His lard arse sprawled comfortably atop his holier-than-thou perch, Stephen Harper is wasting no time exhorting G20 leaders to fight their economic battles on the backs of their most vulnerable. This ridiculous ponce with his well-demonstrated failed grasp of economics demands that they plunge into the abyss of austerity budgeting to halve their deficits by 2013.
Steve, you theocratic sphincter, you haven't a clue about the economic dilemma facing these countries. Then again, your Liberal predecessors and the relatively brief period you had to subvert their fiscal prudence, saved you from plunging Canada into the very same mess. Like all radical doctrinaires, you're a gasbag.
Paul Krugman, writing from Berlin, explains why everything Harper is saying is utter crap:
Suddenly, creating jobs is out, inflicting pain is in. Condemning deficits and refusing to help a still-struggling economy has become the new fashion everywhere...
...Many economists, myself included, regard this turn to austerity as a huge mistake. It raises memories of 1937, when F.D.R.’s premature attempt to balance the budget helped plunge a recovering economy back into severe recession. And here in Germany, a few scholars see parallels to the policies of Heinrich Brüning, the chancellor from 1930 to 1932, whose devotion to financial orthodoxy ended up sealing the doom of the Weimar Republic.
But despite these warnings, the deficit hawks are prevailing in most places — and nowhere more than here, where the government has pledged 80 billion euros, almost $100 billion, in tax increases and spending cuts even though the economy continues to operate far below capacity.
...In America, many self-described deficit hawks are hypocrites, pure and simple: They’re eager to slash benefits for those in need, but their concerns about red ink vanish when it comes to tax breaks for the wealthy. Thus, Senator Ben Nelson, who sanctimoniously declared that we can’t afford $77 billion in aid to the unemployed, was instrumental in passing the first Bush tax cut, which cost a cool $1.3 trillion.
German deficit hawkery seems more sincere. But it still has nothing to do with fiscal realism. Instead, it’s about moralizing and posturing. Germans tend to think of running deficits as being morally wrong, while balancing budgets is considered virtuous, never mind the circumstances or economic logic. “The last few hours were a singular show of strength,” declared Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, after a special cabinet meeting agreed on the austerity plan. And showing strength — or what is perceived as strength — is what it’s all about.
There will, of course, be a price for this posturing. Only part of that price will fall on Germany: German austerity will worsen the crisis in the euro area, making it that much harder for Spain and other troubled economies to recover. Europe’s troubles are also leading to a weak euro, which perversely helps German manufacturing, but also exports the consequences of German austerity to the rest of the world, including the United States.
We've got a billion reasons to know how important it is to Steve to host this 3-day gabfest, but his demonstrated grasp of economics isn't something he need draw attention to. He inherited a substantial budget surplus, defunded the treasury, introduced Canada's own subprime mortgage regime, left the country vulnerable to a recession steamroller he didn't see - or hear - coming, did a mini-bank bailout capped off with the most pointless Pinata stimulus/recovery budget imagineable that will ensure Canadians will in the future have all the burden but none of the benefit they deserved from that reckless spending. And this jackass is going to tell other leaders what they need to do? Breathtaking.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Our Right to Know - Political Religion in Canada
Marci McDonald's The Armageddon Factor isn't the easiest read on the bookshelf. It's a plodding work packed full of seedy Christofascists who are far more annoying than intriguing. What makes it a worthwhile read is that it is immensely important to those of us who don't share the fundamentalist Christian nationalists' view of what Canada should be and are concerned at the underhanded way they intend to achieve their goals.
Some of their names are known to us - Manning, Day, Harper and McVety. More are less well known and more yet are barely known if known at all. They resemble a classic "fifth column," a group that seeks to clandestinely undermine secular Canada and traditional Canadian values in order to substitute their narrow Christian nationalist theocracy. They operate by stealth and by guile and outright deception. They conceal the very beliefs they hold superior and wish to enshrine as our national ethos. They're a despicable gang of Sneaky Petes, real Back Door Charlies.
If you're planning to read Armageddon Factor do yourself a favour. Go to your library and first read Phillip's American Theocracy followed next by Chris Hedges American Fascists and, perhaps, Sharlet's The Family. These books make Armageddon Factor far more digestible because they trace the birth and rise of Christian nationalism in the United States, its insinuation into the halls of power and the threat it poses to American democracy and the world. It is from American Christian nationalism that the movement spread into Canada, the movement of Manning, Day and Harper, the very movement they work so hard to mask.
These Christofascists, like religious fundamentalists of other faiths, are extremists in the sense of Barry Goldwater's Cold War rhetoric when he proclaimed that "extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice." The seminal distinction is that the Christian nationalists aren't seeking to defend your secular liberty but to eliminate it whenever it conflicts with their fundamentalist beliefs. They seek to impose their stamp on Canada much as the Roman Catholic church imposed its own on rural Quebec up to the end of WWII.
It troubles me when anyone hides from us in open view. I find real hostility in those who seek to use guile and deceit against me. Surely that sort of person is my enemy for they can wish me no good in that which they conceal from me. There is no benevolence in subversion, no honesty or fairness in the clandestine. Those who do these things are not your fellows nor, in any sense, are you theirs. You are not an equal in their narrowly exclusionary world.
As Hedges reveals, the Christian Right, the Christofascists, are at war with America and, like it or not, their northern brethren are intent on waging war on our Canada:
"Dr. James Luther Adams, my ethics professor at Harvard Divinity School, told us that when we were his age - he was then close to 80 - we would all be fighting the "Christian fascists."
"The warning, given to me nearly 25-years ago, came at the moment Pat Robertson and other radio and televangelists began speaking about a new political religion that would direct its efforts at taking control of all institutions, including mainstream denominations and the government. Its stated goal was to use the United States to create a global Christian empire. It was hard, at the time, to take such fantastic rhetoric seriously, especially given the buffoonish quality of leaders in the Christian Right who expounded it. But Adams warned us against the blindness caused by intellectual snobbery. The Nazis, he said, were not going to return with swastikas and brown shirts. Their ideological inheritors in America had found a mask for fascism in patriotism and the pages of the Bible."
The key to this whole business is in Hedges' term, "a new political religion." After all that is the essence of theocracy, a political expression of a religious belief. Think radical Islam - Salafism and Wahabism; think Shinto; think radical Zionism. Think radicalism.
Yet it's not every aspect of secularism that they reject, at least not while it works for them. One tenet of secular tolerance is to place a person's religious beliefs "off limits." Each to his own. This is the shield of Christian fascism. What they reject is the corollary, no one faith above another. For it is not all faith they wish to enshrine in power in Canada, it is theirs alone. They want to become a state religion, theirs is a genuinely political religion.
It is precisely because fundamentalist Christian nationalism is a political religion that we are entitled to forget the "off limits" rule. We are entitled to scrutinize the political dimension of this faith and we're entitled to full and candid disclosure. If those who wish to wield their religion as a political force in our country perceive Armageddon as a welcome thing, the herald to The Rapture, their political expression of that belief has to be laid out before the public. If those who want our consent to govern this country think the end of the world is just dandy, we have a right to know that. If environmental catastrophe is readily accommodated within their religion, we have a right to know that. If they see the expansion of Israel to its Biblical domain essential to fulfilment of prophesy, they must come out and say so. If Canada's domestic and foreign policy is to be lashed to their religious beliefs, they have no right to conceal their quest. To be less than open about their political religion is to be at war with Canada, at war with the Canadian public that lives beyond their theocratic coven.
If these people wish to foist their magical thinking, their radical Christian nationalism on our Canada, we owe it to our country and to our people to expose them and to push back just as hard as it takes. That begins by confronting them, rejecting false flags and demanding they state their intentions. We have to accept political religion as a force at work in our Parliament and that begins by those who practise it coming clean with the rest of us.
The Americans saw the evil inherent in state religion when they first amended their Constitution to enshrine separation of church and state. Jefferson was plain on the intent to create a wall of separation between church and state. Now that political religion is spreading its tentacles through our Canada, we deserve nothing less than outright, express and constitutional separation of church and state.
Some of their names are known to us - Manning, Day, Harper and McVety. More are less well known and more yet are barely known if known at all. They resemble a classic "fifth column," a group that seeks to clandestinely undermine secular Canada and traditional Canadian values in order to substitute their narrow Christian nationalist theocracy. They operate by stealth and by guile and outright deception. They conceal the very beliefs they hold superior and wish to enshrine as our national ethos. They're a despicable gang of Sneaky Petes, real Back Door Charlies.
If you're planning to read Armageddon Factor do yourself a favour. Go to your library and first read Phillip's American Theocracy followed next by Chris Hedges American Fascists and, perhaps, Sharlet's The Family. These books make Armageddon Factor far more digestible because they trace the birth and rise of Christian nationalism in the United States, its insinuation into the halls of power and the threat it poses to American democracy and the world. It is from American Christian nationalism that the movement spread into Canada, the movement of Manning, Day and Harper, the very movement they work so hard to mask.
