle and lower-income earners;
• there will be little transparency and public accountability required of the bank and its projects or for its use of public funds. Information will be kept secret and will not be subject to the more stringent transparency and accountability rules that govern public projects, while those who disclose information could be subject to fines and jail time;
• the bank is restricted from having any representation on the board from the federal or any other governments, which means the bank will be controlled by private-sector interests, even though the legislation claims it will act in the public interest.

...
It is important to resist each privatization proposal and expose each project for who it will benefit and who it will hurt, but ultimately the pressure to privatize and cannibalize the public sector won’t abate until we achieve a more profound shift of power from concentrated private capital to a much more equitable economic order.

- Meanwhile, Rick Smith highlights the importance of modernizing our social programs to fit an economy in which workers are treated as disposable. And PressProgress examines how some of the same businesses extracting more profits than they know what to do with are simultaneously underfunding the pensions they've promised their workers.

- Miriam Katawazi reports on the persistent and widespread gender pay gap in Canada. And while the Star's editorial board hopes that transparency will make a difference, it's well worth noting that mere awareness of the gap has done little to reduce it in the absence of meaningful policy steps.

- Paul Krugman writes about the fundamental dishonesty behind the Republicans' looting of the U.S.' 99%. But on the bright side, Dogwood notes that British Columbia's NDP/Green majority has ended the type of disproportionate donor influence which has polluted American politics.

- Finally, Tabatha Southey comments on the reactionary right's false assumption that media outlets (and people in general) are as uninformed as its audience.

[Edit: fixed typo.]

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Owen Jones points out Portugal's example as a demonstration that that there is indeed an alternative to austerity - and that it's better for public finances as well as for social progress:

During the years of cuts, charities warned of a “social emergency”. Now the Portuguese government can offer itself as a model to the rest of the continent. “Europe chose the line of austerity and had much worse results,” declared the economy minister Manuel Caldeira Cabral. “What we are showing is that with a policy that restitutes income to the people in a moderate way, people get more confidence and investment returns.”

Portugal has increased public investment, reduced the deficit, slashed unemployment and sustained economic growth. We were told this was impossible and, frankly, delusional. And so British workers endured the longest squeeze in wages since the 19th century, while the coalition did not even come close to meeting its commitment to eradicate the deficit by 2015. Why? In part, because low pay means workers paying less tax, receiving more in-work benefits, and spending less money. Portugal is increasing demand; the Tories suppressed it.

Portugal’s success is both inspiring and frustrating. All that human misery in Europe – and for what? What of Greece, where over half of young people languished in unemployment, where health services were decimated, where infant mortality and suicide increased? What of Spain, where hundreds of thousands were evicted from their homes? What of France, where economic insecurity fuelled the rise of the far right?
...
Europe’s austerity has been justified with the mantra “there is no alternative”, intended to push the population into submission: we have to be grownups, and live in the real world, after all.

Portugal offers a powerful rebuke. Europe’s left should use the Portuguese experience to reshape the European Union and bring austerity across the eurozone to a halt. In Britain, Labour can feel more emboldened in breaking with the Tories’ economic order.

Throughout Europe’s lost decade, millions of us held that there was indeed an alternative. Now we have the proof.

- Meanwhile, Sharon Murphy discusses the growth of inequality in Canada as a result of deliberate policy choices favouring the wealthy over the rest of us.

- Lindsey Rose Bullinger and Kerri Raissian study how a higher minimum wage reduces the incidence of child neglect. And Dawn Foster highlights how precarious and low-paying jobs increase stress and create health problems.

- Emily Mathieu offers a look at Toronto through the eyes of some of its homeless residents.

- Finally, Jeremy Nuttall discusses the alt-right problem of Canadian conservatives who have nurtured a movement of hate. And Tabatha Southey rightly asks why it took so long for politicians to acknowledge and denounce it.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Damian Carrington reports on new research showing that the actual change in temperature caused by greenhouse gas emissions may be larger than anticipated in even the most cautious forecasts to date. And Chloe Farand highlights France's plan to rein in its contribution to climate change by banning all gasoline- and diesel-based vehicles by 2040.

- Meanwhile, D.C. Fraser reports on a study (with particular reference to the Sask Party's Boundary Dam project) finding that carbon capture and storage is an utter waste of money. And it's hardly a point in the Wall government's favour that updated numbers about the unit's operation make it only five to ten times more expensive than natural gas, rather than ten to twenty as found in the study.

