For the first time since the end of the Vietnam War, Vietnam's prime minister will visit the United States. And as part of the trip, Phan Van Khai will get an audience with Bush at the White House.
An interesting event, but it's hard to see where Bush is coming from here. It sure wasn't a human rights angle, seeing as that protesters were out to note Vietman's poor record on that front. It does highlight Vietnam's economic emergence and help to put money in American pockets, which seems to be the main plus for Bush.
But there's of course another side to this which makes me wonder what Bush was thinking - and it goes beyond simply putting the name "Vietnam" in the news.
In giving unprecedented approval to the regime that drove the U.S. out of Vietnam, Bush also gives added ammunition to everybody who wants to see a pullout from Iraq. After all, it signals that Vietnam has become a stable state capable of acting internationally on its own, after failing to become that while U.S. soldiers were around.
A more thoughtful president would wonder whether the same strategy would be more effective in Iraq. And even if that thought won't occur to Bush, this move at least ensures that it'll come to mind for more Americans than would have been the case otherwise.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Trade-offs
Heather Mallick rightly blasts the developed world's past trade policies toward Africa:
Fortunately, there is one error, as trade is on the table for at least some G8 countries:
There's no excuse for Canada not to be Britain's strongest backer on the issue, and preferably taking a lead role in trying to win U.S. approval. For Canada alone among G8 states, the idea of eliminating farm subsidies is a winner both internationally and domestically (since the same EU and US subsidies that hurt Third World farmers also do somewhat less damage to our own). If our leadership can just focus a bit more carefully, there's chance to do some real good.
But the problem is not, and has never really been, aid. Cash helps temporarily. What crushes Africa are the trade policies of the rich nations. Africa is asked to open its markets to the massively subsidized goods of the rich, thus destroying their own agriculture and attempts at export. “Trade is the root of the problem,” the Make Poverty History campaign has told the BBC. But trade is not mentioned.
Fortunately, there is one error, as trade is on the table for at least some G8 countries:
Tony Blair will warn his European partners in the final two weeks before the crucial Gleneagles G8 summit that unless they dismantle the £30 billion Common Agricultural Policy, Africa will never free itself from poverty.
The acrimonious stand-off in Brussels last week over the cost of the CAP was a signal of Britain's determination to push farm subsidy reform to the top of the agenda.
There's no excuse for Canada not to be Britain's strongest backer on the issue, and preferably taking a lead role in trying to win U.S. approval. For Canada alone among G8 states, the idea of eliminating farm subsidies is a winner both internationally and domestically (since the same EU and US subsidies that hurt Third World farmers also do somewhat less damage to our own). If our leadership can just focus a bit more carefully, there's chance to do some real good.
So much to talk about, so little time
Paul Martin wants to talk about everything under the sun in a two-hour meeting with EU leaders.
My guess is that with Europe's eyes watching, "Mr. Dithers" sees an opportunity to change his characterization at the hands of the Economist. I'm sure he'll look forward to having the moniker changed to "Mr. Surface Discussion" in the next issue.
My guess is that with Europe's eyes watching, "Mr. Dithers" sees an opportunity to change his characterization at the hands of the Economist. I'm sure he'll look forward to having the moniker changed to "Mr. Surface Discussion" in the next issue.
A modest proposal
One small suggested first step in the fight against global warming and climate change:
Keep these off the roads. And preferably from being built in the first place.
Keep these off the roads. And preferably from being built in the first place.
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Deserving winners
Reporters Without Borders names its top Freedom Blogs, consisting of blogs defending freedom of expression, sometimes in the face of oppressive governments.
The winners:
Take a moment to remember how much easier we have it than some who risk life and limb to make the truth known.
The winners:
Asia: Screenshot (Malaysia, published in English)
Joint winner Africa and Middle East: Shared Pains (Afghanistan, Farsi)
Joint winner Africa and Middle East: Al Jinane (Morocco, French)
Europe: ICT lex (Italy, Italian)
Americas: Press Think (US, English)
Iran: Mojtaba Saminejad (Iran, Farsi)
International: Netzpolitik (Germany, German)
Take a moment to remember how much easier we have it than some who risk life and limb to make the truth known.
The Hon. Member from McCarthy East
Not too much interesting from yesterday, except for one excellent piece of campaign fodder.
Conservative Rob Nicholson isn't quite ready for the Cold War to be over:
This, of course, is followed by a half-hearted retraction again demanding the expulsion of "communist spies", but this time backed only by suspension of foreign aid in the meantime.
Can I get a "Mr. Hu, tear down that wall!"?
Conservative Rob Nicholson isn't quite ready for the Cold War to be over:
If the government does not have any money because it gave it all to the NDP, why does it not suspend trade with and foreign aid to China and do something with those resources to expel all these communist spies in our country?
This, of course, is followed by a half-hearted retraction again demanding the expulsion of "communist spies", but this time backed only by suspension of foreign aid in the meantime.
Can I get a "Mr. Hu, tear down that wall!"?
On listening to one's self
Ralph Goodale criticizes Europe for backloading its foreign aid promises:
Very interesting. The numbers from Goodale's budget just a few months ago:
So is minimal spending in the meantime acceptable, as long as some money flows now? If so, I'm sure we can count on several euros worth of aid flowing immediately.
If you say we're going to get there but we're not going to add a dollar until 2015 — and that is the commitment that some countries have made, entirely back-end loaded — well, it doesn't make for much help in the meantime.
Very interesting. The numbers from Goodale's budget just a few months ago:
Three-quarters of the $41.2 billion in new spending announced in the budget over the next five years will occur after April 1, 2007, with fully one-third of the overall spending in 2009-10, the last of the five years.
So is minimal spending in the meantime acceptable, as long as some money flows now? If so, I'm sure we can count on several euros worth of aid flowing immediately.
Blog Readership
A Little Bit Left has a great post on the future of blogging in Canada. That said, I'll point out that U.S. data seems to counter the thesis that an election campaign will drive blog readership up. For all the publicity given to the big American blogs during the campaign, they actually had more hits in April before the election and January afterward.
I'm not entirely sure why that's the case, but I suspect it's because even during relative down-times for news outlets, there's always something interesting going on somewhere on the blogs. When the MSM is properly covering an interesting story, there's less need to go online for news. But for someone wanting to know the latest on Downing Street, until a week ago there was nowhere to go but online.
I'm not entirely sure why that's the case, but I suspect it's because even during relative down-times for news outlets, there's always something interesting going on somewhere on the blogs. When the MSM is properly covering an interesting story, there's less need to go online for news. But for someone wanting to know the latest on Downing Street, until a week ago there was nowhere to go but online.
Friday, June 17, 2005
Campaign finance reform
...small-party style:
A good plan, as I can understand the frustration at being left out of the money even on a per-vote basis, and there may well be a serious case to be made based on s. 15 of the Charter.
But why stop at cooperating for the purposes of the lawsuit? Surely if these groups all joined forces, they could give the Greens a run for their money as Canada's fifth party. And the collective message wouldn't be any less coherent than that of the Greens now.
Seven of Canada's smaller political parties have launched a lawsuit, claiming they're not being given their fair share in electoral funds.
...
The Christian Heritage party is looking for its share. So, too, is the Marxist-Leninist party, the Communist party and the Marijuana party.
A good plan, as I can understand the frustration at being left out of the money even on a per-vote basis, and there may well be a serious case to be made based on s. 15 of the Charter.
But why stop at cooperating for the purposes of the lawsuit? Surely if these groups all joined forces, they could give the Greens a run for their money as Canada's fifth party. And the collective message wouldn't be any less coherent than that of the Greens now.
They're all the most radical candidate!
So much for my thinking that an immediate referendum would be a radical policy in the upcoming PQ leadership race:
Now that both of her opponents seem to back this idea, how long until Marois announces the same plan?
(Boisclair) said he will hold a referendum within a first mandate if the PQ defeats Premier Jean Charest's Liberals in an election likely to be held in 2007 or 2008.
Now that both of her opponents seem to back this idea, how long until Marois announces the same plan?
On when to close the barn door
The Cons wish Stronach had been forced to run in a by-election:
The bill also requires that an MP leaving a political party sit as an independent during the time before the writ.
One fun loophole in that it doesn't appear that independents are covered by it - would this lead MPs to run as independents in order to choose which party to join based on how the session worked out?
And on a more snide note, is there any chance this bill would have been introduced if Kilgour or O'Brien had joined the Cons?
One month after Stronach's departure sank their hopes of toppling the Liberals, her jilted former mates tabled a private member's bill Friday. The bill would force a byelection call within 35 days in any riding where an MP switched sides to join a new party.
The bill also requires that an MP leaving a political party sit as an independent during the time before the writ.
One fun loophole in that it doesn't appear that independents are covered by it - would this lead MPs to run as independents in order to choose which party to join based on how the session worked out?
And on a more snide note, is there any chance this bill would have been introduced if Kilgour or O'Brien had joined the Cons?
The CBC isn't perfect
But here's why it's still the best we have for now:
Media that stands up for itself against ridiculous assaults from right-wing ideologues. No wonder Bill O'Reilly hates it.
There are serious issues that should be debated -- ones that affect the heartbeat of a democracy. What do the media cover? How do they cover it? What motivates their decisions? Are there tendencies that apply to all news organizations, or only certain ones? Are there hidden agendas that people should be aware of?
But they should be debated seriously, by serious people. This latest Fraser Institute "study," like yelling at the TV, adds nothing.
Media that stands up for itself against ridiculous assaults from right-wing ideologues. No wonder Bill O'Reilly hates it.
Freedom Days
A quick link to this Babble discussion about the focus given to Fraser Institute's "Tax Freedom Day". My contribution was to suggest that rather than merely trying to shut down the current talking point, progressives should develop new ones of their own (in particular annual ones similar to the TFD concept). Here are the suggestions so far, please add any more ideas you can contribute.
Go to it!
Gender Freedom Day - the September or October day when the average male will earn as much as a comparable female will earn in a full year.
Executive Freedom Day - the day in early January when the average corporate CEO earns as much the average employee for that company. (For added fun we can have two such times hours apart, reflecting before-tax and after-tax.)
Welcome to Canada Day (renamed from the thread) - Some day from late August to mid September, highlighting the lower wages first-gen immigrants earn.
Private Auto Insurance Freedom Day - For the New Democrats out West, this is self explanatory.
US Tuition Freedom Day - The difference between American and Canadian university tuitions.
Go to it!
It's up...
...but is it going anywhere yet?
IWT News went live on Wednesday, and I've been avoiding another link in hopes that a bit more substance would be put on the site. So far it's limited to a promotional video, a survey on current news coverage, and a blog which only covers issues related to IWT News itself.
The disappointing part to me is that the intention seems to be to use the Web only for fund-raising purposes, rather than as an easy and cheap means of getting a foot in the door. A couple of blog entries a day pointing out news stories which aren't getting much press would go a long way toward showing what the network will eventually hope to accomplish. The power of the Web is great, but so too is the pace - and I hope IWT will keep up.
IWT News went live on Wednesday, and I've been avoiding another link in hopes that a bit more substance would be put on the site. So far it's limited to a promotional video, a survey on current news coverage, and a blog which only covers issues related to IWT News itself.
The disappointing part to me is that the intention seems to be to use the Web only for fund-raising purposes, rather than as an easy and cheap means of getting a foot in the door. A couple of blog entries a day pointing out news stories which aren't getting much press would go a long way toward showing what the network will eventually hope to accomplish. The power of the Web is great, but so too is the pace - and I hope IWT will keep up.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Pillorella pilloried
No, I'm not the only one who's appalled at the actions of the then-ambassador to Syria.