These Christofascists, like religious fundamentalists of other faiths, are extremists in the sense of Barry Goldwater's Cold War rhetoric when he proclaimed that "extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice." The seminal distinction is that the Christian nationalists aren't seeking to defend your secular liberty but to eliminate it whenever it conflicts with their fundamentalist beliefs. They seek to impose their stamp on Canada much as the Roman Catholic church imposed its own on rural Quebec up to the end of WWII.
It troubles me when anyone hides from us in open view. I find real hostility in those who seek to use guile and deceit against me. Surely that sort of person is my enemy for they can wish me no good in that which they conceal from me. There is no benevolence in subversion, no honesty or fairness in the clandestine. Those who do these things are not your fellows nor, in any sense, are you theirs. You are not an equal in their narrowly exclusionary world.
As Hedges reveals, the Christian Right, the Christofascists, are at war with America and, like it or not, their northern brethren are intent on waging war on our Canada:
"Dr. James Luther Adams, my ethics professor at Harvard Divinity School, told us that when we were his age - he was then close to 80 - we would all be fighting the "Christian fascists."
"The warning, given to me nearly 25-years ago, came at the moment Pat Robertson and other radio and televangelists began speaking about a new political religion that would direct its efforts at taking control of all institutions, including mainstream denominations and the government. Its stated goal was to use the United States to create a global Christian empire. It was hard, at the time, to take such fantastic rhetoric seriously, especially given the buffoonish quality of leaders in the Christian Right who expounded it. But Adams warned us against the blindness caused by intellectual snobbery. The Nazis, he said, were not going to return with swastikas and brown shirts. Their ideological inheritors in America had found a mask for fascism in patriotism and the pages of the Bible."
The key to this whole business is in Hedges' term, "a new political religion." After all that is the essence of theocracy, a political expression of a religious belief. Think radical Islam - Salafism and Wahabism; think Shinto; think radical Zionism. Think radicalism.
Yet it's not every aspect of secularism that they reject, at least not while it works for them. One tenet of secular tolerance is to place a person's religious beliefs "off limits." Each to his own. This is the shield of Christian fascism. What they reject is the corollary, no one faith above another. For it is not all faith they wish to enshrine in power in Canada, it is theirs alone. They want to become a state religion, theirs is a genuinely political religion.
It is precisely because fundamentalist Christian nationalism is a political religion that we are entitled to forget the "off limits" rule. We are entitled to scrutinize the political dimension of this faith and we're entitled to full and candid disclosure. If those who wish to wield their religion as a political force in our country perceive Armageddon as a welcome thing, the herald to The Rapture, their political expression of that belief has to be laid out before the public. If those who want our consent to govern this country think the end of the world is just dandy, we have a right to know that. If environmental catastrophe is readily accommodated within their religion, we have a right to know that. If they see the expansion of Israel to its Biblical domain essential to fulfilment of prophesy, they must come out and say so. If Canada's domestic and foreign policy is to be lashed to their religious beliefs, they have no right to conceal their quest. To be less than open about their political religion is to be at war with Canada, at war with the Canadian public that lives beyond their theocratic coven.
If these people wish to foist their magical thinking, their radical Christian nationalism on our Canada, we owe it to our country and to our people to expose them and to push back just as hard as it takes. That begins by confronting them, rejecting false flags and demanding they state their intentions. We have to accept political religion as a force at work in our Parliament and that begins by those who practise it coming clean with the rest of us.
The Americans saw the evil inherent in state religion when they first amended their Constitution to enshrine separation of church and state. Jefferson was plain on the intent to create a wall of separation between church and state. Now that political religion is spreading its tentacles through our Canada, we deserve nothing less than outright, express and constitutional separation of church and state.
Friday, June 18, 2010
BP's Junior Partner Fingers Oil Giant
Anadarko Petroleum has blasted BP for "reckless decisions and actions" that led to the Deepwater Horizon fiasco. Andarko owns a quarter interest in the affected oil well.
In a written statement, Andarko said that evidence disclosed this week, "indicates BP operated unsafely and failed to monitor and react to several critical warning signs during the drilling. ...BP's behavior and actions likely represent gross negligence or willful misconduct."
Andarko which is also on the hook for clean-up costs says it may sue BP noting that its contract with the oil giant makes BP liable to it for all damages "caused by its gross negligence or willful misconduct."
Sounds like a company that has a lot to gain and nothing to lose by denouncing BP.
In a written statement, Andarko said that evidence disclosed this week, "indicates BP operated unsafely and failed to monitor and react to several critical warning signs during the drilling. ...BP's behavior and actions likely represent gross negligence or willful misconduct."
Andarko which is also on the hook for clean-up costs says it may sue BP noting that its contract with the oil giant makes BP liable to it for all damages "caused by its gross negligence or willful misconduct."
Sounds like a company that has a lot to gain and nothing to lose by denouncing BP.
Joe Barton Isn't Alone
Republican congressman Joe Barton caused quite the furor yesterday when he apologized to BP CEO Tony Haywire for what he termed, in written remarks, a "20-billion dollar shakedown" by the White House. That sent the Repug spin machine into overdrive. While the BP hearing was still underway, Barton was yanked out of his seat and hauled off to the offices of Repub Minority Leader John Boehner for a little damage control.
Embarrassing as Barton may have been to Congressional Republicans, the Christian Science Monitor reports, he's by no means alone:
Taking back something that was part of your written statement at the hearing opening – not just some off-the-cuff blather to a reporter in the hallway? Whoa. That’s not just eating your words. That’s like having them cut up and fed to you one by one in front of an audience of interns on the National Mall.
But Barton has his defenders. There are people in Washington who believe that by using the pulpit power of the presidency to push BP in that direction the president did indeed exceed his authority.
This was the headline on an analysis posted Friday on the Heritage Foundation website: “Joe Barton is Right: There Was a $20 Billion Shakedown in the White House.”
Heritage analyst Conn Carroll notes in the piece that BP has, among other things, received no assurance from the White House that it won’t ask for more money, and no assurance that final damages won’t be higher. And by the way, the whole thing was negotiated in the presence of Attorney General Eric Holder, who has threatened BP with criminal prosecution.
The real victim was not even BP, writes Mr. Carroll. “It was the rule of law.”
At National Review Online, Daniel Foster says that Barton’s choice of words was awful, but that on substance, he was right. Establishing a fund over and above an existing claims process is, if not illegal, “then at least extra-legal,” writes Mr. Foster.
And prior to Thursday’s hearing, the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a group of conservative GOP members, used “shakedown” to describe the White House escrow-establishment process.
And let's not forget the Republican's Congressional Dipshit in Chief, Representative Michele Bachmann who condemned the $20-billion compensation fund a "redistribution of wealth" and earlier this week urged BP execs not to be "chumps" by giving in to White House demands. The Minnesota Independent reports that Bachmann has reconsidered her remarks given that 82% of her constituents think the fund idea is just fine. Now the big hair dimbulb has come out with this:
“I'm not here to shill for BP. That's not the goal. BP clearly is at fault here. They need to pay every last dime of damage and that’s what needs to be done. But at the same time, we don’t want these payouts to become political.”
Embarrassing as Barton may have been to Congressional Republicans, the Christian Science Monitor reports, he's by no means alone:
Taking back something that was part of your written statement at the hearing opening – not just some off-the-cuff blather to a reporter in the hallway? Whoa. That’s not just eating your words. That’s like having them cut up and fed to you one by one in front of an audience of interns on the National Mall.
But Barton has his defenders. There are people in Washington who believe that by using the pulpit power of the presidency to push BP in that direction the president did indeed exceed his authority.
This was the headline on an analysis posted Friday on the Heritage Foundation website: “Joe Barton is Right: There Was a $20 Billion Shakedown in the White House.”
Heritage analyst Conn Carroll notes in the piece that BP has, among other things, received no assurance from the White House that it won’t ask for more money, and no assurance that final damages won’t be higher. And by the way, the whole thing was negotiated in the presence of Attorney General Eric Holder, who has threatened BP with criminal prosecution.
The real victim was not even BP, writes Mr. Carroll. “It was the rule of law.”
At National Review Online, Daniel Foster says that Barton’s choice of words was awful, but that on substance, he was right. Establishing a fund over and above an existing claims process is, if not illegal, “then at least extra-legal,” writes Mr. Foster.
And prior to Thursday’s hearing, the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a group of conservative GOP members, used “shakedown” to describe the White House escrow-establishment process.
And let's not forget the Republican's Congressional Dipshit in Chief, Representative Michele Bachmann who condemned the $20-billion compensation fund a "redistribution of wealth" and earlier this week urged BP execs not to be "chumps" by giving in to White House demands. The Minnesota Independent reports that Bachmann has reconsidered her remarks given that 82% of her constituents think the fund idea is just fine. Now the big hair dimbulb has come out with this:
“I'm not here to shill for BP. That's not the goal. BP clearly is at fault here. They need to pay every last dime of damage and that’s what needs to be done. But at the same time, we don’t want these payouts to become political.”