- David Climenhaga comments on the need for Alberta's workers' compensation system - like its counterparts elsewhere - to focus on providing benefits for injured workers, rather than denying them in order to send money back to employers.

- Tabatha Southey observes that the "Proud Boys" incident in Halifax reflects a movement of bigots seeking to avoid responsibility for their actions through a facade of jocularity. And Scott Sinclair reviews John Judis' The Populist Explosion, including his warning that the rise of toxic populism generally represents a symptom of deeper political problems.

- Finally, Thomas Walkom writes that the federal government's settlement with Omar Khadr (based on violations of his rights by Lib and Con governments alike) represents a particularly obvious example of the damage done by political fearmongering about terrorism.

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.

New column day

Here, on how the Wall government has Saskatchewan on the road to the same post-truth politics that laid the groundwork for the spread of fictitious "news" and Donald Trump's election.

For further reading...
- Dan Tynan, Craig Silverman and Terrence McCoy are among those who have reported on the development of a new strain of false media aimed purely at supplying the confirmation bias demanded by Trump supporters. 
- Tabatha Southey commented on the problem with public demand for fabricated news. And Rachel Giese discussed how Facebook's actions to enable or monitor posts from false news sites could affect Canada as well, while Van Jones warned that we're not immune from a Trump-style campaign.
- Finally, for a look at how the Saskatchewan Party government has handled the factual employment data supplied monthly by Statistics Canada, this search shows how the truth has been buried by what should be a neutral source of information when (and only when) it says absolutely nothing that can be spun for Brad Wall's benefit. And the single press release from this year shows how far Wall will stretch to try to claim some political advantage: of particular note, see the conspicuous lack of any mention of the year-over-year losses by industry which effectively match the cited gains.

New column day

Here, a rare Saturday column on the lessons we should draw from the election of Donald Trump in how we organize and work within our political system.

For further reading (beyond the writing already linked here)...
- Others offering similar thoughts include Murray Dobbin, Rick Salutin, Kai Nagata and Robert Reich.
- Tabatha Southey highlights how racism fed into Trump's win, and argues that we shouldn't minimize its effect simply because of the election's result. Ari Berman comments on the desperately under-reported role of Republican vote suppression in electing Trump. And Gary Younge offers a thorough (and thoroughly disturbing) summary of the forces behind the election results.
- Joseph Heath offers his take on what we can expect from Trump's election - with the strengthening of anti-democratic sentiment around the globe rivaling any of the other types of damage.
- Finally, Paul Waldman describes the blatant con behind Trump's claim to the mantle of populism - and it's taken only days for Trump to make clear that anybody hoping for a break from a culture of insider self-dealing is in for a major disappointment.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- The Star-Phoenix calls for Saskatchewan's election campaign to focus on the future rather than the past. And Paul Orlowski reminds us of the continued callous corporatism that's in store if Brad Wall holds on to power.

- Meanwhile, Bruce Johnstone points out that the Saskatchewan Party's spin on the past bears no resemblance whatsoever to reality. And Geoff Leo fact-checks Wall's attempts to avoid responsibility for his government's Global Transportation Hub land scandal.

- The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives offers up its alternative federal budget aimed at both reducing poverty and generating development. And in one hopeful (if only preliminary) step, the Libs appear willing to consider strengthening Canada Post by looking at banking and other services, rather than treating stagnation and privatization as the only options.

- Danyaal Raza and Ryan Meili discuss the economic and health costs of expecting people to work while sick (or requiring them to forfeit pay if they can't).

- Finally, Tabatha Southey rightfully challenges the idea that activism is something to be criticized rather than applauded - and its roots in the belief that there are few if any social problems left to be ameliorated:

In part, the rejection of activism as a concept stems from a belief that a sufficient amount of change has already been made. It has to stop. We’ve literally done enough as a society – not-society can stop asking for stuff now.

It’s a way of thinking that emerges when people frame the righting of great historic wrongs (letting the other half of the population vote, not literally owning people) as concessions that one group has personally made, as largesse bestowed in some sort of ongoing negotiation for which there must be quid pro quo.

That’s just not how this better-society thing works, people. Yes, it’s not illegal to be gay any more. That doesn’t mean straight people get to demand more seasons of Everyone Loves Raymond and free Dockers when next everyone’s back at the bargaining table.