From CBC:
Never mind ambassadors, doesn't pretty much any job involve generally paying attention to one's surrounding circumstances?
(Conservative strategists excepted of course. But to my knowledge none of them have been given diplomatic postings just yet.)
From CBC:
Former Canadian ambassador to the UN Paul Heinbecker berated his colleague Franco Pillarella for comments made at the Maher Arar inquiry...
Heinbecker spent 40 years in the Department of Foreign Affairs. He says everybody knows Syria has a bad human rights record and for Pillarella to say otherwise, casts a pall over the entire foreign service.
"I think it puts the Department of Foreign Affairs and the foreign service in a bad light," he said...
He says it is the ambassador's job to know the situation in-country and act accordingly.
Never mind ambassadors, doesn't pretty much any job involve generally paying attention to one's surrounding circumstances?
(Conservative strategists excepted of course. But to my knowledge none of them have been given diplomatic postings just yet.)
Contributory negligence
Dalton McGuinty unveils a plan to sue the U.S. over smog.
Very interesting idea, but there are a few problems:
(1) Ontario itself hasn't yet stopped using coal-fired plants, and doesn't plan to for a few years yet:
To the extent that standards of care come into play, it'll thus be awfully tough for Ontario to get anywhere while not practicing what it's suing for.
(2) As noted by Marilyn Churley, part of the incoming emissions result from coal power plants from which Ontario purchases electricity:
(3) If Ontario succeeds in such a lawsuit, then surely Quebec and the maritime provinces would have an equally strong claim against Ontario itself for sending pollution their way. Any gain would thus be temporary at best.
Nice gambit by McGuinty to try to get attention, but until Ontario at least tries itself to meet the standard it's demanding, this isn't the answer to any question other than "what's the best way to irritate the U.S. for absolutely no potential gain?".
Very interesting idea, but there are a few problems:
(1) Ontario itself hasn't yet stopped using coal-fired plants, and doesn't plan to for a few years yet:
Despite a Liberal promise to close all of the province’s coal-burning generating stations by 2007, only three will close on schedule. The fourth, Nanticoke — the province’s worst polluter — will close in 2009.
To the extent that standards of care come into play, it'll thus be awfully tough for Ontario to get anywhere while not practicing what it's suing for.
(2) As noted by Marilyn Churley, part of the incoming emissions result from coal power plants from which Ontario purchases electricity:
As long as they’re importing power from the U.S. midwest that burns coal, I don’t think that they have a leg to stand on.
(3) If Ontario succeeds in such a lawsuit, then surely Quebec and the maritime provinces would have an equally strong claim against Ontario itself for sending pollution their way. Any gain would thus be temporary at best.
Nice gambit by McGuinty to try to get attention, but until Ontario at least tries itself to meet the standard it's demanding, this isn't the answer to any question other than "what's the best way to irritate the U.S. for absolutely no potential gain?".
Guessing game
Antonio Zerbisias notes an impeding conservative rival to Maclean's. Agreed with her that the copy editing is something to behold.
I presume this will be an effort to completely counter the information given in the original. In light of this prominent story in Maclean's, which seems to follow the generally-accepted take on the Harry Potter series (i.e. Harry good, Voldemort bad), what will be the imitator's take on J.K. Rowling's creation?
(a) The whole series is fundamentally evil for preaching witchcraft and independence.
(b) Harry should never have been taken away from his aunt and uncle. Instead the Dursleys should have received a tax credit. Then they could have chosen either to spoil Dudley even more, or to better restrain Harry.
(c) Voldemort is getting a bad rap, and just needs to show his sense of humour on the barbecue circuit in order to deservedly take absolute power.
(d) All of the above.
If you can correctly answer the above question, and avoid misspelling any words, you're one step ahead of the current operating minds.
I presume this will be an effort to completely counter the information given in the original. In light of this prominent story in Maclean's, which seems to follow the generally-accepted take on the Harry Potter series (i.e. Harry good, Voldemort bad), what will be the imitator's take on J.K. Rowling's creation?
(a) The whole series is fundamentally evil for preaching witchcraft and independence.
(b) Harry should never have been taken away from his aunt and uncle. Instead the Dursleys should have received a tax credit. Then they could have chosen either to spoil Dudley even more, or to better restrain Harry.
(c) Voldemort is getting a bad rap, and just needs to show his sense of humour on the barbecue circuit in order to deservedly take absolute power.
(d) All of the above.
If you can correctly answer the above question, and avoid misspelling any words, you're one step ahead of the current operating minds.
Commons review
From yesterday's Hansard...
Bob Mills can spot a problem and repeat his complaint, but doesn't mention why we should think he has an effective plan.
Bev Desjarlais blasts inaction on Zonolite:
Jason Kenney, Peter MacKay and Stockwell Day are outraged that a world power actually has a spy service.
Jack's back to smog, with good results.
Brian Masse makes it clear that the NDP does care about trade with the U.S., and wonders whether the government does the same.
And Diane Bourgeois takes the lead on foreign aid. Much as I'd like to see the NDP at the frontlines on this one (particularly given the contents of C-48), at least it's getting talked about.
Bob Mills can spot a problem and repeat his complaint, but doesn't mention why we should think he has an effective plan.
Bev Desjarlais blasts inaction on Zonolite:
During the 1970s and 1980s, thousands of homes in Canada were insulated with zonolite. The federal government encouraged its use under the CHIP program. The Liberals have said they will remove the dangerous asbestos from military homes, but not from reserve housing or from hundreds of thousands of other homes across Canada...
(T)he Liberal government should be rightly recognized as the villain, willing to risk the lives of Canadians by ignoring the danger.
Jason Kenney, Peter MacKay and Stockwell Day are outraged that a world power actually has a spy service.
Jack's back to smog, with good results.
Brian Masse makes it clear that the NDP does care about trade with the U.S., and wonders whether the government does the same.
And Diane Bourgeois takes the lead on foreign aid. Much as I'd like to see the NDP at the frontlines on this one (particularly given the contents of C-48), at least it's getting talked about.
No deal. Or is there?
The Star seems to think so, based on the say-so of some Liberal backbenchers:
The question here is why the Star takes the word of anonymous backbenchers as to the direction of the government - especially when it also points out that Ken Boshcoff, one of the backbench Liberals who opposes C-38, would rather see a vote now than let the fight drag on through the summer.
I'll grant that the latter part of Reid's quote may leave some room for doubt as well. As already noted, though, there's no need for the Liberals to leave any doubt - nobody wants an election now, and nobody's going to care if the government (particularly with some opposition support) shuts down debate on both bills. If anything, it'll only ensure that Stephen Harper is still grouchy when he hits the barbecue circuit.
"There is no deal and there will be no deal between the government and the Conservatives to delay the civil marriage legislation until the fall. Period," Reid said.
"We can't guarantee that Bill C-38 will pass this session if the Conservatives are determined to obstruct and filibuster both it and the budget bill."
But backbench Liberals say it has become obvious in recent weeks that the beleaguered Martin government is not going to force a final vote on same-sex marriage before June 23, which will allow for more debate of the issue in the Commons when MPs return to Ottawa in the fall.
The question here is why the Star takes the word of anonymous backbenchers as to the direction of the government - especially when it also points out that Ken Boshcoff, one of the backbench Liberals who opposes C-38, would rather see a vote now than let the fight drag on through the summer.
I'll grant that the latter part of Reid's quote may leave some room for doubt as well. As already noted, though, there's no need for the Liberals to leave any doubt - nobody wants an election now, and nobody's going to care if the government (particularly with some opposition support) shuts down debate on both bills. If anything, it'll only ensure that Stephen Harper is still grouchy when he hits the barbecue circuit.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
The radical candidate?
A new name enters the PQ leadership race:
If the 24% of the party who voted against Landry really did so out of frustration at the lack of movement toward separation, this seems to be their candidate. And now that there are two confirmed candidates with Boisclair also likely to announce, any "re-draft Landry" movement is probably dead. The suspense continues.
Louis Bernard, a chief of staff to then-Parti Quebecois premier Rene Levesque in the 1970s, announced Wednesday he will run for the party's leadership.
Bernard, 68, who also served as a top-ranking civil servant, is the second candidate to officially seek the top job.
"I really have the intention to win the (leadership) race, win the election and make Quebec independent," he said. "That's my goal."
He also said he wants the province to be a country to allow it to assume its destiny and assert itself on the international stage.
If the 24% of the party who voted against Landry really did so out of frustration at the lack of movement toward separation, this seems to be their candidate. And now that there are two confirmed candidates with Boisclair also likely to announce, any "re-draft Landry" movement is probably dead. The suspense continues.
That didn't take long
Martin spokesman Scott Reid:
Damn right. But let's not pretend the Liberals cared enough about those issues to put them in the budget in the first place.
If this is the path (Tory leader) Stephen Harper selects, we will let him explain to Canadians why affordable housing, environmental protection and aid for the world’s poorest should be hostage to his unwillingness to allow a free vote on civil marriage take place.
Damn right. But let's not pretend the Liberals cared enough about those issues to put them in the budget in the first place.
The budget offer
Very interesting move by the Tories. Suddenly the supposedly-reckless spending is just fine, as long as bigotry is allowed to reign a little longer.
As an aside, I'm not sure why the press is claiming Jay Hill's comment was "snappy" as opposed to "nonsensical":
No, Jay, there's a difference between "trying to make Parliament work" and "threatening to prevent Parliament from working".
The more striking part to me is the Cons' apparent acceptance that defeating C-38 is an official "party position", so important that they'll trade off a budget in order to get it done. Haven't they been ranting all along about the need for free votes rather than party strong-arming on the issue? Do the Cons who have voted in favour of C-38 (but presumably still oppose the budget) agree with the trade-off?
There's no reason for Martin to cut a deal at this point - he can pass both the budget and C-38 this sitting if he stays the course and limits debate if necessary, and nobody will remember (or care) about his limiting debate by the time an election rolls around. The only reward for giving in will be even more of a PR campaign against SSM over the summer. Let's hope he makes the right decision.
As an aside, I'm not sure why the press is claiming Jay Hill's comment was "snappy" as opposed to "nonsensical":
This isn’t about what Canadians are concerned about. The reality is it’s about trying to make Parliament work.
No, Jay, there's a difference between "trying to make Parliament work" and "threatening to prevent Parliament from working".
The more striking part to me is the Cons' apparent acceptance that defeating C-38 is an official "party position", so important that they'll trade off a budget in order to get it done. Haven't they been ranting all along about the need for free votes rather than party strong-arming on the issue? Do the Cons who have voted in favour of C-38 (but presumably still oppose the budget) agree with the trade-off?
There's no reason for Martin to cut a deal at this point - he can pass both the budget and C-38 this sitting if he stays the course and limits debate if necessary, and nobody will remember (or care) about his limiting debate by the time an election rolls around. The only reward for giving in will be even more of a PR campaign against SSM over the summer. Let's hope he makes the right decision.
Defending Canadian interests
Offered the chance to sit in on Syrian interrogations of Maher Arar, Ambassador Franco Pillarella declined. And the public won't be told why:
But don't worry: if Pillarella had been shown "conclusive proof of torture", he may have taken action.
Keep in mind that this is Canada's top representative in a foreign state known for torture...and he not only didn't follow up himself, but even declined invitations to gather more information.