Who Do You Trust - Krugman or Harper?
Decisions, decisions. Which economist do you trust - Stephen Harper or Paul Krugman? Hint- you have to pick one because they have two completely irreconcilable takes on the global economic crisis.
Hmmm - let me see. Krugman is an economics professor at Princeton, a PhD and all that. He holds the Nobel Prize in economics. He warned all and anyone who would listen that the world was heading for a massive economic recession at least a couple of years in advance (see his book The Great Unravelling). He knew just why his country's economy would crater. And now he's warning anyone who'll listen that prematurely curbing stimulus spending will send the global economy spinning straight back into the toilet.
On the other hand... Steve Harper got a master's degree in economics from the University of Calgary. Steve went straight from that into becoming a political wonk - never worked a day in his life as an actual economist. It seems Steve didn't get a Nobel Prize or, for that matter, any other prize in economics. Once he got into power, Steve wasted no time beginning to implement the very economic madness Krugman was warning about at the time. Steve also wasted no time in defunding the national treasury. Steve didn't see the recession coming. He even said no one did (apparently Steve doesn't read the New York Times). Thanks only to his inability to dismember the fiscal prudence of his Liberal predecessors, Steve's government weathered the global meltdown relatively unscathed. And, unlike doctor Krugman, Steve is waving a ridiculously smug finger at G20 leaders to scrap stimulus spending and cut their deficits in half by 2013.
Krugman says don't cut now. Wait until your economies are recovered enough to bear the consequences of cuts. Steve says go ahead boys, start cutting and cut deep, just go for it.
Oh, I don't know. Which one do you think is right?
Hmmm - let me see. Krugman is an economics professor at Princeton, a PhD and all that. He holds the Nobel Prize in economics. He warned all and anyone who would listen that the world was heading for a massive economic recession at least a couple of years in advance (see his book The Great Unravelling). He knew just why his country's economy would crater. And now he's warning anyone who'll listen that prematurely curbing stimulus spending will send the global economy spinning straight back into the toilet.
On the other hand... Steve Harper got a master's degree in economics from the University of Calgary. Steve went straight from that into becoming a political wonk - never worked a day in his life as an actual economist. It seems Steve didn't get a Nobel Prize or, for that matter, any other prize in economics. Once he got into power, Steve wasted no time beginning to implement the very economic madness Krugman was warning about at the time. Steve also wasted no time in defunding the national treasury. Steve didn't see the recession coming. He even said no one did (apparently Steve doesn't read the New York Times). Thanks only to his inability to dismember the fiscal prudence of his Liberal predecessors, Steve's government weathered the global meltdown relatively unscathed. And, unlike doctor Krugman, Steve is waving a ridiculously smug finger at G20 leaders to scrap stimulus spending and cut their deficits in half by 2013.
Krugman says don't cut now. Wait until your economies are recovered enough to bear the consequences of cuts. Steve says go ahead boys, start cutting and cut deep, just go for it.
Oh, I don't know. Which one do you think is right?
America - Rich, Powerful and Deeply Mentally Ill
The American people are seriously mentally ill. They're suffering a collective disease of the mind. That's the conclusion of Chris Hedges set out in his article American Psychosis in this month's Adbusters magazine. Here are a few excerpts:
The United States, locked in the kind of twilight disconnect that grips dying empires, is a country entranced by illusions.
...The virtues that sustain a nation-state and build community, from honesty to self-sacrifice to transparency to sharing, are ridiculed each night on television as rubes stupid enough to cling to this antiquated behavior are voted off reality shows.
...Our culture of flagrant self-exaltation, hardwired in the American character, permits the humiliation of all those who oppose us. We believe, after all, that because we have the capacity to wage war we have a right to wage war. Those who lose deserve to be erased. Those who fail, those who are deemed ugly, ignorant or poor, should be belittled and mocked. Human beings are used and discarded like Styrofoam boxes that held junk food. And the numbers of superfluous human beings are swelling the unemployment offices, the prisons and the soup kitchens.
It is the cult of self that is killing the United States. This cult has within it the classic traits of psychopaths: superficial charm, grandiosity and self-importance; a need for constant stimulation; a penchant for lying, deception and manipulation; and the incapacity for remorse or guilt. ...It is the ethic of unfettered capitalism. It is the misguided belief that personal style and personal advancement, mistaken for individualism, are the same as democratic equality. it is the nationwide celebration of image over substance, of illusion over truth.
...We have a right, in the cult of the self, to get whatever we desire. We can do anything, even belittle and destroy those around us, including our friends, to make money, to be happy and to become famous. ...It is this perverted ethic that gave us investment houses like Goldman Sachs...that wilfully trashed the global economy and stole money from tens of millions of small shareholders who had bought stock in these corporations for retirement or college. ...The ethic of Wall Street is the ethic of celebrity. It is fused into one bizarre, perverted belief system and it has banished the possibility of the country returning to a reality-based world or avoiding internal collapse. A society that cannot distinguish reality from illusion dies.
...When a culture lives within an illusion it perpetuates a state of permanent infantilism or childishness. As the gap widens between the illusion and reality, as we suddenly grasp that it is our home being foreclosed or our job that is not coming back, we react like children. We scream and yell for a savior, someone who promises us revenge, moral renewal and new glory. A furious and sustained backlash by a betrayed and angry populace, one unprepared intellectually, emotionally and psychologically for collapse, will sweep aside the Democrats and most of the Republicans and will usher America into a new dark age. It was the economic collapse in Yugoslavia that gave us Slobodan Milosevic. It was the Wiemar Republic that vomited up Adolf Hitler. And it was the breakdown in Tsarist Russia that opened the door for Lenin and the Bolsheviks.
The decline of American empire began ...when we shifted from an "empire of production" to an "empire of consumption." ...We started borrowing to maintain a level of consumption as well as an empire we could no longer afford. ...We substituted the illusion of growth and prosperity for real growth and prosperity. The bill is now due. America's most dangerous enemies are not Islamic radicals but those who sold us the perverted ideology of free-market capitalism and globalization. They have dynamited the very foundations of our society. In the 17th century these speculators would have been hung. Today they run the government and consume billions in taxpayer subsidies.
...even in the face of catastrophe, mass culture continues to assure us that if we close our eyes, if we visualize what we want, if we have faith in ourselves, if we tell God that we believe in miracles, if we tap into our inner strength, if we grasp that we are truly exceptional, if we focus on happiness, our lives will be harmonious and complete. This cultural retreat into illusion, whether peddled by positive psychologists, by Hollywood, or by Christian preachers, is magical thinking. It turns worthless mortgages and debt into wealth. It turns the destruction of our manufacturing base into an opportunity for growth. It turns alienation and anxiety into a cheerful conformity. it turns a nation that wages illegal wars and administers offshore penal colonies where it openly practices torture into the greatest democracy on earth. And it keeps us from fighting back.
...The more we retreat from the culture at large the more room we will have to carve out lives of meaning, the more we will be able to wall off the flood of illusions disseminated by mass culture and the more we will retain sanity in an insane world. The goal will become the ability to endure."
The United States, locked in the kind of twilight disconnect that grips dying empires, is a country entranced by illusions.
...The virtues that sustain a nation-state and build community, from honesty to self-sacrifice to transparency to sharing, are ridiculed each night on television as rubes stupid enough to cling to this antiquated behavior are voted off reality shows.
...Our culture of flagrant self-exaltation, hardwired in the American character, permits the humiliation of all those who oppose us. We believe, after all, that because we have the capacity to wage war we have a right to wage war. Those who lose deserve to be erased. Those who fail, those who are deemed ugly, ignorant or poor, should be belittled and mocked. Human beings are used and discarded like Styrofoam boxes that held junk food. And the numbers of superfluous human beings are swelling the unemployment offices, the prisons and the soup kitchens.
It is the cult of self that is killing the United States. This cult has within it the classic traits of psychopaths: superficial charm, grandiosity and self-importance; a need for constant stimulation; a penchant for lying, deception and manipulation; and the incapacity for remorse or guilt. ...It is the ethic of unfettered capitalism. It is the misguided belief that personal style and personal advancement, mistaken for individualism, are the same as democratic equality. it is the nationwide celebration of image over substance, of illusion over truth.
...We have a right, in the cult of the self, to get whatever we desire. We can do anything, even belittle and destroy those around us, including our friends, to make money, to be happy and to become famous. ...It is this perverted ethic that gave us investment houses like Goldman Sachs...that wilfully trashed the global economy and stole money from tens of millions of small shareholders who had bought stock in these corporations for retirement or college. ...The ethic of Wall Street is the ethic of celebrity. It is fused into one bizarre, perverted belief system and it has banished the possibility of the country returning to a reality-based world or avoiding internal collapse. A society that cannot distinguish reality from illusion dies.