The constant disparaging of activism – the casual acceptance of the idea that the more dedicated a person is to a subject, the less they are worth listening to on that subject – has been fashionable for a while now.

The plethora of “Taxpayers for …” and “Concerned Citizens Against …” groups is a reaction to that trend. These people are “concerned,” about an issue, you see, having apparently rejected “Peeved” and “Indignant” as descriptors. We are to understand that while, yes, these groups are campaigning to bring about political or societal change through vigorous action, the difference is they’re right.

All of this is how we come to the less-than-clarion call to arms, “I am not an activist.”

Well, lady, take out another bus shelter, when you’re ready to say you are.

Saturday Morning Links

This and that for your weekend reading.

- Jacqueline Davidson offers a personal account of the experience of living in poverty, including the need to rely on charity to make up for constantly-unmet needs. And Alana Semuels discusses how single mothers in particular have no choice but to rely on social connections to make up for the absence of both public supports and viable employment opportunities.

- Meredith Dost points out that there's strong support for a basic income and poverty relief even among U.S. Republicans who actually face low incomes for themselves - meaning that it's only the wealthier wing of a single party blocking a popular desire for improved social supports. And Sean McElwee comments on new research showing how voter disengagement allows that minority to control Congress.

- Dan Darrah writes that Canada is losing out due to our lack of proper corporate tax enforcement:

 We've almost always been soft on business. Canadian "welfare capitalism" has been around since the 19th century -- think John A. Macdonald's National Policy, which helped line the pockets of commercial interests through the production of the Canadian-Pacific Railway. James Ondrick argued in his fantastic thesis paper "The Erosion of Elite Accommodation" that elite interests -- especially business groups -- have enjoyed a very privileged treatment from the feds, and Canadians have accepted this practice as "legitimate."

We've accepted that well-positioned corporate interests are a part of the "public policy process," Ondrick argues. We respond to these political machinations not with protest, but with one gigantic, seismic nod.

Canada even has the lowest corporate tax rate in the G7.

So, maybe the question is, "have the politicians gone too soft?"

The Canadians for Tax Fairness (CTF) estimated that companies operating in Canada in 2014 held over $199 billion in "assets" -- unpaid taxes -- in havens like Barbados and the Cayman Islands. A grilling Oxfam report found that Canada is one of the biggest "losers" of corporate tax revenue. The "winner" countries are the ones with low-to-none corporate income tax, such as Bermuda, as well as the super-rich.
...
Giving the Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA) some power to pry into corporate pocketbooks would be a great start, as would be creating anti-avoidance legislation like the kind being explored in the U.K.

It would surely take some moxie, but for good reason. The not-so-new cash could also be injected into crumbling municipal infrastructure, underfunded healthcare facilities, improved settlement services for soon-to-be arriving Syrian refugees, or perhaps the very ambitious platform Trudeau is now charged with implementing. An easy $199 billion more bones in the federal coffers might ease the stress of doing so.

If not for the revenue, the government should crack down on principle: Canadian taxpayers have been pulling their weight since the first income tax was levied in 1917. Corporations should be, too.

- Tony Burman highlights the connection between climate change and global insecurity. And Tabatha Southey offers a handy classification system for climate-change deniers.

- Finally, Donna Baines and Pat Armstrong offer a survey of options for long-term care which deserve a close look at home.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Louis-Philippe Rochon explains how higher taxes on the wealthy can be no less a boon for the economy than for the goal of social equality:

In fact, empirical analysis shows that while the relationship between higher taxes and economic growth is complex, there is no proof that raising taxes on the wealthy will lead to slower economic growth.  In fact, in many countries, including Canada, higher growth rates in the post-Second World War era have been associated with much higher marginal tax rates.
...
Between 1940 and 1980, the top marginal income tax rate in Canada was much higher, at well over 70 per cent. Despite these high rates, Canada's economy prospered. In other words, with a proposed new tax bracket in Canada of a mere 33 per cent, we are still far from reaching past levels, and even further away from levels that would be detrimental to tax revenues or even growth. We could increase it even higher with no repercussions on growth or even job creation, and the benefits of a less unequal wealth concentration could even have a positive effect on the economy.
...
(H)ow can we explain higher taxes on the rich and higher growth? It seems counterintuitive. Yet, it isn't, for two reasons. First, higher taxes on the top one per cent reduce income inequality. Many studies show that a more even (or less uneven) distribution of wealth and income contributes to higher spending and growth.