And for this he was rewarded by being assigned another ambassadorial position.
Ever rewarding merit, that Martin.
(T)he former Canadian ambassador to Damascus...testified Wednesday that the offer was made to him by Gen. Hassan Khalil, head of Syrian military intelligence...
Pillarella did not explain, in his public testimony, why the Syrian offer was rejected. He has testified at length in camera, but that evidence remains secret for national security reasons.
But don't worry: if Pillarella had been shown "conclusive proof of torture", he may have taken action.
Pillarella acknowledged that prison conditions were likely "appalling" and that Arar was "probably subject to some form of abuse."
But the ambassador, who has since been posted to Romania, insisted for a second straight day that he had no conclusive proof of torture.
Keep in mind that this is Canada's top representative in a foreign state known for torture...and he not only didn't follow up himself, but even declined invitations to gather more information.
And for this he was rewarded by being assigned another ambassadorial position.
Ever rewarding merit, that Martin.
For those who missed it...
including Sarmite Bulte, the House of Commons had more going on yesterday than just the confidence motions. A sampling:
-Alexa rightly slams the Cons for their committee whitewashing of C-48.
-Paul Martin actually agrees with Blaikie that the ongoing Devil's Lake diversion is "simply unacceptable".
-And Rona Ambrose gets in some recreational union-bashing.
Now wasn't that more fun than an endless series of votes?
-Alexa rightly slams the Cons for their committee whitewashing of C-48.
-Paul Martin actually agrees with Blaikie that the ongoing Devil's Lake diversion is "simply unacceptable".
-And Rona Ambrose gets in some recreational union-bashing.
Now wasn't that more fun than an endless series of votes?
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Preaching to the converted
Antonia Zerbisias wonders whether bloggers will notice IWT's debut in the absence of corporate media coverage.
It may have already come up once or twice.
And nobody should be surprised that the corporate media isn't too eager to cover a future competitor instead of hoping it'll go away. It's up to us to make sure that doesn't happen.
It may have already come up once or twice.
And nobody should be surprised that the corporate media isn't too eager to cover a future competitor instead of hoping it'll go away. It's up to us to make sure that doesn't happen.
No more impunity
Now this is an impressive ruling:
Note the importance of international norms in overturning a well-established law. In the view of anybody concerned with human rights and individual accountability, this decision is cause for celebration. In the view of a good chunk of the U.S. House of Representatives, this would be cause to impeach the majority of the court.
Hundreds of people could be charged with torture, disappearances and kidnapping babies during Argentina's so-called Dirty War against dissidents after the Supreme Court today struck down amnesties passed in the 1980s.
In a 7-1 vote, with one abstention, the Supreme Court voided laws passed in 1986 and 1987 to forbid charges involved in disappearances, torture and other crimes during the dictatorship. The court said the bans were contrary to today's international norms requiring the state to protect human rights and punish abuses.
Note the importance of international norms in overturning a well-established law. In the view of anybody concerned with human rights and individual accountability, this decision is cause for celebration. In the view of a good chunk of the U.S. House of Representatives, this would be cause to impeach the majority of the court.
The next Liberal leader?
Frank McKenna seems to be making friends in high places as U.S. Ambassador.
Though I have to wonder whether winning Lou Dobbs' approval is more an insult than a compliment.
Though I have to wonder whether winning Lou Dobbs' approval is more an insult than a compliment.
Real scandals
The Tyee strikes again - this time Murray Dobbin has the rundown on Liberal actions which should be reviled more than the sponsorship scandal.
The punchline:
Amen to that.
The punchline:
The polls also say that the sponsorship scandal is dropping down the list of concerns -- replaced by traditional issues such as health care, child poverty and the environment. Canadians have got it right.
Amen to that.
Diplomatic amorality
Canada's ambassador to Syria at the Arar inquiry:
A truly compelling argument. Since, of course, most states in the midst of acts of torture are particularly eager to share this fact with foreign diplomats and the public at large. (Them aside.)
Pillarella was asked repeatedly about the first meeting Canadian officials had with Arar at a Syrian jail in October of 2002.
At that time, Arar told a consular official that he had been in custody in secret for two weeks.
But Pillarella chose to believe a Syrian official who assured him Arar had been there for only 24 hours...
"I believe facts," Pillarella replied.
"When [the consular official] met with Mr. Arar, there was no evidence, no evidence that Mr. Arar had been physically tortured.
"Because I can tell you one thing: If that evidence had been there, that evidence would have been reported to Ottawa."
A truly compelling argument. Since, of course, most states in the midst of acts of torture are particularly eager to share this fact with foreign diplomats and the public at large. (Them aside.)
Bargaining for advantage
Maclean's has this interview with Jeremy Kinsman, Canada's Ambassador to the EU:
While Kinsman earlier draws a parallel to the failure of Meech Lake (and oddly argues that since the economy is doing well, the lack of an agreement doesn't much matter), an equally striking similarity is to the side-deal form of equalization. Of course, it's obvious why the premiers are willing to take whatever money they can get from the feds. It's less obvious why, rather than trying to build a system that's fair to each province, Martin has cut different deals for different provinces based on different criteria. Good politics for now, probably, since it forced the Newfoundland Cons to try to get the budget passed. But it's terrible long-term policy which will likely hurt the Liberals if future discussions result in any province getting less than it does under the status quo.
I'm afraid to say the present guys who are running the big countries aren't the guys to do it. They fail to see beyond their own political, national self-interest. They've been running against Europe, against Brussels, for so long now, and bargaining with each other for advantage for so long, that they really can't mobilize people in favour of Europe. The European idea has lost its mobilizing credibility.
While Kinsman earlier draws a parallel to the failure of Meech Lake (and oddly argues that since the economy is doing well, the lack of an agreement doesn't much matter), an equally striking similarity is to the side-deal form of equalization. Of course, it's obvious why the premiers are willing to take whatever money they can get from the feds. It's less obvious why, rather than trying to build a system that's fair to each province, Martin has cut different deals for different provinces based on different criteria. Good politics for now, probably, since it forced the Newfoundland Cons to try to get the budget passed. But it's terrible long-term policy which will likely hurt the Liberals if future discussions result in any province getting less than it does under the status quo.
Smog continues
From the Star:
Just a reminder of why good policy on pollution is vital both economically and socially. And why waiting 12 years in office before even putting together a plan is inexcusable.
More than 5,800 Ontario residents are expected to die prematurely this year because they are breathing dirty air, warns a new report from the Ontario Medical Association...
"The impact polluted air is having on the health of Ontarians is dramatically worse than we had initially estimated," said Dr. Greg Flynn, president of the OMA. "We are paying the price for poor air quality with our lives and if we don't take action immediately, the cost will continue to rise significantly."...
The report estimates the cost of lost workdays from illnesses related to air pollution — including caregivers' time — at $374 million this year, rising to almost $467 million by 2026.
Health care for air pollution related illnesses, including hospital stays and medications, will cost about $507 million this year, and nearly $702 million by 2026.
Just a reminder of why good policy on pollution is vital both economically and socially. And why waiting 12 years in office before even putting together a plan is inexcusable.
Monday, June 13, 2005
A great argument against term limits
ElBaradei is confirmed to a third term at the IAEA, as the U.S. decides not to fight his re-nomination - despite outrageous moves like this:
Ah, the insolence. Hasn't he learned that where Bushco wants proof, Bushco finds proof? (Which, coincidentally, is probably the best available argument in favour of term limits.)
In spite of US charges of softness, the IAEA head has repeatedly criticised Iran for its lack of openness with the agency's inspectors. But his team has found no firm proof of Washington's suspicions that Tehran is preparing the ground to make nuclear weapons.
Ah, the insolence. Hasn't he learned that where Bushco wants proof, Bushco finds proof? (Which, coincidentally, is probably the best available argument in favour of term limits.)
Some people get it
From the Western Governors Association meeting:
Meanwhile, no hypocrisy on our side:
Just to be clear, in the long run the closed border may be turning into a net plus for Canada due to increased processing capability, and that's part of the reason for the U.S. backlash against a continued ban. But the best of all worlds is in sight: the processing plants are already going up. If the borders open as well, then all levels of cattle production should be in better shape than before the crisis.
Now if Calvert's voice calling for reduced ag subsidies gets heard, we'll really be in business.
Gov. Bill Owens said Monday it is "hypocrisy" for the United States to pressure Japan to lift a ban on U.S. beef over mad cow concerns while banning Canadian beef for the same reason.
"It's this sort of hypocrisy that makes it very difficult for the U.S. to win any sort of trade war."
Meanwhile, no hypocrisy on our side:
Canada's ambassador to Washington, Frank McKenna, said Monday Ottawa will not close its border to imports of U.S. beef.
Just to be clear, in the long run the closed border may be turning into a net plus for Canada due to increased processing capability, and that's part of the reason for the U.S. backlash against a continued ban. But the best of all worlds is in sight: the processing plants are already going up. If the borders open as well, then all levels of cattle production should be in better shape than before the crisis.
Now if Calvert's voice calling for reduced ag subsidies gets heard, we'll really be in business.
New Media
This may be the best news I've heard in a long time:
I'm particularly impressed to see Klein and the Lewises involved - all favourites of mine for obvious reasons.
The plans for now are relatively modest:
Needless to say, the upside here is substantial: a brand-new news source to not only provide socially responsible coverage itself, but also to force corporate media to cover the issues worth covering.
Of course, there's a downside to any break from the norm. If it doesn't pan out, then that entrenches and reinforces the current media all the more.
For all the legitimate griping about the corporate-owned media, this is a real alternative in the making. Go. Read. Contribute. Enjoy.
EDIT: Welcome to all the Kossacks finding their way here. One comment for those hoping that a George Soros will fund the whole project - I have to agree with the network's own position on this one:
To me that restricts large individual donations as well, and for substantially the same reason. This network shouldn't be beholden to George Soros any more than it is to corporate advertisers - better to let Soros provide seed money for think tanks, while this becomes a truly grassroots effort.
On February 15, 2003, 15 million people around the world protested the illegal American invasion of Iraq. That impressive organizing effort convinced Jay and others that independent world television, supported by its viewers, was possible. They would use the Internet -- which allows millions of people to band together – to raise the money. Jay has brought on board key strategists from the Howard Dean presidential campaign who were astonishingly successful in raising millions of dollars in small amounts over the Internet.
The 98-member IWT advisory committee reads like a who’s who of progressive left activism and journalism, especially from the US. The list includes Lewis Lapham of Harper’s Magazine, Gore Vidal, Jeff Cohen, Laura Flanders and Janine Jackson from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, and Janeane Garofalo of Air America.
Among the 35 Canadians on the committee are familiar names like Patrick Watson, Bill Roberts of Vision TV, Naomi Klein, Avi Lewis, Stephen Lewis and filmmaker Alan King. From other countries the advisory board contains people like investigative journalist Greg Palast, anti-nuclear armaments activist Helen Calidicott, and former U.K. Labour Minister Tony Benn.
I'm particularly impressed to see Klein and the Lewises involved - all favourites of mine for obvious reasons.
The plans for now are relatively modest:
Sample programming consists of six hours of programs five days a week. These include one hour of citizen journalism from around the world, the evening news, an issue-focused debate show, a show in which journalists and experts analyze the day’s major stories, an investigative program, feature-length documentaries, a show on the global political economy, political satire, issues from the south, environmental issues and a show profiling how people have organized their campaigns.