...When a culture lives within an illusion it perpetuates a state of permanent infantilism or childishness. As the gap widens between the illusion and reality, as we suddenly grasp that it is our home being foreclosed or our job that is not coming back, we react like children. We scream and yell for a savior, someone who promises us revenge, moral renewal and new glory. A furious and sustained backlash by a betrayed and angry populace, one unprepared intellectually, emotionally and psychologically for collapse, will sweep aside the Democrats and most of the Republicans and will usher America into a new dark age. It was the economic collapse in Yugoslavia that gave us Slobodan Milosevic. It was the Wiemar Republic that vomited up Adolf Hitler. And it was the breakdown in Tsarist Russia that opened the door for Lenin and the Bolsheviks.
The decline of American empire began ...when we shifted from an "empire of production" to an "empire of consumption." ...We started borrowing to maintain a level of consumption as well as an empire we could no longer afford. ...We substituted the illusion of growth and prosperity for real growth and prosperity. The bill is now due. America's most dangerous enemies are not Islamic radicals but those who sold us the perverted ideology of free-market capitalism and globalization. They have dynamited the very foundations of our society. In the 17th century these speculators would have been hung. Today they run the government and consume billions in taxpayer subsidies.
...even in the face of catastrophe, mass culture continues to assure us that if we close our eyes, if we visualize what we want, if we have faith in ourselves, if we tell God that we believe in miracles, if we tap into our inner strength, if we grasp that we are truly exceptional, if we focus on happiness, our lives will be harmonious and complete. This cultural retreat into illusion, whether peddled by positive psychologists, by Hollywood, or by Christian preachers, is magical thinking. It turns worthless mortgages and debt into wealth. It turns the destruction of our manufacturing base into an opportunity for growth. It turns alienation and anxiety into a cheerful conformity. it turns a nation that wages illegal wars and administers offshore penal colonies where it openly practices torture into the greatest democracy on earth. And it keeps us from fighting back.
...The more we retreat from the culture at large the more room we will have to carve out lives of meaning, the more we will be able to wall off the flood of illusions disseminated by mass culture and the more we will retain sanity in an insane world. The goal will become the ability to endure."
BC to Take Second Look at Prosecuting the Vancouver Airport Four in Dziekanski Killing
That didn't take long. Perhaps embarrassed by the Braidwood Report, the BC government has announced it will appoint a special prosecutor to review whether the mounties who killed Robert Dziekanski should be prosecuted and for what.
About damned time.
Long before the evidence was in, Victoria announced the mounties would not be prosecuted for the homicide itself. Those who viewed the bystander video of the killing and followed the Braidwood enquiry were never in any doubt that the Campbell government was boneheaded.
In a statement, Attorney-General and Solicitor-General Mike de Jong pointed to the report’s findings that “a number of discrepancies between what RCMP officers told investigators in 2008 and what came out at the inquiry” as the rationale for the appointment of a special prosecutor.
The province will also move to enact a key recommendation of the Braidwood inquiry, saying it will launch within a year a new civilian-led investigations unit that will be able to conduct criminal investigations into any police-related incidents involving death or serious harm.
The unit will be headed by a civilian who has never been a police officer, Mr. de Jong said in a statement. Its mandate will be to investigate all independent municipal police- and RCMP-related deaths and serious incidents across British Columbia.
I'm sure this flip-flop won't be enough to redeem BC's none-too-liberal Liberals and save their worthless hides in the next election but the news is welcome enough in any case.
About damned time.
Long before the evidence was in, Victoria announced the mounties would not be prosecuted for the homicide itself. Those who viewed the bystander video of the killing and followed the Braidwood enquiry were never in any doubt that the Campbell government was boneheaded.
In a statement, Attorney-General and Solicitor-General Mike de Jong pointed to the report’s findings that “a number of discrepancies between what RCMP officers told investigators in 2008 and what came out at the inquiry” as the rationale for the appointment of a special prosecutor.
The province will also move to enact a key recommendation of the Braidwood inquiry, saying it will launch within a year a new civilian-led investigations unit that will be able to conduct criminal investigations into any police-related incidents involving death or serious harm.
The unit will be headed by a civilian who has never been a police officer, Mr. de Jong said in a statement. Its mandate will be to investigate all independent municipal police- and RCMP-related deaths and serious incidents across British Columbia.
I'm sure this flip-flop won't be enough to redeem BC's none-too-liberal Liberals and save their worthless hides in the next election but the news is welcome enough in any case.
Demand Dziekanski's Executioners be Prosecuted
If there was any doubt that the killing of Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver Airport in 2007 was totally unjustified, that's put to rest by the rulings of the Braidwood inquiry. Tom Braidwood plainly found that the executed man was compliant at the time he was attacked, that the tasering was unjustified and that the tall tales these four uniformed thugs cooked up were unbelievable.
Even before the inquiry got underway, BC's Attorney General's office announced the four horsemen would not be prosecuted for the homicide. That doesn't mean we should stand by and accept that decision.
If you disagree, if you think these cops need to feel the full weight of the law, let the AG know. Contact Mike de Jong here and tell him what's on your mind.
Even before the inquiry got underway, BC's Attorney General's office announced the four horsemen would not be prosecuted for the homicide. That doesn't mean we should stand by and accept that decision.
If you disagree, if you think these cops need to feel the full weight of the law, let the AG know. Contact Mike de Jong here and tell him what's on your mind.
Braidwood - Dziekanski Mounties "Unjustified, Unbelievable"
Tom Braidwood has lowered the lumber on the RCMP thugs who executed Robert Dziekanski at Vancouver airport in 2007.
After hearing the lockstep fairy tales spun by the officers in their testimony before his enquiry, the former judge concluded that:
...[RCMP Constable Kwesi Millington] was not justified in deploying the weapon, and that neither that constable nor the corporal honestly perceived that Mr. Dziekanski was intending to attack any of the officers.
"I concluded that the other two constables, during their testimony before me, offered patently unbelievable after-the-fact rationalizations of their police notes and their statements to [Integrated Homicicde Investigation Team] investigators."
By corporal, Mr. Braidwood, was referring to the commanding officer presiding over the three other constables who responded to reports Mr. Dziekanski was acting erratically.
Mr. Braidwood said claims by the officers they wrestled Mr. Dziekanski to the ground "were deliberate misrepresentations made for the purpose of justifying their actions."
He also said he disbelieved claims there was no discussion among the officers before being questioned by investigators "although I did not conclude they colluded to fabricate a story."
Now the question becomes whether these killers are above the law even though the BC government has said they won't face prosecution for Dziekanski's death. If nothing else, decency should require the lot of them be slammed up for their rank, odious perjury before the Braidwood enquiry.
Read the entire report here.
After hearing the lockstep fairy tales spun by the officers in their testimony before his enquiry, the former judge concluded that:
...[RCMP Constable Kwesi Millington] was not justified in deploying the weapon, and that neither that constable nor the corporal honestly perceived that Mr. Dziekanski was intending to attack any of the officers.
"I concluded that the other two constables, during their testimony before me, offered patently unbelievable after-the-fact rationalizations of their police notes and their statements to [Integrated Homicicde Investigation Team] investigators."
By corporal, Mr. Braidwood, was referring to the commanding officer presiding over the three other constables who responded to reports Mr. Dziekanski was acting erratically.
Mr. Braidwood said claims by the officers they wrestled Mr. Dziekanski to the ground "were deliberate misrepresentations made for the purpose of justifying their actions."
He also said he disbelieved claims there was no discussion among the officers before being questioned by investigators "although I did not conclude they colluded to fabricate a story."
Now the question becomes whether these killers are above the law even though the BC government has said they won't face prosecution for Dziekanski's death. If nothing else, decency should require the lot of them be slammed up for their rank, odious perjury before the Braidwood enquiry.
Read the entire report here.
A Corporate Criminal Code?
Corporations have never been as powerful globally as they are today.
With the introduction of the WTO and various free trade regimes governments relinquished sovereign powers, notably access to their markets, tariffs and free movement of capital, essential to globalization. It's been all gravy for the rentier class, the investment sector, but others have paid for that and, in some cases, paid dearly.
We expect governments to act within certain moral strictures but corporations operate devoid of morality save for obligations imposed on them or public relations gestures. Corporations at times act with heinous disregard for those they harm but only because we have tolerated that.
We have only to look at the Deepwater Horizon debacle to see the problem. Those needing more should read The Food Bubble, How Wall Street Starved Millions and Got Away With It in this month's Harper's magazine. These are but two examples, there are many, many others.
The corporate veil has created an impunity for directing minds to act in ways harmful to people and entire societies. Even if the company is found criminally liable it too often is resolved by way of a fine. Except in cases of outright fraud (Enron), top management rarely is at risk of imprisonment.