In the case of Canada, the higher tax rate for high-income earners is compensated by lower taxes on the middle class, who then will have more money to spend. Since the top one per cent save a higher proportion of their income, raising taxes for them won't affect their consumption, just their savings.

Second, by collecting more tax revenues, governments can spend more, and there is a definite and proven correlation between higher government spending and higher economic growth, despite all the non-Keynesian naysayers. The data is clear on this.

- Juliette Jowit discusses the pathetic pace being made on the path toward gender pay equity. And Maureen Conway points out the need for both public policy and labour relations decisions oriented toward improved long-term outcomes - particularly given the glaring failure of short-term thinking over the past few decades.

- The Associated Press reports that a particularly egregious example of employer abuses is resulting in rare but well-deserved jail time for the perpetrator.
 
- Charles Mandel discusses John Brennan's observation that climate change is already (and will increasingly become) a major source of political instability, while David Roberts offers a useful analogy to gravity in assessing its effects. And Geoff Stiles offers a proposal as to how Canada can go from being a laggard to a leader at the Paris climate change conference.

- Finally, Doug Saunders writes about the importance of integration in order to combat extremism of all kinds. Tabatha Southey reminds us that hatred and ignorance between ethnic and religious groups only tend to reinforce each other. And John Cartwright notes that there's a particular need to speak out against bigotry in the wake of an election campaign where multiple parties including the deposed government deliberately stoked it for their political advantage.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Don Pittis examines the Cons' record on jobs and the economy, and reaches the inevitable conclusion that free trade bluster and corporate giveaways have done nothing to help Canadians - which makes it no wonder the Cons are hiding the terms of the deals they sign. And John Jacobs writes that the Trans-Pacific Partnership only stands to make matters worse:

Canada is exporting goods that create few domestic jobs and importing goods that create jobs elsewhere. This accounts for some of the decline in manufacturing employment over the past decade in Canada and points to long-term challenges in creating jobs and increasing wages. The exchange rate volatility associated with being a “mining and energy superpower” has also contributed to the decline in manufacturing jobs. For workers, Canada’s free trade experience is one of stagnating wages, increasing income inequality, and relatively higher levels of unemployment.

The TPP, like all modern “free trade” agreements, contains no concrete measures to directly protect or create employment. On the contrary, it ties governments’ hands in pursuing employment and industrial strategies. Jobs are simply assumed to follow automatically from tariff reduction and providing increased protection for investors. They, and not the government, should have complete freedom to decide when, where and how goods and services are produced. Recent history tells us that companies have a poor track record when it comes to translating this freedom into jobs or growth.

Ultimately, though the TPP is not about trade or increasing prosperity for most Canadians, one can understand why Canada’s corporate elite are cheerleading the deal. It entrenches their role as drivers of the Canada economy and “consitutionalizes” their rights to profitably exploit Canada’s resources. For the rest of Canadians, accepting the TPP will have long-term detrimental impacts on the prospects for full employment, economic prosperity, and the ability of Canadians to sustainably manage their economy.

- Anne Kingston highlights how the Cons' and Libs' promise of increased parental leave may only push women out of the workforce if it isn't paired with either specific second-parent leave, or a commitment to the availability of child care. And Sara Mojtehedzadeh notes that at the moment, child care is often problematic both for the parents who can't find it and the workers who are severely underpaid for the responsibility.

- Tasha Kheiriddin speculates that the Cons' continued attacks on women who wear niqabs are based more on a desire to create divisions between minorities than an expectation of exploiting general prejudice - though it's hard to see how either could be excusable as a basis for political decision-making. Tabatha Southey offers a twist on the "leader you'd like to have a beer with" test by pointing out Stephen Harper's choice to bring a bear to the bar with him. And Naomi Lakritz readies her own complaint about Stephen Harper to the Cons' barbaric cultural practices hotline.

- Mike Robinson writes about the Cons' deliberate suppression of altruism as a Canadian value, while calling for our other parties to stand for cooperation and mutual recognition. And Kady O'Malley notes that the NDP is again taking a stand for exactly that in order to ensure a new and better government.