Needless to say, the upside here is substantial: a brand-new news source to not only provide socially responsible coverage itself, but also to force corporate media to cover the issues worth covering.
Of course, there's a downside to any break from the norm. If it doesn't pan out, then that entrenches and reinforces the current media all the more.
For all the legitimate griping about the corporate-owned media, this is a real alternative in the making. Go. Read. Contribute. Enjoy.
EDIT: Welcome to all the Kossacks finding their way here. One comment for those hoping that a George Soros will fund the whole project - I have to agree with the network's own position on this one:
Money from business, advertisers and government will be prohibited.
To me that restricts large individual donations as well, and for substantially the same reason. This network shouldn't be beholden to George Soros any more than it is to corporate advertisers - better to let Soros provide seed money for think tanks, while this becomes a truly grassroots effort.
Courting disaster
From the National Post:
I don't have a huge problem with Major's actual position, especially since (contrary to the headline) Major clarifies by saying that a U.S.-style public vetting of candidates wouldn't result in any useful information coming out. However, that part is conveniently left out of the lead.
What's worse, a more important question is left out of the article entirely. The calculation isn't simply whether qualified candidates will avoid the court based on public hearings, but also whether the court (even if composed of the exactly the same people) will be seen as more political due to opposition-party grandstanding.
At the best of times, the balance favours maintaining the status quo. When people like this are taking a substantial place in the official opposition, the balance swings even further against mixing politics with the court.
A retiring Supreme Court of Canada judge says his potential replacements would not be scared off if the Martin government allowed MPs to publicly question them before being named to the High Court.
"Taking the ordinary qualified candidate, I don't think anyone would say 'no' simply because there is going to be an interview," Justice Jack Major said.
I don't have a huge problem with Major's actual position, especially since (contrary to the headline) Major clarifies by saying that a U.S.-style public vetting of candidates wouldn't result in any useful information coming out. However, that part is conveniently left out of the lead.
What's worse, a more important question is left out of the article entirely. The calculation isn't simply whether qualified candidates will avoid the court based on public hearings, but also whether the court (even if composed of the exactly the same people) will be seen as more political due to opposition-party grandstanding.
At the best of times, the balance favours maintaining the status quo. When people like this are taking a substantial place in the official opposition, the balance swings even further against mixing politics with the court.
Getting things accomplished
This time, it's Ed Broadbent managing to push for action on democratic reform:
Due credit to the rest of the committee as well for working with the NDP's elder statesman. But it's a huge plus to have yet another example of the NDP taking the lead to get something done.
Chairman Don Boudria, a Liberal, said a report could be issued by Wednesday. "We're making tremendous progress. Not that many days ago I would have said the chance that we'll ever report anything is remote. But it isn't that way now. I'm optimistic," he said.
The improved collegiality among the MPs reportedly came after New Democrat Ed Broadbent put forward a motion -- which is expected to form the basis of the panel's report -- urging the creation of two separate committees. One would consult Canadians and report to the other committee, which would consult with experts and make final recommendations.
Due credit to the rest of the committee as well for working with the NDP's elder statesman. But it's a huge plus to have yet another example of the NDP taking the lead to get something done.
Sunday, June 12, 2005
The starting point
Paul Krugman on efforts to reform the American health-care system:
From our standpoint, this column highlights the need for immediate action. Right now, the status quo is an almost entirely publicly-funded system. The more insurers that are able to set up shop before any action is taken, however, the more vested interests there will be in the privatized elements of the system.
Krugman notes that even with 70+% support both in the 1940s and now, the U.S. has never been able to put a universal health-care system into effect. We have that system now - but if we let it slip away, it'll be nearly impossible to regain it.
(M)ost reform proposals out there - even proposals from liberal groups like the Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress - reject a simple single-payer approach. Instead, they call for some combination of mandates and subsidies to help everyone buy insurance from private insurers.
Some people, not all of them right-wingers, fear that a single-payer system would hurt innovation. But the main reason these proposals give private insurers a big role is the belief that the insurers must be appeased...
But I think that's the wrong lesson. The Clinton plan actually preserved a big role for private insurers; the industry attacked it all the same. And the plan's complexity, which was largely a result of attempts to placate interest groups, made it hard to sell to the public. So I would argue that good economics is also good politics: reformers will do best with a straightforward single-payer plan, which offers maximum savings and, unlike the Clinton plan, can easily be explained.
From our standpoint, this column highlights the need for immediate action. Right now, the status quo is an almost entirely publicly-funded system. The more insurers that are able to set up shop before any action is taken, however, the more vested interests there will be in the privatized elements of the system.
Krugman notes that even with 70+% support both in the 1940s and now, the U.S. has never been able to put a universal health-care system into effect. We have that system now - but if we let it slip away, it'll be nearly impossible to regain it.
Tax collection
It's not a popular job, but it is a necessary one. And results from the Canada Revenue Agency paint an interesting picture:
It's particularly noteworthy that the total number of dollars left unpaid by corporations exceeds the amount unpaid by individuals. Meanwhile, according to the Finance Department, total revenue from personal income tax was over three times that from corporate tax, by a margin of $84.9 billion to $27.4 billion.
I'll grant that there's an apples-to-oranges element in comparing accumulated debts to annual incomes. That said, it still bears mention that the ratio of personal taxes paid to unpaid is over 10:1, while that for corporations is under 3:1.
Can we agree to take corporate tax cuts off the table until corporations start matching individual Canadians in paying the taxes that they already owe?
As of March 31 this year, the federal government was owed $18 billion in overdue tax accounts, compared with just $9.6 billion in 1997. Put another way, about 5.5 per cent of all the money owed in federal taxes as of March 31 this year is overdue, compared with about 4.3 per cent in 1997. About $8 billion of the outstanding taxes are owed by individuals; the rest are due from companies.
It's particularly noteworthy that the total number of dollars left unpaid by corporations exceeds the amount unpaid by individuals. Meanwhile, according to the Finance Department, total revenue from personal income tax was over three times that from corporate tax, by a margin of $84.9 billion to $27.4 billion.
I'll grant that there's an apples-to-oranges element in comparing accumulated debts to annual incomes. That said, it still bears mention that the ratio of personal taxes paid to unpaid is over 10:1, while that for corporations is under 3:1.
Can we agree to take corporate tax cuts off the table until corporations start matching individual Canadians in paying the taxes that they already owe?
Framing and pressure
What pogge says:
It's tempting to look for groups to criticize at this point, and McQuaig takes aim at a couple of easy and prominent ones. But as noted by pogge, slamming the court only ignores its proper concern over past underfunding. And as cathartic as it can be to take out one's frustrations on the Fraser Institute, that's not the target that matters now.
These are. Apply pressure accordingly.
(I)t's a mistake for those who support single payor health care to dwell on the subject of so-called judicial activism. It shifts the debate away from where it needs to be. It shifts the focus away from governments and politicians who are responsible for the current state of affairs and who are the only ones who can do anything about it. Of course that means they'll have to stop playing politics with the issue and get down to the admittedly difficult job of actually doing something about it. But that's what we pay them for.
It's tempting to look for groups to criticize at this point, and McQuaig takes aim at a couple of easy and prominent ones. But as noted by pogge, slamming the court only ignores its proper concern over past underfunding. And as cathartic as it can be to take out one's frustrations on the Fraser Institute, that's not the target that matters now.
These are. Apply pressure accordingly.
Keeping on top of one's work
Dosanjh, appearing on Question Period, discusses the Supreme Court's judgment: "I haven't read it thoroughly. Not yet."
I suppose it makes more sense that he's not calling any meetings yet - obviously he still has some important reading to catch up on first.
I suppose it makes more sense that he's not calling any meetings yet - obviously he still has some important reading to catch up on first.
Something to stop the genocide
Canada now plans to send 100 armored personnel carriers to the Sudan:
But there's a potential hold-up:
This should be a gimme. Bush has talked about the need for action. The carriers themselves are 30 years old and not suitable for use except as support vehicles, or against relatively lightly armed forces like those in the Sudan. If there's any delay in U.S. approval, there'll be all the more ammunition for those who argue that Bush is trying to prevent action.
Canada may send 100 Grizzly armoured personnel carriers to Sudan...They would be used by the African Union, which has a 7,500-soldier force that is trying to stop Arab militias from killing the local population in the Darfur area.
But there's a potential hold-up:
But sending the vehicles is not a sure thing because the U.S. State Department has a veto. The Grizzlies contain U.S. equipment, and cannot be sent to a third country without U.S. permission...
This should be a gimme. Bush has talked about the need for action. The carriers themselves are 30 years old and not suitable for use except as support vehicles, or against relatively lightly armed forces like those in the Sudan. If there's any delay in U.S. approval, there'll be all the more ammunition for those who argue that Bush is trying to prevent action.
Saturday, June 11, 2005
Remembering the priorities
For all the recent talk about crystal meth, a little perspective is in order.
And:
As important as it is to confront new issues, the poll shows the danger in giving complete attention to a new problem when past ones haven't been solved. We should be dealing with drugs and associated issues as a whole, not crystal meth to the exclusion of similar issues.
(Saskatoon's) public believes alcohol, followed by marijuana and crystal meth are the most abused substance in the province. Talwin/Ritalin, cocaine and solvent abuse, respectively, were considered less widespread. Regina respondents ranked the substances in the same order.
Regina Police Chief Cal Johnston said while alcohol abuse is certainly the biggest problem they face on a day-to-day basis, cocaine is probably next on that list and is, for now, a bigger problem than crystal meth...
And:
Brian Checkley, an addictions counsellor at the Metis Addictions Council of Saskatchewan Inc., said he hasn't dealt with a lot of crystal meth addicts in Regina and sees more cocaine and Talwin/Ritalin addicts than anything else. That, however, doesn't mean the problem isn't growing.
As important as it is to confront new issues, the poll shows the danger in giving complete attention to a new problem when past ones haven't been solved. We should be dealing with drugs and associated issues as a whole, not crystal meth to the exclusion of similar issues.
Shutting down hearings
It doesn't only happen in Canada:
Fortunately, on most committees our obstructionist Cons can't do more than raise irrelevant points of order. And with any luck, as well as Harper's plummeting position, maybe another election will reduce their ability to do even that.
The Republican chairman walked off with the gavel, leaving Democrats shouting into turned-off microphones at a raucous hearing Friday on the Patriot Act.
Democrats asked for the hearing, the 11th the committee has held on the act since April, saying past hearings had been too slanted toward witnesses who supported the law. The four witnesses were from groups, including Amnesty International USA and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, that have questioned the constitutionality of some aspects of the act, which allows law enforcement greater authority to investigate suspected terrorists.
Fortunately, on most committees our obstructionist Cons can't do more than raise irrelevant points of order. And with any luck, as well as Harper's plummeting position, maybe another election will reduce their ability to do even that.
Force of international law
Not much new information, but The Economist has a good discussion of the divide between the U.S.' willingness to apply international law to others, and its refusal to accept foreign law itself:
Want more direct double standards?
And, of course, the definitive example:
And even the Economist's relatively thorough discussion manages to avoid mentioning that the U.S. also happily flaunts trade rules where it sees fit: see e.g. the Byrd amendment and the ensuing legal proceedings.
Granting that states should always make all available efforts to cooperate in their mutual interest, I wonder why the rest of the world bothers trying to negotiate otherwise-binding treaties involving the U.S. What precisely is the point in another state's limiting its freedom of action through a contract, where the U.S. makes it clear that it plans to disregard the contract at will without penalty? The most commitment another state can count on from the U.S. is essentially a statement of intent - why offer to be legally bound in return?