Isn't it time to push back? What if we prohibited corporations from committing acts that harm others? Harm to the person, harm to that person's ability to sustain himself and his/her family, that sort of thing. Not all harm of course, only harm that was reasonably foreseeable, harm that would be apparent to a reasonable person knowledgeable of the facts. Perhaps couple that with an obligation on management to take reasonable measures to keep themselves informed of the activities of their coporate entities sufficient to discern what might be expected to cause prohibited harm. When those standards (reasonableness and foreseeability) were not met, slam them up in accordance with the harm inflicted.
I think the interjection of an element of possible personal, criminal liability into corporate decision making would invite management to look beyond potential profitability and consider reasonably foreseeable harmful effects. After all, you can't do as you please. Our laws expect you to bear in mind whether your actions can reasonably be foreseen to inflict harm. It's why our law assumes, without direct proof, that you intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of your actions. Why should the directing minds of harmful corporate actions be placed above the same law that governs you?
Let me be clear about one thing - this is going to get far worse, far more destructive if we don't push back hard on this. When Goldman Sachs operates the largest carbon trading desk in the cap and trade market that alone is ample reason to act. The market cannot be allowed to game food as a commodity when that means undermining the food security of millions and potential starvation. It can't and we can't allow it. There's too much at stake to allow 18th century capitalism to run unchecked in today's world.
With the introduction of the WTO and various free trade regimes governments relinquished sovereign powers, notably access to their markets, tariffs and free movement of capital, essential to globalization. It's been all gravy for the rentier class, the investment sector, but others have paid for that and, in some cases, paid dearly.
We expect governments to act within certain moral strictures but corporations operate devoid of morality save for obligations imposed on them or public relations gestures. Corporations at times act with heinous disregard for those they harm but only because we have tolerated that.
We have only to look at the Deepwater Horizon debacle to see the problem. Those needing more should read The Food Bubble, How Wall Street Starved Millions and Got Away With It in this month's Harper's magazine. These are but two examples, there are many, many others.
The corporate veil has created an impunity for directing minds to act in ways harmful to people and entire societies. Even if the company is found criminally liable it too often is resolved by way of a fine. Except in cases of outright fraud (Enron), top management rarely is at risk of imprisonment.
Isn't it time to push back? What if we prohibited corporations from committing acts that harm others? Harm to the person, harm to that person's ability to sustain himself and his/her family, that sort of thing. Not all harm of course, only harm that was reasonably foreseeable, harm that would be apparent to a reasonable person knowledgeable of the facts. Perhaps couple that with an obligation on management to take reasonable measures to keep themselves informed of the activities of their coporate entities sufficient to discern what might be expected to cause prohibited harm. When those standards (reasonableness and foreseeability) were not met, slam them up in accordance with the harm inflicted.
I think the interjection of an element of possible personal, criminal liability into corporate decision making would invite management to look beyond potential profitability and consider reasonably foreseeable harmful effects. After all, you can't do as you please. Our laws expect you to bear in mind whether your actions can reasonably be foreseen to inflict harm. It's why our law assumes, without direct proof, that you intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of your actions. Why should the directing minds of harmful corporate actions be placed above the same law that governs you?
Let me be clear about one thing - this is going to get far worse, far more destructive if we don't push back hard on this. When Goldman Sachs operates the largest carbon trading desk in the cap and trade market that alone is ample reason to act. The market cannot be allowed to game food as a commodity when that means undermining the food security of millions and potential starvation. It can't and we can't allow it. There's too much at stake to allow 18th century capitalism to run unchecked in today's world.
Louise Arbour Calls for Intervention in Kyrgystan
The International Crisis Group and Human Rights Watch have issued an open letter to the UN Security Council calling for urgent intervention to stop the ethnic slaughter in Kyrgyztan. The letter, signed by ICG's Louise Arbour and HRW's Ken Roth warns that, even though the worst seems to have abated for the moment, this could reignite and spread throughout the region:
...International security assistance is urgently needed. An international stabilization mission of limited size could make a significant difference by securing the area for humanitarian relief, providing security for some of the displaced to return home, and creating space for reconciliation, confidence-building, and mediation programs to succeed. This mission would have a policing mandate and could be bolstered by military forces, particularly constabulary forces or gendarmes, if necessary.
Security Council Members should work without delay with regional organizations to ensure that such a mission is fielded as quickly as possible, with the endorsement of the Security Council and with specific terms of reference, clear rules of engagement, and a limited duration. Countries with capacity to engage quickly, in particular Russia, should be encouraged to contribute to the rapid deployment of such a mission.
...The instability in southern Kyrgyzstan cannot be wished away, and without a decisive international response there is considerable risk that widespread violence will reignite. It is possible that ethnic Kyrgyz and Uzbeks may seek violent revenge for the past week of mayhem. Prolonged insecurity could provide an opening, for example, for political opponents who may seek to further weaken or overthrow the provisional government through violence against its perceived supporters. In the absence of an international mission to restore law and order, further such violence is likely to continue and could spill over to neighboring countries. Should conditions persist, widespread violence could cause a complete collapse of the state, with the attendant hum an rights, political, and security consequences for the region, including the risk of unilateral intervention by outside actors.
The threat to regional peace and security posed by the crisis in Kyrgyzstan is real and, despite the reduction in daily violence, still growing. The Security Council has an obligation to respond to these risks and should act immediately to work with the government, regional organizations and others to prevent further escalation of violence, including by authorizing international law enforcement and security assistance.
With the West mired down in neighbouring Afghanistan, the Kyrgyztan problem is at best a complication. Afghan Uzbeks constitute a large and powerful minority and could easily get drawn into the Kyrgyz conflict.
Louise Arbour is the sort of person who makes me proud to be a Canadian. Too bad there aren't more like her.
...International security assistance is urgently needed. An international stabilization mission of limited size could make a significant difference by securing the area for humanitarian relief, providing security for some of the displaced to return home, and creating space for reconciliation, confidence-building, and mediation programs to succeed. This mission would have a policing mandate and could be bolstered by military forces, particularly constabulary forces or gendarmes, if necessary.
Security Council Members should work without delay with regional organizations to ensure that such a mission is fielded as quickly as possible, with the endorsement of the Security Council and with specific terms of reference, clear rules of engagement, and a limited duration. Countries with capacity to engage quickly, in particular Russia, should be encouraged to contribute to the rapid deployment of such a mission.
...The instability in southern Kyrgyzstan cannot be wished away, and without a decisive international response there is considerable risk that widespread violence will reignite. It is possible that ethnic Kyrgyz and Uzbeks may seek violent revenge for the past week of mayhem. Prolonged insecurity could provide an opening, for example, for political opponents who may seek to further weaken or overthrow the provisional government through violence against its perceived supporters. In the absence of an international mission to restore law and order, further such violence is likely to continue and could spill over to neighboring countries. Should conditions persist, widespread violence could cause a complete collapse of the state, with the attendant hum an rights, political, and security consequences for the region, including the risk of unilateral intervention by outside actors.
The threat to regional peace and security posed by the crisis in Kyrgyzstan is real and, despite the reduction in daily violence, still growing. The Security Council has an obligation to respond to these risks and should act immediately to work with the government, regional organizations and others to prevent further escalation of violence, including by authorizing international law enforcement and security assistance.
With the West mired down in neighbouring Afghanistan, the Kyrgyztan problem is at best a complication. Afghan Uzbeks constitute a large and powerful minority and could easily get drawn into the Kyrgyz conflict.
Louise Arbour is the sort of person who makes me proud to be a Canadian. Too bad there aren't more like her.
If We Only Had a Brain
Iggy likes it. Harper likes it and knows his Senior Partner likes it. At least some of us like it or think we do. Yet nobody much wants to talk about it or what it means.
It is the militarization of Canada's foreign policy. That, in turn, means shooting and shelling and bombing the hell out of some place well removed (we hope) from home. Sure it sounds great, in theory, but how does it translate into reality?
Earlier this week we learned that the Canadian Forces are going to have to wait until 2015 for delivery of their first, Predator-style, armed aerial drones. The story, the only one I've read, focused on the delay and skipped over the important part, the intent.
What in hell does Canada need with missile-firing aerial drones? Where do we expect to need them and when? I'd like to think we're not going to be turning those missiles on anyone at home and I doubt we're planning on using them on anyone within drone range of Canada either because that would pretty much be the United States and, after all, the hillbillies have all the guns. So that must mean we're planning on deploying them abroad and that must mean we foresee a reasonable need for these expensive, high-tech toys in a combat scenario overseas in the reasonably near future. Which then begs the questions - where are we fixing to wage war, against whom and roughly when?
There are all sort of collateral ramifications to militarizing Canada's foreign policy. It's not enough to have the toys. You have to have the means and the ways to get those toys where you need them when you need them there and that means a lot of resources, a lot of personnel, and an awful lot of dineros. You have to invest heavily in that supporting infrastructure well before you decide to flex those muscles and you have to keep that infrastructure in a relatively high state of readiness if you want to get your toys to the blood-soaked sandbox on the other side of some ocean while they can still find somebody to whack. Sure we bought a few C-10 military transports but they're just the tip of the iceberg on this sort of warfighting capability.