- Finally, Carol Goar writes that the Cons are trying to fundamentally change Canadian democracy by eliminating any meaningful connection between representatives and voters. And Andrew Coyne suggests some simple steps to start repairing Canadian democracy.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Thomas Walkom discusses how Canadian workers are feeling the pain of decades of policy designed to suppress wages - and notes there's plenty more all parties should be doing to change that reality. And Doug Saunders points out what we should want our next federal government to pursue to bring about lasting growth:

Many economists came to realize not only that government intervention bailed many countries out of the post-2008 recession and restored growth and employment, but that the crisis itself may have been caused, in good part, by the disappearance of active government support in the economy – the sort of direct investment and partnership that had existed in earlier decades.
...

Economists began noticing that the great economic boom of the 1990s and 2000s had been a direct product of targeted state investments in specific companies and sectors. The Italian economist Mariana Mazzucato, in her influential book The Entrepreneurial State, chronicled the emergence of the iPhone as a direct product of Washington’s large-scale investments in Silicon Valley – not just through state spending on technology products and tax incentives to high-tech industry, but through the specific choice of Apple, in the 1970s and 1980s, as a company Washington would invest in (though small-business investments that put $2 into Apple for every dollar of private investment). Intel and Compaq were also targets of this active state investment, much as Elon Musk’s Tesla electric-car company is today.

Dr. Mazzucato, in an interview from her University of Sussex office, describes the heavily funded state banks that have allowed Germany, China and the United States to build globally competitive companies – and notes that Canada, despite having earned a fortune in petroleum revenues in the past 15 years that could have created a similar major institution, has nothing substantial of the sort, nor any proposal to create one.

“Canada is interesting,” she said. “It is one of the most skewed countries, not only in terms of sectors – lots of emphasis on the extractive stuff – but also in terms of instruments: It’s very, very indirect. It does most of its government investment through tax incentives. Compare that to the United States or China or Germany, where it’s all direct: If they want to do something, they do it. They directly finance a sector or the most innovative companies, and they create grants or guaranteed loans to do it, not an indirect tax credit. And on top of that, these Canadian investments are not so mission-oriented: At best, there’s a list of sectors to be supported indirectly, but no targeting of specific companies or industries. And then they get surprised when they’re not on the top any more in any of the big innovations.”

- Andrew Coyne rightly argues that we shouldn't spend so much of an election campaign attacking past personal statements from candidates, while noting that part of the problem lies in the vetting authority that's been taken over by the parties' leaders.

- Meanwhile, Kevin Grandia highlights Cheryl Gallant's climate change denialism as a symptom of the Cons' real unfitness for office. And Donald Gutstein comments on Doug Black's role as an oil lobbyist within the Senate.

- Tabatha Southey writes that the Cons are offering nothing but fear, uncertainty and doubt for voters, while Sandy Garossino weighs on that message as it applies to refugees in particular. And Terry Glavin zeroes in on how that strategy involves ignoring the plain facts even of high-profile events such as the tragic deaths in the Kurdi family.

- Finally, Parker Donham sets out why Canada can't afford any more of Stephen Harper. And Fram Dimshaw reports that the veterans who once served as Harper's political cover are joining the cause in demanding more responsible government.

Juxtaposition II: Humanitarian Boogaloo

From one stunt...

The news of McCain's suspension drew gales of derision from the press. No one was willing to give him the slightest benefit of the doubt...that his motivations were anything less than craven...

McCainworld had assumed that the suspension would be viewed as an authentic, characteristic act of putting country first. But...McCain was now seen as a typical, and faintly desperate politician - and his campaign a campaign of stunts.

...to another:

Conservative candidate Chris Alexander has suspended his campaign for re-election in the riding of Ajax, Ont., in the wake of the Syrian refugee crisis.

Alexander cancelled a Thursday morning media appearance and is returning to Ottawa to focus on his ministerial responsibilities. They include looking into a case brought to the forefront Wednesday after disturbing images emerged showing a Syrian toddler's body washed up on a beach in Turkey.

In a statement, Alexander said "the tragic photo of young Aylan Kurdi and the news of the death of his brother and mother broke hearts around the world."

Meanwhile, Tabatha Southey calls out Alexander for still caring only about optics:

“Photo,” “images,” image,” talking point. A sense of what Alexander sees as the problem & where he’s going with it. https://t.co/GOtCIoquAh

— Tabatha Southey (@TabathaSouthey) September 3, 2015

And Tonda MacCharles notes how the Cons' campaign-only mentality will prevent Alexander from running even a public relations exercise from his office:

According to Chris Alexander's Ottawa office, all media relations spox are on leave until Oct. 19 working on election.

— Tonda MacCharles (@TondaMacC) September 3, 2015