Some, such as John Bolton, set to become Mr Bush's ambassador to the United Nations, believe that treaties that constrain American sovereignty in any way are “not legally binding”; but Mr Bush cited Iraq's transgressions of international law as part of the reason to go to war. Mr Bush has pulled America out of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Kyoto agreement on the environment, ignored international laws of war and sent terrorist suspects into legal limbo in Guantánamo; yet America is among the strongest backers of global rules on trade, finance and international investment.
Want more direct double standards?
Under a treaty that came into force last year, extradition rules have been eased between Britain and the United States. America no longer has to present supporting evidence against someone it wants to extradite from Britain. It simply has to claim that an “extraditable” offence—one carrying a prison sentence of at least a year—has been committed. But because the Senate has so far declined to ratify the treaty, the new rules do not apply the other way round. If Britain wants to extradite a suspect from America, it still has to make out a prima facie case against him.
And, of course, the definitive example:
Foreign companies are getting worried, too, about the use of America's Alien Tort Claims Act, passed in 1789, which grants jurisdiction to American federal courts over “any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States”. This is increasingly being invoked by foreigners in America to sue international companies for alleged wrongs suffered outside the United States. One can imagine the rumpus if such a law were invoked, abroad, against an American company.
And even the Economist's relatively thorough discussion manages to avoid mentioning that the U.S. also happily flaunts trade rules where it sees fit: see e.g. the Byrd amendment and the ensuing legal proceedings.
Granting that states should always make all available efforts to cooperate in their mutual interest, I wonder why the rest of the world bothers trying to negotiate otherwise-binding treaties involving the U.S. What precisely is the point in another state's limiting its freedom of action through a contract, where the U.S. makes it clear that it plans to disregard the contract at will without penalty? The most commitment another state can count on from the U.S. is essentially a statement of intent - why offer to be legally bound in return?
Friday, June 10, 2005
The deal is done
The G7 reaches agreement on an African debt relief package:
Kudos to all parties for getting the deal done, and particularly to Brown for putting the process together.
On a less positive note, a large "what the hell?" to the IMF:
The agency that's done so much to dictate Third World policy can't even keep track of several billion dollars of its own money? I suppose it could be worse - at least the money was put to good use, and hopefully the debt relief will allow more states to stay out from under the IMF's thumb in the future.
Eighteen of the world's poorest countries will have their debts to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund wiped out as part of a $55bn (£30.4bn) package agreed today by the G7 leading economies.
After weeks of intense negotiations, a deal brokered by the chancellor, Gordon Brown, will save countries such as Mozambique and Ethiopia a total of $15bn in debt payments over the next 10 years.
Kudos to all parties for getting the deal done, and particularly to Brown for putting the process together.
On a less positive note, a large "what the hell?" to the IMF:
Sources said last night that the logjam had been broken when it was found that the IMF had several billion dollars available from gold sales in the late 1990s that it could use to cover the losses it would make from writing off debts.
The agency that's done so much to dictate Third World policy can't even keep track of several billion dollars of its own money? I suppose it could be worse - at least the money was put to good use, and hopefully the debt relief will allow more states to stay out from under the IMF's thumb in the future.
Free ideas for the taking
A site I'll be watching closely: the Canadian Cynic and Robert McClelland ridicule Media Bias.
While this is a great step to make sure that the right doesn't get too much of an advantage out of working the refs, I'd love to see two additions to Canada's media-watching landscape: first a Canadian equivalent to Media Matters, and second a genuinely neutral site/study (I've mooted the name "equalparties.ca") to impartially examine the amount, tone and placement of coverage given to Canada's federal political parties. My suspicion is that the latter would show that the Lib/Con false dichotomy gets an inordinate amount of attention, but I'd be glad to be proven wrong if the data says so.
While this is a great step to make sure that the right doesn't get too much of an advantage out of working the refs, I'd love to see two additions to Canada's media-watching landscape: first a Canadian equivalent to Media Matters, and second a genuinely neutral site/study (I've mooted the name "equalparties.ca") to impartially examine the amount, tone and placement of coverage given to Canada's federal political parties. My suspicion is that the latter would show that the Lib/Con false dichotomy gets an inordinate amount of attention, but I'd be glad to be proven wrong if the data says so.
It's not principle, but at least it's something
Remember U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns? He's back in the news:
This may be the worst reason I've heard for opening the border - but sadly it's also the most likely to make R-CALF listen.
Interestingly enough, R-CALF's CEO shot back criticizing the USDA's risk mitigation. Could the U.S. stumble toward an open border and reasonable consumer protection all at once?
Johanns said re-opening the border was vital for the domestic cattle business. He said beef prices in the United States have risen too high since May 2003, when the border was closed after Canada's first case of mad cow disease.
If beef supplies don't increase and drive down prices, "American consumers will start choosing other sources of protein," he told reporters after the meeting.
This may be the worst reason I've heard for opening the border - but sadly it's also the most likely to make R-CALF listen.
Interestingly enough, R-CALF's CEO shot back criticizing the USDA's risk mitigation. Could the U.S. stumble toward an open border and reasonable consumer protection all at once?
Housing of a sort
The Conservatives don't want to hear about Canada's lack of social housing:
Maybe this is more in keeping with their housing strategy:
The gall (unfortunately backed by the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association) is impressive: let's not try to genuinely help people, but merely find a way to push them further out of mind.
Of course, that's not to say that the associated public health concerns shouldn't get some attention. But there's a bigger issue which won't be solved by putting $5,000 a month into Porta-Potties.
The Parliamentary Finance Committee had set aside a full hour on Thursday, June 9, to hear from three groups on housing. It would have allowed for ample questions and debate on how the NDP-revised budget would have affected affordable housing. But it was not to be. The Conservatives intervened time and time again with points of order that prevented the presentations from taking place.
Maybe this is more in keeping with their housing strategy:
The ripe stench of human excrement is getting stronger in downtown lanes, curling the stomachs of workers who no longer want to relax by the back door for smoke breaks...
Vancouver is set to commission a study to map the size of the problem and is considering spending more money on maintaining public toilets in the downtown entertainment and business districts.
More funding is needed for permanent public washrooms in the Downtown Eastside slum where thousands of homeless drug users have long used alleys as toilets.
The gall (unfortunately backed by the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association) is impressive: let's not try to genuinely help people, but merely find a way to push them further out of mind.
Of course, that's not to say that the associated public health concerns shouldn't get some attention. But there's a bigger issue which won't be solved by putting $5,000 a month into Porta-Potties.
Notwithstanding Watch
Campbell says it's Ottawa's problem.
Klein? Not bloody likely.
Calvert says maybe.
Doer appears to avoid the subject.
McGuinty says not yet.
Charest says maybe.
Lord likes private care. (I think he just un-recruited himself from the next Con leadership race.)
Hamm is waiting on legal advice.
And I didn't see any government comments from PEI, Newfoundland/Labrador or any of the Territories.
We may find out more about these positions soon.
Klein? Not bloody likely.
Calvert says maybe.
Doer appears to avoid the subject.
McGuinty says not yet.
Charest says maybe.
Lord likes private care. (I think he just un-recruited himself from the next Con leadership race.)
Hamm is waiting on legal advice.
And I didn't see any government comments from PEI, Newfoundland/Labrador or any of the Territories.
We may find out more about these positions soon.
Media monitoring itself
CanWest's cover pages today. Funny how there seems to be an inverse relationship between the distribution of a given CanWest paper and the attention paid to the "improve the public system" option implied by the concurring judgment.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
As bad jokes go, this is one of them
The U.S. border continues to be closed to live Canadian cattle, notwithstanding that back in 1997 Canada banned ruminant feed, the most likely means of transmission. Right now the reason for the ban is that a Montana judge decided that opening the border could cause irreparable harm to the American cattle industry.
Is it possible to cause irreparable harm to an industry that's actively mutilating itself?
And in classic Bushian style:
I suppose there is some good news in all this: the full hearing is set to take place July 27, and surely this information will have to have some effect. Right?
Is it possible to cause irreparable harm to an industry that's actively mutilating itself?
(M)uch of the commercially produced calf feed available today contains the very stuff that could spread mad cow disease throughout our food chain.
What is the Department of Agriculture doing about this? Nothing. As I said, the Department of Agriculture refuses to even consider stronger regulations that would put an end to this disgusting practice.
And in classic Bushian style:
Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns will, as his press release says, “hold a roundtable discussion regarding the safety of North American beef...” Those invited to participate include USDA officials, producers, packers, and others.
Who are the others? Groups that don’t want more testing and don’t want the government passing regulations that would make calf feed cleaner and thus slightly more expensive. In fact, consumer groups, organic livestock companies, and beef producers who oppose allowing cows to eat cow blood and slaughterhouse waste will not be allowed to participate.
I suppose there is some good news in all this: the full hearing is set to take place July 27, and surely this information will have to have some effect. Right?
Buried amidst the health-care talk...
...is this piece by Scott Piatkowski:
The most frustrating moment of the last election campaign for me, and the one time I've doubted Jack Layton as party leader, was when Layton was interviewed by Peter Mansbridge and answered "can you win this election?" with something to the effect of "we can have a significant role in Parliament".
The only correct answer to that question is "yes". If it has to be explained, then fine: make it "yes, if people vote for what they want rather than against what they fear"; "yes, because both other national parties have proven they don't deserve to govern"; even "yes, despite what the critics say". But any national party going into an election shooting for less than government is doomed to a miserable result. I very much hope Jack has learned this lesson going into the next campaign.
The NDP should be saying: “The alternative to a Conservative government is not yet another Liberal government, but an NDP government. The alternative to a corrupt Liberal government is not a Conservative government, but an NDP government. It's time to elect an NDP government.” The party's main spokespeople won't say that because they're not convinced that such an election result is even possible. But, until they start saying it, it never will be possible.
The most frustrating moment of the last election campaign for me, and the one time I've doubted Jack Layton as party leader, was when Layton was interviewed by Peter Mansbridge and answered "can you win this election?" with something to the effect of "we can have a significant role in Parliament".
The only correct answer to that question is "yes". If it has to be explained, then fine: make it "yes, if people vote for what they want rather than against what they fear"; "yes, because both other national parties have proven they don't deserve to govern"; even "yes, despite what the critics say". But any national party going into an election shooting for less than government is doomed to a miserable result. I very much hope Jack has learned this lesson going into the next campaign.
What elephant in the corner?
Obviously, this is the big story of the day. Since it's also by far the most-discussed story of the day, I'm not sure how much I can add, other than to seemingly agree with the assumption that the NDP's best tactic is to emphasize para. 158 from the concurring judgment:
As for the Notwithstanding Clause option, the problem with Warren Kinsella's position cited by Scott is that I don't see it working on a federal level - the federal government simply doesn't have jurisdiction to dictate provincial policy to that degree. It controls pursestrings, but not delivery of services. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised to see Lorne Calvert bring up s. 33 in a hurry, and put it to use if even a lower-court decision in another province reaches the same result on Charter grounds.
In sum, the prohibition on obtaining private health insurance, while it might be constitutional in circumstances where health care services are reasonable as to both quality and timeliness, is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services...(I)f the government chooses to act, it must do so properly.