Now unless you're a theocratic nutjob or an Igophile, you'll realize that if there's one sort of foreign policy where Canada cannot chart its own course, it's the guns'n ammo stuff. We're just too small a player. That means we can only use those drones in support of a senior partner, a major player. Think "coalition of the willing." Think America. Think Foreign Legion. For a country the size of Canada, armed drones are something you buy so that you can fight in support of somebody else's war.
Every nation's military war games and comes up with contingency plans for warfighting. We even have one for what we'll do when the Americans come pouring across our border... just in case. What are the contingencies in which we foresee the use of these drones? In conjunction with what other weaponry and forces? In association with what other nations? Under the command of what foreign power? Against what possible nation or group of nations? For how long? At what cost?
Aren't you just a bit curious about all these questions? I sure am and I'd like to think they're being asked and discussed - and they're not. After all, we're talking about the future of Canada and our posture toward the rest of the world during what promises to be a highly unstable and dangerous century. Maybe to ask and answer those questions would bring up a lot of issues we simply don't want raised in the public's mind.
This is the time we could sure use an opposition to force these things to be debated in Parliament. Nah, forget I even mentioned it.
It is the militarization of Canada's foreign policy. That, in turn, means shooting and shelling and bombing the hell out of some place well removed (we hope) from home. Sure it sounds great, in theory, but how does it translate into reality?
Earlier this week we learned that the Canadian Forces are going to have to wait until 2015 for delivery of their first, Predator-style, armed aerial drones. The story, the only one I've read, focused on the delay and skipped over the important part, the intent.
What in hell does Canada need with missile-firing aerial drones? Where do we expect to need them and when? I'd like to think we're not going to be turning those missiles on anyone at home and I doubt we're planning on using them on anyone within drone range of Canada either because that would pretty much be the United States and, after all, the hillbillies have all the guns. So that must mean we're planning on deploying them abroad and that must mean we foresee a reasonable need for these expensive, high-tech toys in a combat scenario overseas in the reasonably near future. Which then begs the questions - where are we fixing to wage war, against whom and roughly when?
There are all sort of collateral ramifications to militarizing Canada's foreign policy. It's not enough to have the toys. You have to have the means and the ways to get those toys where you need them when you need them there and that means a lot of resources, a lot of personnel, and an awful lot of dineros. You have to invest heavily in that supporting infrastructure well before you decide to flex those muscles and you have to keep that infrastructure in a relatively high state of readiness if you want to get your toys to the blood-soaked sandbox on the other side of some ocean while they can still find somebody to whack. Sure we bought a few C-10 military transports but they're just the tip of the iceberg on this sort of warfighting capability.
Now unless you're a theocratic nutjob or an Igophile, you'll realize that if there's one sort of foreign policy where Canada cannot chart its own course, it's the guns'n ammo stuff. We're just too small a player. That means we can only use those drones in support of a senior partner, a major player. Think "coalition of the willing." Think America. Think Foreign Legion. For a country the size of Canada, armed drones are something you buy so that you can fight in support of somebody else's war.
Every nation's military war games and comes up with contingency plans for warfighting. We even have one for what we'll do when the Americans come pouring across our border... just in case. What are the contingencies in which we foresee the use of these drones? In conjunction with what other weaponry and forces? In association with what other nations? Under the command of what foreign power? Against what possible nation or group of nations? For how long? At what cost?
Aren't you just a bit curious about all these questions? I sure am and I'd like to think they're being asked and discussed - and they're not. After all, we're talking about the future of Canada and our posture toward the rest of the world during what promises to be a highly unstable and dangerous century. Maybe to ask and answer those questions would bring up a lot of issues we simply don't want raised in the public's mind.
This is the time we could sure use an opposition to force these things to be debated in Parliament. Nah, forget I even mentioned it.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Sounds Like We're Fed Up With the Lot
The latest Ekos poll shows that the Canadian public is pretty much fed up with the political choices on offer today.
The Tories have dropped to 30.5% with the Libs trailing by the now standard 4 points at 26.3%.
The good news is that the Tory decline overcomes the IgLibs own decline. Pollster Frank Graves opines in an election today the Harper Cons would drop 28 seats about 17 of which would default to the Liberals with the rest spread among the NDP, Greens and the Bloc.
Graves said, "Perhaps the only clear conclusion we can draw … is that Canadians have no party which would come even close to achieving a plausible mandate from an ever more disgruntled and fragmented electorate.”
The Tories have dropped to 30.5% with the Libs trailing by the now standard 4 points at 26.3%.
The good news is that the Tory decline overcomes the IgLibs own decline. Pollster Frank Graves opines in an election today the Harper Cons would drop 28 seats about 17 of which would default to the Liberals with the rest spread among the NDP, Greens and the Bloc.
Graves said, "Perhaps the only clear conclusion we can draw … is that Canadians have no party which would come even close to achieving a plausible mandate from an ever more disgruntled and fragmented electorate.”
How Should Canada Handle "Advocacy Journalism"
I won't pretend that there has ever been any journalist completely devoid of some biases that didn't slip through into the printed/spoken word but there have been many who worked very hard to at least strive for objectivity. That's what distinguishes real journalism from today's advocacy journalism - the "striving" thing.
Advocacy journalism is the darling of America's far right which, today, pretty much incorporates the entire Republican movement. (If you don't think modern Republicans are the radical right, just compare their policies with those of Nixon* who today would be denounced as a heretic, a damned socialist.) As practiced in the US, advocacy journalism is a powerful force for advancing corporatist and theocratic interests in the guise of populism. It is the use of guile on the gullible to stand logic and truth on their head.
In short, advocacy journalism isn't journalism at all except in name and even that is wilfully misleading. It is propaganda. Fox News may claim to be "fair and balanced" but it's a claim that has been laughed out of a court of law. Still, Fox dominates CNN and CNBC in ratings which sounds impressive until one realizes how, in radical states, propaganda services commonly are the dominant medium. In today's theocratic/corporatist America, the prominence attained by Fox should not be all that surprising.
So, in this era of disease migration, the same disorder is coming to Canada - conservative TV. They're open about their bias now but I suspect they'll ditch that candour once they hit the airwaves and soon enough they'll cloak themselves in claims of being factual, honest and even fair.
How will Canadians take to ConTV? Have we had enough exposure to the hillarity of Fox News to have acquired some degree of contact immunity? Are we less gullible as a people than our sometimes astonishingly stupid cousins to the south?
Should the CRTC, vaunted defender of the public interest in the public airwaves, recognize that advocacy journalism is not journalism at all and require some sort of disclosure? After all, Sun TV will be broadcasting over the public airwaves, our airwaves, public property and it will be employing our CRTC to compel Canadian cable operators to carry its programming. In effect the Harper government is partnering in a way with Fixed News North.
This sort of thing is a disease. As David Frum recently remarked, at first the Republican administration thought Fox News worked for them. Eventually they realized it was they working for Fox News. If that doesn't scare you, it should.
* Nixon, after all, created the Environmental Protection Agency, introduced America's Clean Water Act, first recognized China (at least by the US) and even some advances in civil rights including desegregation and women's rights. Nixon also advocated a form of guaranteed annual income he labelled "negative income tax" and the introduction of universal healthcare. Today's Republicans would flay him alive with a rusty skinning knife.
Advocacy journalism is the darling of America's far right which, today, pretty much incorporates the entire Republican movement. (If you don't think modern Republicans are the radical right, just compare their policies with those of Nixon* who today would be denounced as a heretic, a damned socialist.) As practiced in the US, advocacy journalism is a powerful force for advancing corporatist and theocratic interests in the guise of populism. It is the use of guile on the gullible to stand logic and truth on their head.
In short, advocacy journalism isn't journalism at all except in name and even that is wilfully misleading. It is propaganda. Fox News may claim to be "fair and balanced" but it's a claim that has been laughed out of a court of law. Still, Fox dominates CNN and CNBC in ratings which sounds impressive until one realizes how, in radical states, propaganda services commonly are the dominant medium. In today's theocratic/corporatist America, the prominence attained by Fox should not be all that surprising.
So, in this era of disease migration, the same disorder is coming to Canada - conservative TV. They're open about their bias now but I suspect they'll ditch that candour once they hit the airwaves and soon enough they'll cloak themselves in claims of being factual, honest and even fair.
How will Canadians take to ConTV? Have we had enough exposure to the hillarity of Fox News to have acquired some degree of contact immunity? Are we less gullible as a people than our sometimes astonishingly stupid cousins to the south?
Should the CRTC, vaunted defender of the public interest in the public airwaves, recognize that advocacy journalism is not journalism at all and require some sort of disclosure? After all, Sun TV will be broadcasting over the public airwaves, our airwaves, public property and it will be employing our CRTC to compel Canadian cable operators to carry its programming. In effect the Harper government is partnering in a way with Fixed News North.