As for the Notwithstanding Clause option, the problem with Warren Kinsella's position cited by Scott is that I don't see it working on a federal level - the federal government simply doesn't have jurisdiction to dictate provincial policy to that degree. It controls pursestrings, but not delivery of services. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised to see Lorne Calvert bring up s. 33 in a hurry, and put it to use if even a lower-court decision in another province reaches the same result on Charter grounds.
New Liberal strategy?
From the Star, it's anonymous sourcing at its worst:
The intent here is apparently to cut down the Cons in advance of an election. I'm liking it on all counts - a platform that's not without its plus side, but which seems much more open to attack from the NDP than from the Cons.
But a high-ranking minister agreed the government is considering suspending Parliament in the fall while the government writes a new throne speech.
Several sources said the speech would focus heavily on boosting economic productivity, namely by funding post-secondary education, research and development, and introducing targeted income-tax cuts.
The intent here is apparently to cut down the Cons in advance of an election. I'm liking it on all counts - a platform that's not without its plus side, but which seems much more open to attack from the NDP than from the Cons.
We can drive it home with one headlight
A few posts later, it appears I'm not as far away from The Wonderdog's point of view as one would suspect from the back-and-forth. That said, there are still a few ideas worth pointing out here.
First, I'm not sure where the idea came from that I'm advocating a base-only strategy. I reproduce from my comment last night:
Some have questioned the viability of any attention paid to Quebec, and that's a fair question (if one where I'd still tend to disagree). But the point isn't to reach out only to the NDP's base, but rather to reach out to multiple groups. We can probably move up slightly from 20% by reaching out to left-Liberals; I think we can move up higher by looking for more opportunities.
As for the "not disturbing the apple cart" principle, I'd again think there's room for some subtlety here: we can be in favour of some change without being in favour of radical change, particularly if we explain the reasons for the change in a context of what works best.
Does this mean I agree entirely with the Wonderdog? Not exactly. The example I'll give is the Maher Arar situation, which has been pushed fairly extensively both by the NDP and in the Progressive Bloggers group. On my reading of the Wonderdog, there's no apparent reason to question the government's actions: we don't want to upset the apple cart of relations with the U.S., our government probably didn't violate international law merely by not keeping other countries from possibly doing so, and the economic value of one professional obviously isn't much of an argument for taking action.
That said, I'll argue that the NDP was right to highlight the emotional side of Arar's case. The helplessness and the fear involved in being rendered help point out where a wrong was committed, and our knowing the facts should offer a guide to better action in the future.
As for the Wonderdog's examples, I don't see for a second why we can't make use of all our arguments in favour of these policies. To blatantly plagiarize:
Subsidized daycare should be about giving children a better opportunity and about allowing parents to get to work. Staying out of Iraq, and similar future adventures, is about both keeping civilian limbs attached to civilian bodies where they belong, and about international law and multilateralism. A new deal for cities is about the economic engine of the country, and about ensuring that homeless people don't die in Toronto. And so on.
The proportions of which argument we want to use will vary; I suspect fear for our soldiers will always be a huge factor on war issues, while emotion cuts both ways on daycare when the Cons start up about "giving parents the right to stay home". There's room for debate on the best proportions for each isue, but I don't see cutting emotion out entirely as desirable on any of them.
As for the previous focus on unions, I'll agree that there's been a demographic shift, and that too much of a focus on union leaders results in both bad politics and bad policy. That's not a question of emotion vs. reason, but rather one of different forms of pragmatism.
I suspect the one irresolvable issue is the question of whether emotions are included within pragmatism. My take is that emotions themselves inform rationality, and to try to cut them out is to make reason less than it can be. I strongly suspect that the Wonderdog would disagree, and I don't see that as a huge problem - particularly for someone who's obviously a strong advocate for the NDP even if we disagree somewhat on tactics.
First, I'm not sure where the idea came from that I'm advocating a base-only strategy. I reproduce from my comment last night:
Yes, the NDP needs to court leftish centrists (one very important group of swing voters), and part of the way to do that is to emphasize fiscal responsibility and sound, practical policies...
There are other groups of swing voters too, and the NDP should be trying to court all of them with a realistic chance of switching.
Another key group that I'd focus on would be populist and protest votes which went to the PCs last time, and which probably lost us several Western seats. Those votes will be better won with a mix of reason and genuine emotion (i.e. necessary outrage where people's voices aren't now getting heard).
In addition, this is the most likely time for there to be an opening in Quebec, and part of any strategy to sway both disenchanted Liberals and Bloc voters concerned by a new future leader has to include a central vision stronger than "relatively efficient management".
Some have questioned the viability of any attention paid to Quebec, and that's a fair question (if one where I'd still tend to disagree). But the point isn't to reach out only to the NDP's base, but rather to reach out to multiple groups. We can probably move up slightly from 20% by reaching out to left-Liberals; I think we can move up higher by looking for more opportunities.
As for the "not disturbing the apple cart" principle, I'd again think there's room for some subtlety here: we can be in favour of some change without being in favour of radical change, particularly if we explain the reasons for the change in a context of what works best.
Does this mean I agree entirely with the Wonderdog? Not exactly. The example I'll give is the Maher Arar situation, which has been pushed fairly extensively both by the NDP and in the Progressive Bloggers group. On my reading of the Wonderdog, there's no apparent reason to question the government's actions: we don't want to upset the apple cart of relations with the U.S., our government probably didn't violate international law merely by not keeping other countries from possibly doing so, and the economic value of one professional obviously isn't much of an argument for taking action.
That said, I'll argue that the NDP was right to highlight the emotional side of Arar's case. The helplessness and the fear involved in being rendered help point out where a wrong was committed, and our knowing the facts should offer a guide to better action in the future.
As for the Wonderdog's examples, I don't see for a second why we can't make use of all our arguments in favour of these policies. To blatantly plagiarize:
Subsidized daycare should be about giving children a better opportunity and about allowing parents to get to work. Staying out of Iraq, and similar future adventures, is about both keeping civilian limbs attached to civilian bodies where they belong, and about international law and multilateralism. A new deal for cities is about the economic engine of the country, and about ensuring that homeless people don't die in Toronto. And so on.
The proportions of which argument we want to use will vary; I suspect fear for our soldiers will always be a huge factor on war issues, while emotion cuts both ways on daycare when the Cons start up about "giving parents the right to stay home". There's room for debate on the best proportions for each isue, but I don't see cutting emotion out entirely as desirable on any of them.
As for the previous focus on unions, I'll agree that there's been a demographic shift, and that too much of a focus on union leaders results in both bad politics and bad policy. That's not a question of emotion vs. reason, but rather one of different forms of pragmatism.
I suspect the one irresolvable issue is the question of whether emotions are included within pragmatism. My take is that emotions themselves inform rationality, and to try to cut them out is to make reason less than it can be. I strongly suspect that the Wonderdog would disagree, and I don't see that as a huge problem - particularly for someone who's obviously a strong advocate for the NDP even if we disagree somewhat on tactics.
Five seconds to air
In the recent discussion about the NDP's best possible message now, I'm reminded of a passage from the movie Airheads:
(Sadly, IMDB doesn't have the exact quote. If you can correct this, please do.)
We're on the air. We're being heard. We need to have something to say.
I agree with the concept that we do need to demonstrate that the NDP is fiscally responsible. However, that doesn't mean we can afford to limit ourselves to trying to emphasize that point, for a few reasons.
First, by doing so we'd open ourselves up to the "methinks thou doth protest too much" criticism. The more we try to bring up as a point of debate whether or not the NDP is a practical party, the more we invite commentators to say otherwise. My preferred framework is, "We all agree with the importance of a balanced budget. Given that, here's what we would do with it." Make fiscal responsibility a premise, not a conclusion.
Second, we're simply not in a position to show what we can do as a federal government: there's no way to back up the claim, making it easy for other parties and for the media to dismiss such talk as sheer rhetoric.
Third, it doesn't make for a good story. Right now we're getting lots of positive attention. If our message changes to something that isn't newsworthy (and let's face it, "NDP Continues to Claim Fiscal Responsibility" isn't going to be a fixture in the headlines), that attention goes to waste.
The Wonderdog wonders whether it'll be possible to form a federal government without first governing successfully in Ontario. My take is that it probably can be done - but an essential first step is a successful period as the Official Opposition nationally, and we're not going to get there by reinventing ourselves as the Technocrats. Nor will we get there by running away from protest votes, nor by trying to avoid discussing policy until the start of a campaign.
There are good issues receiving plenty of attention at the moment: health care, prescription drugs, global and national poverty, the environment, EI and education. Our best chance in Ontario and elsewhere is to show why we're right on these issues, and how good policy can fit within a balanced budget.
"All I'm saying is, We want to be heard!"
"OK, you're on the air. What do you want to say?"
"I dunno. We just want to be heard!"
(Sadly, IMDB doesn't have the exact quote. If you can correct this, please do.)
We're on the air. We're being heard. We need to have something to say.
I agree with the concept that we do need to demonstrate that the NDP is fiscally responsible. However, that doesn't mean we can afford to limit ourselves to trying to emphasize that point, for a few reasons.
First, by doing so we'd open ourselves up to the "methinks thou doth protest too much" criticism. The more we try to bring up as a point of debate whether or not the NDP is a practical party, the more we invite commentators to say otherwise. My preferred framework is, "We all agree with the importance of a balanced budget. Given that, here's what we would do with it." Make fiscal responsibility a premise, not a conclusion.
Second, we're simply not in a position to show what we can do as a federal government: there's no way to back up the claim, making it easy for other parties and for the media to dismiss such talk as sheer rhetoric.
Third, it doesn't make for a good story. Right now we're getting lots of positive attention. If our message changes to something that isn't newsworthy (and let's face it, "NDP Continues to Claim Fiscal Responsibility" isn't going to be a fixture in the headlines), that attention goes to waste.
The Wonderdog wonders whether it'll be possible to form a federal government without first governing successfully in Ontario. My take is that it probably can be done - but an essential first step is a successful period as the Official Opposition nationally, and we're not going to get there by reinventing ourselves as the Technocrats. Nor will we get there by running away from protest votes, nor by trying to avoid discussing policy until the start of a campaign.
There are good issues receiving plenty of attention at the moment: health care, prescription drugs, global and national poverty, the environment, EI and education. Our best chance in Ontario and elsewhere is to show why we're right on these issues, and how good policy can fit within a balanced budget.
Brief follow-up on Rorschach
From Alexa McDonough, precisely the kind of statement I want to see from the NDP at this point:
The key elements:
- It points out Liberal failures, both nationally and internationally.
- It presents both a concrete plan (signing on to an international movement) and an aspiration for future improvement.
- It discusses Canada's fiscal capacity to carry out the plan. (Granted, I'd like to see this part played up even more. But there's only so much one can say in one statement.)
More to come.
Canada has the fiscal capacity to meet our international obligations. What is lacking is the political will. Canada must also address our failure to eradicate child poverty here at home, a commitment adopted unanimously by Parliament in 1989. Yet one million Canadian children still live in poverty.Today we congratulate the Make Poverty History campaign dedicated to ending poverty around the world and here at home in Canada. Let us sign on as full partners.
The key elements:
- It points out Liberal failures, both nationally and internationally.
- It presents both a concrete plan (signing on to an international movement) and an aspiration for future improvement.
- It discusses Canada's fiscal capacity to carry out the plan. (Granted, I'd like to see this part played up even more. But there's only so much one can say in one statement.)
More to come.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Try this exciting new test!
That's right, it's a Rorschach test for Dippers:
The reactions so far:
Well-deserved schadenfreude.
More well-deserved schadenfreude.
Well-deserved schadenfreude, part III.
A combination of hope and frustration.
From this corner, I tend to side with the Wonderdog, though with a bit of a different spin. The poll reflects an opportunity, but nothing approaching a win. While it's important to keep kicking the Cons while they're down to make sure they stay there, it's more important to get our message out and start convincing all those voters who list the NDP as their second choice.
There's now no basis for any self-respecting media outlet to give the Cons substantially more air time than the NDP. This is the party's time to make good use of that extra exposure.
That said, I disagree with the Wonderdog's take on this point:
On the contrary. Now that we have a bit more of the limelight, it's time to make sure people remember what the NDP has to say. While the party's caucus should keep pushing practical issues within Parliament, this is also our best opportunity in a long time to highlight progressive issues in the media and push the public discourse to the left. And the NDP's signature issue is getting media attention.
Let's not waste this chance by going out of our way to be Liberal-lite.
The Decima survey showed the Liberals with 37 per cent support and the Tories with 23 per cent, in a virtual dead heat with the NDP at 21 per cent...
The survey, released to The Canadian Press, indicated the New Democrats held small leads over the Tories in Ontario, among women, among single people and with voters under age 34. The results are less reliable for these smaller samples...
The Ontario results suggested the Liberals held a 26-percentage-point advantage over the Tories in the province. The Grits were at 48 per cent, the NDP was at 24 and the Conservatives held 22 per cent in Canada's largest province.
The reactions so far:
Well-deserved schadenfreude.
More well-deserved schadenfreude.
Well-deserved schadenfreude, part III.
A combination of hope and frustration.
From this corner, I tend to side with the Wonderdog, though with a bit of a different spin. The poll reflects an opportunity, but nothing approaching a win. While it's important to keep kicking the Cons while they're down to make sure they stay there, it's more important to get our message out and start convincing all those voters who list the NDP as their second choice.
There's now no basis for any self-respecting media outlet to give the Cons substantially more air time than the NDP. This is the party's time to make good use of that extra exposure.
That said, I disagree with the Wonderdog's take on this point:
Appeals to emotion have to be banned. The party has to present an unrelentingly practical image.
On the contrary. Now that we have a bit more of the limelight, it's time to make sure people remember what the NDP has to say. While the party's caucus should keep pushing practical issues within Parliament, this is also our best opportunity in a long time to highlight progressive issues in the media and push the public discourse to the left. And the NDP's signature issue is getting media attention.
Let's not waste this chance by going out of our way to be Liberal-lite.
Sunlight in action
Who knew? A damning Amnesty International report, a comment or two from Jimmy Carter, and now the White House starts paying attention:
Naturally, he's paying more attention to the symbol than to the actual problem, apparently wanting somewhere else to hold people without charges just in case. Even so, this is an impressive demonstration of what good information can do.
President Bush left the door open to an eventual closing of the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay on Wednesday amid mounting complaints and calls for it to be shut down, including a broadside from former president and human rights champion Jimmy Carter.
Naturally, he's paying more attention to the symbol than to the actual problem, apparently wanting somewhere else to hold people without charges just in case. Even so, this is an impressive demonstration of what good information can do.
Anonymous sources
Ira Basen on the type of anonymous sources which reporters actually should avoid:
And the grand finale...
Sources tell me: "amen to that".
The fact is that too many times when you see a quote attributed to a "source" who wishes to remain anonymous, what you are reading is political spin dressed up as news. And the person hiding behind that cloak of anonymity is no civic-minded deep throat, but a government communications flack who has decided to use a selective leak to further his or her department's strategic communications plan.
And the grand finale...
(B)eating the other guy to the story only matters if it is an actual story being reporting. Yes, anonymous sources should be used when they expose bad behaviour, but not when all they're providing is government sponsored spin.
Sources tell me: "amen to that".
Frames of reference
A great post from Cathie fron Canada on Amnesty International's genius. All I can add is that the effectiveness of the tactic is only partly in framing the debate. More importantly, it's in ensuring that the debate received any attention at all - does anybody think this story would have had the same shelf-life without every key administration official trying to counter it? All the better that with the administration on its heels, trying to explain how the U.S. wasn't quite as bad as the Soviet Union, suddenly the truth once again became the middle ground.
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Canada's only progressive party
The Liberals want to reintroduce their corporate tax cut later.
Now the Cons and the Bloc want to keep it in the budget now.
A very interesting piece of political theatre. My favourite part is how business leaders are rewarding PMPM for cutting corporate taxes repeatedly in the past:
And meanwhile, only one party has the nerve to suggest that after cutting off a quarter of our corporate tax revenue already, maybe it's time to start reinvesting.
Now the Cons and the Bloc want to keep it in the budget now.
A very interesting piece of political theatre. My favourite part is how business leaders are rewarding PMPM for cutting corporate taxes repeatedly in the past:
Business groups said they don't have faith that the Liberals will reinstate the corporate tax cuts for large companies at a later date.
“Actions speak louder than words,” Ms. Hughes Anthony said. “I cannot determine from the government's statements when that might be or whether they would be the same amount [of reductions].”
Mr. Stewart-Patterson said the Liberals should immediately move the tax cuts to a separate bill if they want to remain true to the NDP deal but also send a signal to investors.
And meanwhile, only one party has the nerve to suggest that after cutting off a quarter of our corporate tax revenue already, maybe it's time to start reinvesting.
Keep hope alive
The union movement in Canada isn't dead just yet...
It's appalling that the union is technically illegal. It's great that it's still pushing forward, with public-awareness ideas like this:
Of course, the Conservative MLA who was targeted wants to give with one hand while taking with the other. There's a long way for the Farmworkers' Union to go - but hopefully a bit more exposure will help give them due credit for their making it this far, and more opportunities to keep on in the right direction.
Currently, farm workers are exempt from most of the statutes under Alberta's Labour Relations Code, including mandatory workman's compensation, rest breaks, the right to unite, and a (governed) safe working environment.
Musekamp, who formed the Farmworkers Union of Alberta, has been on a heavy campaign in recent weeks, to raise awareness to the importance of equal status for farm workers. By law, the Farmworkers' Union is actually an illegal union.
It's appalling that the union is technically illegal. It's great that it's still pushing forward, with public-awareness ideas like this:
On Monday, Musekamp, FUA secretary Darlene Dunlop, and supporters served up 50-cent hot dogs and soda pop next to the 'Meet the Minister' fundraiser where tickets sold at $50 each.
"We want to demonstrate to the $50 a plate crowd that the 50 cent crowd matters too," said Musekamp.
Of course, the Conservative MLA who was targeted wants to give with one hand while taking with the other. There's a long way for the Farmworkers' Union to go - but hopefully a bit more exposure will help give them due credit for their making it this far, and more opportunities to keep on in the right direction.
Textbook ads
Count me among those solidly against this idea. How long would it take before creationist groups started buying ad space in evolutionary biology texts?
Aftermath of Arar
The very limited good news: this time Wayne Easter (or an equivalent) can't whine about lacking jurisdiction.
The far greater bad news: Even in the face of the Arar inquiry, Canada can't get assurances that the U.S. won't render its citizens to be tortured:
And American human rights observers are demanding that Canada stand up to the Bush administration:
I know I feel more secure already.
The far greater bad news: Even in the face of the Arar inquiry, Canada can't get assurances that the U.S. won't render its citizens to be tortured:
"Basically, all (the new protocol) requires is notification and consultation...The same thing could happen to another person."
And American human rights observers are demanding that Canada stand up to the Bush administration:
Yale-Loehr, who teaches at Cornell University and practises immigration law, said Canada should keep pressing for a veto...
Julia Hall, legal counsel for New York-based Human Rights Watch, which has studied the Arar case, dismissed Graham's attitude as showing "deference to the United States in all matters related to national security issues.
"For the Canadian government to say, 'Well, we just simply couldn't do better,' is a really significant and profound statement about whether it's a level playing field right now, whether the Canadian government can negotiate with the United States as an equal partner or whether the United States will always have the upper hand."
I know I feel more secure already.
How we treat the worst-off
It's probably out of fashion to mention that governments aren't providing for Canada's most needy. If so, I don't care.
The shocking part to me is that even with the end of the fiscal crunch in the '90s, the relative funding for welfare programs has still declined. This is a failure of both policy (doesn't a below-sustenance level of welfare pretty much assure that a person can't so much as appear presentably at a job interview?) and compassion.
Update: And of course, that ever-leftist CBC news completely ignored the above story, while giving substantial air time to this. A story yes...the more important one, not by a long shot.
“Total welfare incomes everywhere in Canada were well below poverty lines once again in 2004,” the report said.
Adjusting for inflation, the report said, many provincial and territorial benefits in 2004 were at their lowest levels since the 1980s. Typical welfare incomes across Canada, it noted, were thousands of dollars below the poverty line.
Single, employable recipients in New Brunswick were the worst off, with total incomes amounting to $3,388 – only 19 per cent of amount at the poverty line.
The shocking part to me is that even with the end of the fiscal crunch in the '90s, the relative funding for welfare programs has still declined. This is a failure of both policy (doesn't a below-sustenance level of welfare pretty much assure that a person can't so much as appear presentably at a job interview?) and compassion.
Update: And of course, that ever-leftist CBC news completely ignored the above story, while giving substantial air time to this. A story yes...the more important one, not by a long shot.
A natural Liberal
While some have criticized the Liberals' referendum strategy which involved dumping lots of money onto both sides of an issue, Belinda Stronach apparently decided to try the same thing:
Of course, there's also this:
I'm sure the Conservatives were hoping to develop a Liberal-style election machine, but this was an awfully quick step toward the worst parts of it.
Former Conservative leadership candidate Belinda Stronach donated $100,000 to help pay off the campaign debt of third-place finisher Tony Clement, a move that has raised questions among Tories over whether she was trying to buy Mr. Clement's future loyalty.
Of course, there's also this:
Sources said Mr. Harper's team also donated $10,000 to Mr. Clement in the aftermath of the campaign, which took place in early 2004.
I'm sure the Conservatives were hoping to develop a Liberal-style election machine, but this was an awfully quick step toward the worst parts of it.
Monday, June 06, 2005
Spot on
Linda McQuaig's columns tend to be hit or miss. This is a direct hit.
Of course, the welfare system has be well-designed to ensure competitiveness. First, it needs a strong emphasis on research and education. (How much was in the budget before the NDP amendment?) And that education needs to be targeted toward the job market to ensure that people out of work for the moment need not stay there for long. If only somebody was working to reform EI in that direction.
European-style social welfare systems do nothing to prevent a country from being highly competitive in the modern world.
If you doubt this, check out the latest findings of the Geneva-based World Economic Forum, which ranks the economic competitiveness of more than 100 countries around the globe. Among the top six globally competitive nations are four European countries that have extremely comprehensive social welfare systems —Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Altogether, 15 European countries rank in the top 30.
Right-wing commentators find it best to ignore this reality. It's easy to see why — it utterly destroys their argument that generous social welfare systems undermine competitiveness.
Of course, the welfare system has be well-designed to ensure competitiveness. First, it needs a strong emphasis on research and education. (How much was in the budget before the NDP amendment?) And that education needs to be targeted toward the job market to ensure that people out of work for the moment need not stay there for long. If only somebody was working to reform EI in that direction.