This sort of thing is a disease. As David Frum recently remarked, at first the Republican administration thought Fox News worked for them. Eventually they realized it was they working for Fox News. If that doesn't scare you, it should.
* Nixon, after all, created the Environmental Protection Agency, introduced America's Clean Water Act, first recognized China (at least by the US) and even some advances in civil rights including desegregation and women's rights. Nixon also advocated a form of guaranteed annual income he labelled "negative income tax" and the introduction of universal healthcare. Today's Republicans would flay him alive with a rusty skinning knife.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Growing Old in a Scary World
It's a curious thing but I think that, as you get older, you become more concerned about what sort of world you're leaving for the future, well after you're gone. You reach a certain age and you realize there's a good chance you'll be around in ten years, a reasonable chance for twenty and just a slim chance you'll be breathing and even vaguely sentient in thirty. It sure does focus the mind.
I guess I worry so much about the post-Mound future in part because my kids seem to worry so little about it. They're at that point where they are caught up in building their lives, trying to put down roots. It's natural to be so absorbed in immediate concerns not to have much left over for future problems. Priorities, priorities.
I would feel worse about my children's complacency if I didn't see the very same thing in a lot of the established middle-aged professionals I've known. An astonishing number of them are oblivious to the mechanics and ramifications of climate change. Some really well educated and accomplished people are content to dodge the discussion altogether, even dismissing it as a hoax. When you explore that with them it very quickly becomes obvious they chose "Option B" without wasting precious time learning anything about it.
Sad really. Today's indifference and complacency is going to exact a high price in just a couple of decades for, when it comes to climate change, the future is being written today and it's being written indelibly.
I'm not saying I have any vision of how the future is going to play out. I don't. There are too many variables, too many extraneous factors that can come into play. If, as it appears, we're headed for runaway global warming then, as Gwynne Dyer notes in Climate Wars, it won't be climate change that does the West in, it'll be war. I've thought that through - for years - and I believe he's very probably right.
I dread the idea of those who follow me having to endure a cataclysmic war, one that would probably reshape civilization, but we seem to have forgotten the enormous destructive power of mankind. If we're going to defuze that conflict, if we're to avert it, now is the time we have to make that happen. Once that window of opportunity closes, it's closed for good. I'm pretty sure that window is still open but I'm not sure it will be in 20-years and, if it is, it will only be because we've accepted the need to make some fairly radical changes in our economies and our societies.
I may sound quite negative, apocalyptic but I'm really not. If you want the apocalyptic take on this read what James Lovelock or James Hansen think about what we're facing. They're the experts on this stuff. Check out Hansen's Storms of My Grandchildren or Lovelock's Revenge of Gaia.
It's deeply discouraging to look upon the state of Canadian political leadership today. Harper's a dead loss. Ignatieff isn't much better despite his vaunted intellect. Even Layton's out to lunch. Two inveterate Fossil Fuelers and a goof. Great, perfect. Let's party like it's 1980. There's not one genuinely forward thinker in the lot. Oh they might pay lip service to global warming but not one of them has taken any realistic stand on the great global environmental challenges that are simply not going away no matter how hard these characters ignore them.
We've faced huge challenges before, maybe not of the complexity and magnitude of what confronts us today, but our leaders have risen to the challenge of calamities such as world wars. Even then, however, our leadership failed us. Our leaders failed to grasp the threat that fascism and nazism posed to the world. They ignored a lot, they minimized a lot and they dismissed the rest. From 1933 until 1939 it was always too little, too late - a losing game of catch up.
In today's New Republic, Bradford Plumer sees dark parallels between the Deepwater Horizon debacle and the way we approach global warming:
Climate change poses a similar dilemma. We know it's coming, but there's still a fair bit of uncertainty as to how bad it could really get. And, as Harvard economist Marty Weitzman has argued, policymakers tend to pay too little attention to the low-probability extreme outcomes that global warming could bring about. Case in point: A recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that there's a roughly 5 percent chance that rising temperatures could render vast regions of the planet—like the eastern United States or most of India—simply uninhabitable. Even if the odds of that are relatively low, that's a gruesome enough prospect that it's worth planning for. And yet most of the policy discussions of climate change tend to involve dry discussions of the median expected costs of global warming compared with the costs of reducing carbon. And, again, few people want to pay upfront costs to prevent problems that are decades away: Politicians keep fretting that families could face small increases on their electricity bills if the United States set up a cap-and-trade system, even though the cost of truly dire warming—say, 5°F or more—would make that electricity price hike look laughably minor.
Meanwhile, with both the oil spill and climate change, there seems to be a lingering sense that technology can come along and save us if things ever get too ominous. Some conservatives point to geoengineering as the great hope for climate—surely if temperatures ever climb too high, our brightest engineers will figure something out. Maybe we can shoot sulfate particles in the air to blot out the sun, or seed plankton in the ocean to mop up any excess carbon-dioxide. And yet, as we've seen with the flailing cleanup efforts in the Gulf, there's not always a technological solution. Nature, once despoiled, can't always be fixed.
... is there any reason to think that a major environmental upheaval would change minds in Congress? Just look at the Gulf. This is a region that only a few years ago was rocked by Katrina, the sort of massive hurricane that global warming could make more likely. And now, even though Louisiana is suffering a major blow to its fishing industry as a result of the spill, its junior senator, David Vitter, has been insisting that even a temporary moratorium on offshore drilling would be far more crippling than the spill itself. (And if Vitter's standing in lockstep with the oil and gas industry in the face of devastation in his own backyard, how likely is it that he'd change his stance if, say, an unprecedented drought hit faraway Africa?)
On global warming, there seems to be an unshakeable faith among many conservatives that things could never possibly get so bad, that the worriers are just being hysterical, that if worst comes to worst, human ingenuity and technological progress will get us out of any jam. And yet the Gulf spill really does suggest that that attitude can be badly misguided, especially when we're dealing with natural forces we don't fully understand.
I guess I worry so much about the post-Mound future in part because my kids seem to worry so little about it. They're at that point where they are caught up in building their lives, trying to put down roots. It's natural to be so absorbed in immediate concerns not to have much left over for future problems. Priorities, priorities.
I would feel worse about my children's complacency if I didn't see the very same thing in a lot of the established middle-aged professionals I've known. An astonishing number of them are oblivious to the mechanics and ramifications of climate change. Some really well educated and accomplished people are content to dodge the discussion altogether, even dismissing it as a hoax. When you explore that with them it very quickly becomes obvious they chose "Option B" without wasting precious time learning anything about it.
Sad really. Today's indifference and complacency is going to exact a high price in just a couple of decades for, when it comes to climate change, the future is being written today and it's being written indelibly.
I'm not saying I have any vision of how the future is going to play out. I don't. There are too many variables, too many extraneous factors that can come into play. If, as it appears, we're headed for runaway global warming then, as Gwynne Dyer notes in Climate Wars, it won't be climate change that does the West in, it'll be war. I've thought that through - for years - and I believe he's very probably right.
I dread the idea of those who follow me having to endure a cataclysmic war, one that would probably reshape civilization, but we seem to have forgotten the enormous destructive power of mankind. If we're going to defuze that conflict, if we're to avert it, now is the time we have to make that happen. Once that window of opportunity closes, it's closed for good. I'm pretty sure that window is still open but I'm not sure it will be in 20-years and, if it is, it will only be because we've accepted the need to make some fairly radical changes in our economies and our societies.
I may sound quite negative, apocalyptic but I'm really not. If you want the apocalyptic take on this read what James Lovelock or James Hansen think about what we're facing. They're the experts on this stuff. Check out Hansen's Storms of My Grandchildren or Lovelock's Revenge of Gaia.
It's deeply discouraging to look upon the state of Canadian political leadership today. Harper's a dead loss. Ignatieff isn't much better despite his vaunted intellect. Even Layton's out to lunch. Two inveterate Fossil Fuelers and a goof. Great, perfect. Let's party like it's 1980. There's not one genuinely forward thinker in the lot. Oh they might pay lip service to global warming but not one of them has taken any realistic stand on the great global environmental challenges that are simply not going away no matter how hard these characters ignore them.
We've faced huge challenges before, maybe not of the complexity and magnitude of what confronts us today, but our leaders have risen to the challenge of calamities such as world wars. Even then, however, our leadership failed us. Our leaders failed to grasp the threat that fascism and nazism posed to the world. They ignored a lot, they minimized a lot and they dismissed the rest. From 1933 until 1939 it was always too little, too late - a losing game of catch up.
In today's New Republic, Bradford Plumer sees dark parallels between the Deepwater Horizon debacle and the way we approach global warming:
Climate change poses a similar dilemma. We know it's coming, but there's still a fair bit of uncertainty as to how bad it could really get. And, as Harvard economist Marty Weitzman has argued, policymakers tend to pay too little attention to the low-probability extreme outcomes that global warming could bring about. Case in point: A recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that there's a roughly 5 percent chance that rising temperatures could render vast regions of the planet—like the eastern United States or most of India—simply uninhabitable. Even if the odds of that are relatively low, that's a gruesome enough prospect that it's worth planning for. And yet most of the policy discussions of climate change tend to involve dry discussions of the median expected costs of global warming compared with the costs of reducing carbon. And, again, few people want to pay upfront costs to prevent problems that are decades away: Politicians keep fretting that families could face small increases on their electricity bills if the United States set up a cap-and-trade system, even though the cost of truly dire warming—say, 5°F or more—would make that electricity price hike look laughably minor.