Independent Press
The Tyee on how CanWest helped keep Gordo in power:
A couple of points:
(1) At the very least, thanks to the Tyee there is enough independent media in B.C. for this kind of story to be told - even if it's too late to change the results now. In Saskatchewan, that's not the case; any indy papers are weekly and poorly circulated.
(2) This story also highlights what the federal NDP is up against. It's not enough to be slightly, but distinctly, more desirable than the other two federal parties: as soon as the NDP is within striking distance of the top spot in the polls, any perceived weakness (whether real or not) in the NDP or in any perceived supporters will be blown far out of proportion. As one consequence, the NDP can't afford to focus on taking down only one of either the Libs or the Cons: it has to have a message against both so strong that it gets heard even with minimal exposure.
(Shall we start thanking Gurmant Grewal now?)
BCTV News Hour’s May 11 edition led off with “something that could have a big impact on the provincial election campaign,” Tony Parsons told his viewers. “We have secret documents from the BCTF suggesting that teachers could take a strike vote very soon after next Tuesday’s election. And how a possible strike might play out very much depends on which party forms the next provincial government.
“Because one of them has already designated education an essential service. And the other has said it is in favour on the teachers’ right to strike.”
Very clearly laid out, Tony, but the problem is that it’s not true. There are at least six errors or lies in the statement.
A couple of points:
(1) At the very least, thanks to the Tyee there is enough independent media in B.C. for this kind of story to be told - even if it's too late to change the results now. In Saskatchewan, that's not the case; any indy papers are weekly and poorly circulated.
(2) This story also highlights what the federal NDP is up against. It's not enough to be slightly, but distinctly, more desirable than the other two federal parties: as soon as the NDP is within striking distance of the top spot in the polls, any perceived weakness (whether real or not) in the NDP or in any perceived supporters will be blown far out of proportion. As one consequence, the NDP can't afford to focus on taking down only one of either the Libs or the Cons: it has to have a message against both so strong that it gets heard even with minimal exposure.
(Shall we start thanking Gurmant Grewal now?)
Smog watch
Why Layton's persistent questions on smog are entirely justified:
For those counting along at home, that's 2266 deaths due to smog alone. (Edited to emphasize: per year.) Or in U.S. terms, a justified invasion of over one country. (Edited to emphasize: per year.) Of course we don't consider the deaths to be as sudden as a terrorist attack, but they're just as real and probably more preventable.
The study measured the impact of extreme cold, extreme heat and air pollution on premature deaths in...four cities over a 46-year period.
It concluded that extreme heat was killing an average of 120 people a year in Toronto, 121 in Montreal, 41 in Ottawa and 37 in Windsor.
Extreme cold was responsible for an average of 105 deaths a year in Toronto, 143 in Montreal, 54 in Ottawa and 32 in Windsor.
The air pollution that causes smog was found to be the cause of 822 deaths a year in Toronto, 818 in Montreal, 368 in Ottawa and 258 in Windsor.
For those counting along at home, that's 2266 deaths due to smog alone. (Edited to emphasize: per year.) Or in U.S. terms, a justified invasion of over one country. (Edited to emphasize: per year.) Of course we don't consider the deaths to be as sudden as a terrorist attack, but they're just as real and probably more preventable.
No disinfectant like sunlight
Lest anybody think the Bush government is the only one in North America which tries to keep control over public information, Canada's freedom-of-information ombudsman, John Reid, points out some of the actions of the Canadian government:
How has the ombudsman's work been rewarded?
Let's hope that Reid's term is renewed, and that his work gets a bit more publicity as he works on draft legislation.
(Proposed whistleblower legislation) contains an amendment to the access law that would allow the government to keep under wraps, for 20 years, information collected or compiled as a result of a whistleblower's report. It means the government could cloak in secrecy the identities of whistleblowers and accused persons as well as details of the allegations of wrongdoing, actions taken to investigate the accusations and any disciplinary decisions.
(A) provision in the Anti-Terrorism Act...allows the government to stop an investigation by the information commissioner into a federal refusal to disclose material considered sensitive to national security.
How has the ombudsman's work been rewarded?
Reid, whose staff investigates complaints from requesters, says his office has been denied the money to do its job properly. As a result, the median time to complete an investigation rose to almost 7.5 months in 2004-05 from about 5.5 months the previous year. Reid argues having the government hold the purse strings of his office compromises the commissioner's independence.
Let's hope that Reid's term is renewed, and that his work gets a bit more publicity as he works on draft legislation.
Compare and contrast
Canada takes added steps toward a productive drug strategy:
Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down any attempt by the states to do the same:
The court's reasoning strikes me as questionable. If states can't legislate on anything that has so much as an indirect effect on interstate commerce (and the argument in this case was based on an argument that 'garden patch weed would affect "overall production" of the weed' even though it wasn't actually sold), what precisely can they do?
That aside, the more significant difference is in the respective positions of the federal governments. While the Bush administration not only rejects positive policy but actively argues against the ability of states to do the same, Canada recognizes an individual-based problem and allows people to take responsibility for their own lives (with due controls in case an offender doesn't go along).
As part of their structured outpatient program, Drug Treatment Court participants attend both individual and group counselling sessions, receive appropriate medical attention (such as methadone treatment) and are subject to random drug tests.
Participants must also appear regularly in court, where a judge reviews their progress and can then either impose sanctions (ranging from verbal reprimands to expulsion from the program) or provide rewards (ranging from verbal commendations to a reduction in court appearances).
Drug Treatment Court staff work with community partners to address participants’ other needs, such as safe housing, stable employment and job training. Once a participant gains this social stability and can demonstrate control over the addiction, criminal charges are either stayed or the offender receives a non-custodial sentence. If unsuccessful, an offender will be sentenced as part of the regular court process.
Funding agreements are being finalized for each of the successful proposals from Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg and Ottawa, with each new court expected to begin operations in the coming months. In addition to this investment in new Drug Treatment Courts, the Government will continue funding existing courts in Toronto and Vancouver.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down any attempt by the states to do the same:
In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Bush administration can block the backyard cultivation of pot for personal use, because such use has broader social and financial implications.
The court's reasoning strikes me as questionable. If states can't legislate on anything that has so much as an indirect effect on interstate commerce (and the argument in this case was based on an argument that 'garden patch weed would affect "overall production" of the weed' even though it wasn't actually sold), what precisely can they do?
That aside, the more significant difference is in the respective positions of the federal governments. While the Bush administration not only rejects positive policy but actively argues against the ability of states to do the same, Canada recognizes an individual-based problem and allows people to take responsibility for their own lives (with due controls in case an offender doesn't go along).
Actual product development
And for those who think Canada is free-riding in terms of medical development, not so:
Congratulations to the researchers, and let's give due credit to the success of focused government funding.
Jubilant Canadian researchers have announced a world breakthrough in developing vaccines against the lethal Ebola and Marburg viruses.
Working with the U.S. Army, researchers at Health Canada's National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg have produced a single-dose vaccine that successfully protects monkeys against the two closely related viruses.
Congratulations to the researchers, and let's give due credit to the success of focused government funding.
Good news reporting, bad news reporting
Good news reporting:
The Leader-Post features coverage of a talk from two Harvard Medical School doctors who call Canada's health care system "a model we all need to follow", and point out the drug industry's hypocrisy in keeping high prices for the sake of "research" then spending twice as much money on marketing as on product development.
Bad news reporting:
One of my pet peeves from the National Post. Since when is it news that the business lobby wants to see tax cuts for business and nothing for anybody else?
The Leader-Post features coverage of a talk from two Harvard Medical School doctors who call Canada's health care system "a model we all need to follow", and point out the drug industry's hypocrisy in keeping high prices for the sake of "research" then spending twice as much money on marketing as on product development.
Bad news reporting:
One of my pet peeves from the National Post. Since when is it news that the business lobby wants to see tax cuts for business and nothing for anybody else?
Sunday, June 05, 2005
The big picture
The Green Lantern has the essential World Environmental Day post, featuring this article on a Pentagon report on climate change:
Sadly, the report was made public in 2004, and the article was wrong in predicting that the presidential election could turn on Bush's ignoring what the Pentagon report described as a vital national security issue. But it should be a reminder of what's ultimately at stake when we talk about environmental policy - and why "they're not being responsible, why should we?" isn't a valid argument.
The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents...Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors.
Sadly, the report was made public in 2004, and the article was wrong in predicting that the presidential election could turn on Bush's ignoring what the Pentagon report described as a vital national security issue. But it should be a reminder of what's ultimately at stake when we talk about environmental policy - and why "they're not being responsible, why should we?" isn't a valid argument.
On looking in mirrors
Condoleeza Rice rightly blasts several allies for not doing enough to prevent human trafficking, a "modern form of slavery":
Very true. For example, there's Florida.
(W)herever the trafficking trade flourishes, the rule of law erodes.
Very true. For example, there's Florida.
Impressive
It looks like the G8 may be making progress after all:
Part of any agreement will likely involve large donations from states with oil wealth, and who knows whether or not they'll sign on.
Of course, there is a downside here:
I very much hope that this won't require the use of all the political capital the UK picked up in Iraq - shouldn't the U.S.'s contribution to stabilizing an entire continent include at least more than half a cent on each dollar spent in Iraq?
Separately, the Treasury has brokered a groundbreaking agreement with the US to cancel its International Monetary Fund debt for Africa - meaning the US would have offered more on debt relief than Germany or Italy.
Crucially, however, it has also offered extra money ensuring the debt relief will not be paid for by cuts in other aid programmes, at least for two years. The final amount remains under discussion, but the deal follows months of lobbying, led by Brown, of his US counterpart, John Snow.
Part of any agreement will likely involve large donations from states with oil wealth, and who knows whether or not they'll sign on.
Of course, there is a downside here:
And while some around Brown argue it is time to spend the political capital gained from Iraq to push Bush into a deal, Downing Street insists it is wrong to portray him as an obstacle. 'It's about the personal relationship between Tony Blair and George Bush in advancing the agenda,' said the official.
I very much hope that this won't require the use of all the political capital the UK picked up in Iraq - shouldn't the U.S.'s contribution to stabilizing an entire continent include at least more than half a cent on each dollar spent in Iraq?
Good stuff
Mike's letter on SSM - precisely the type of comment that would be particularly persuasive in a rational debate. I fear it won't change a single mind on SSM.
Look! It's the glaringly obvious!
Today on Question Period, Jane Taber went out of her way to point out that Tim Murphy had been invited to appear, but had chosen not to.
I can't imagine why he wouldn't want to go on tape at this point.
I can't imagine why he wouldn't want to go on tape at this point.
A Different Kind of Politician
Obviously, this is Canada's big political story of the day.
Other blogs have dealt with a lot of the issues surrounding the departure, so I'll limit myself to commenting that much as I dislike the separatist cause, I have to respect a politician who puts his party ahead of himself even when offered a clear shot at regaining power next election. If Stephen Harper thought like this, Belinda Stronach would still be a Conservative and the Tories would probably be in the middle of a successful election campaign. Good thing for the rest of us that he doesn't.
(Edited: title plus one typo.)
Other blogs have dealt with a lot of the issues surrounding the departure, so I'll limit myself to commenting that much as I dislike the separatist cause, I have to respect a politician who puts his party ahead of himself even when offered a clear shot at regaining power next election. If Stephen Harper thought like this, Belinda Stronach would still be a Conservative and the Tories would probably be in the middle of a successful election campaign. Good thing for the rest of us that he doesn't.
(Edited: title plus one typo.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)