Meanwhile, with both the oil spill and climate change, there seems to be a lingering sense that technology can come along and save us if things ever get too ominous. Some conservatives point to geoengineering as the great hope for climate—surely if temperatures ever climb too high, our brightest engineers will figure something out. Maybe we can shoot sulfate particles in the air to blot out the sun, or seed plankton in the ocean to mop up any excess carbon-dioxide. And yet, as we've seen with the flailing cleanup efforts in the Gulf, there's not always a technological solution. Nature, once despoiled, can't always be fixed.
... is there any reason to think that a major environmental upheaval would change minds in Congress? Just look at the Gulf. This is a region that only a few years ago was rocked by Katrina, the sort of massive hurricane that global warming could make more likely. And now, even though Louisiana is suffering a major blow to its fishing industry as a result of the spill, its junior senator, David Vitter, has been insisting that even a temporary moratorium on offshore drilling would be far more crippling than the spill itself. (And if Vitter's standing in lockstep with the oil and gas industry in the face of devastation in his own backyard, how likely is it that he'd change his stance if, say, an unprecedented drought hit faraway Africa?)
On global warming, there seems to be an unshakeable faith among many conservatives that things could never possibly get so bad, that the worriers are just being hysterical, that if worst comes to worst, human ingenuity and technological progress will get us out of any jam. And yet the Gulf spill really does suggest that that attitude can be badly misguided, especially when we're dealing with natural forces we don't fully understand.
Why Stay On in Afghanistan?
Michael Ignatieff believes Canada should remain in Afghanistan past 2011, ostensibly to train Afghan recruits.
We've been at this now for almost nine years and a lot of that time has been spent training Afghan soldiers. How has that worked out?
Western forces have trained a lot of Afghan soldiers, plenty of them, but their army's desertion rates ensures there's never been enough and never will be.
I can't embed this video but follow this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2F80llZ5F4 It's a Guardian video of American troops serving in the field with Afghan soldiers who are stoned out of their minds on hashish.
Current desertion rates are estimated at 25% per year. http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/05/20/the_pricetag_of_that_afghan_army
This May, 2010 report from the International Crisis Group makes clear that training more soldiers won't help the Afghan Army. It's an institutional mess in need of a wholesale overhaul:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/south-asia/afghanistan/190-a-force-in-fragments-reconstituting-the-afghan-national-army.aspx
Sorry to harp, but shouldn't a political leader know these things before issuing bromides disguised as policy?
We've been at this now for almost nine years and a lot of that time has been spent training Afghan soldiers. How has that worked out?
Western forces have trained a lot of Afghan soldiers, plenty of them, but their army's desertion rates ensures there's never been enough and never will be.
I can't embed this video but follow this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2F80llZ5F4 It's a Guardian video of American troops serving in the field with Afghan soldiers who are stoned out of their minds on hashish.
Current desertion rates are estimated at 25% per year. http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/05/20/the_pricetag_of_that_afghan_army
This May, 2010 report from the International Crisis Group makes clear that training more soldiers won't help the Afghan Army. It's an institutional mess in need of a wholesale overhaul:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/south-asia/afghanistan/190-a-force-in-fragments-reconstituting-the-afghan-national-army.aspx
Sorry to harp, but shouldn't a political leader know these things before issuing bromides disguised as policy?
If Harper Got To Choose the Leader of the Opposition
If you were Stephen Harper and somehow you were given the power to select the Leader of the Official Opposition, what sort of person would you look for?
Let's see. Steve's overarching ambition, one that he's never concealed, is to move Canada's political centre to the right. It follows then that you would want someone to lead the opposition to the right in your wake, to carry part of the load of making that shift happen, to help you make your dream come true.
If you can get a guy who'll really steer the opposition to the right, there'll be that much less room for them to criticize your own policies as extreme or contrary to the nation's values. Most of the time you'll both be on the same page. It'll be like having the opposition endorse your policies. Perfect.
If you can get a guy who'll draw the opposition to the right, you'll have your revenge for Stockwell Day. That guy will shred his own party, leave it divided and weakened, easy meat. Most of those who fall away will simply lose heart and reject politics altogether. Perfect. Scars last a really long time.
If you can just get a guy who'll put the helm over to the right you can overcome a lot of the drawbacks of governing as a minority. You can still implement your agenda just as Preston taught you, incrementally. Little changes here, little changes there, maybe stack the Senate - eventually you'll be able to cram all sorts of stuff into a budget bill and get away with it. You can't buy opposition that good.
But why stop there? Surely there are other attributes you want in the leader of the opposition. You want a guy who flinches every time you throw a feint. It never hurts to have an adversary who keeps making himself look like a wimp. And a guy who takes bold policies and then flip-flops as soon as they become tough to defend. That really helps to leave his supporters confused and off balance. Oh yeah, a guy who talks tough to your back and then runs for cover when you turn around. That little dance is never lost on the public. Maybe it's too much to ask but it would help enormously if you could get a guy who couldn't come up with a coherent policy platform that resonated with the voting public.
But this is the stuff of dreams. It's ridiculous. Where would Harper hope to find someone like that?
Let's see. Steve's overarching ambition, one that he's never concealed, is to move Canada's political centre to the right. It follows then that you would want someone to lead the opposition to the right in your wake, to carry part of the load of making that shift happen, to help you make your dream come true.
If you can get a guy who'll really steer the opposition to the right, there'll be that much less room for them to criticize your own policies as extreme or contrary to the nation's values. Most of the time you'll both be on the same page. It'll be like having the opposition endorse your policies. Perfect.
If you can get a guy who'll draw the opposition to the right, you'll have your revenge for Stockwell Day. That guy will shred his own party, leave it divided and weakened, easy meat. Most of those who fall away will simply lose heart and reject politics altogether. Perfect. Scars last a really long time.
If you can just get a guy who'll put the helm over to the right you can overcome a lot of the drawbacks of governing as a minority. You can still implement your agenda just as Preston taught you, incrementally. Little changes here, little changes there, maybe stack the Senate - eventually you'll be able to cram all sorts of stuff into a budget bill and get away with it. You can't buy opposition that good.
But why stop there? Surely there are other attributes you want in the leader of the opposition. You want a guy who flinches every time you throw a feint. It never hurts to have an adversary who keeps making himself look like a wimp. And a guy who takes bold policies and then flip-flops as soon as they become tough to defend. That really helps to leave his supporters confused and off balance. Oh yeah, a guy who talks tough to your back and then runs for cover when you turn around. That little dance is never lost on the public. Maybe it's too much to ask but it would help enormously if you could get a guy who couldn't come up with a coherent policy platform that resonated with the voting public.
But this is the stuff of dreams. It's ridiculous. Where would Harper hope to find someone like that?
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
If We're Leaving in 2011, Why Are We Buying Armed Drones?
The Canadian Forces make do and they deliver a lot for the limited amount they're given. Even within current defence budgets they have to shop prudently. The military doesn't have money to buy expensive toys they're not planning on using. So why are the Canadian Forces buying armed aerial drones that won't even be delivered until 2015? Who do they figure they'll need those drones to kill over the next decade or two?
Obama is a keen user of aerial drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan but the results have been mixed at best. There's been a lot of anger generated in Islamabad and Kabul over the drone attacks, a lot of "blowback."
Armed unmanned drones will certainly give the Canadian Forces greater capabilities but has Parliament decided that's either necessary or desirable. If there's anything our angry world isn't short of right now it would be weaponry and enough soldiers to fire them. Just what role in the ranks of global warfighting are we carving out for ourselves and are these calls being made by our elected representatives or our unelected military leadership?
How is adding this lethal capability consistent with Canada's leadership role in rejecting land mines and cluster weapons? I don't see it but then again I haven't heard the pros and cons either.
Obama is a keen user of aerial drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan but the results have been mixed at best. There's been a lot of anger generated in Islamabad and Kabul over the drone attacks, a lot of "blowback."
Armed unmanned drones will certainly give the Canadian Forces greater capabilities but has Parliament decided that's either necessary or desirable. If there's anything our angry world isn't short of right now it would be weaponry and enough soldiers to fire them. Just what role in the ranks of global warfighting are we carving out for ourselves and are these calls being made by our elected representatives or our unelected military leadership?
How is adding this lethal capability consistent with Canada's leadership role in rejecting land mines and cluster weapons? I don't see it but then again I haven't heard the pros and cons either.
The Toronto Star has Washed Its Hands of Ignatieff. Why Haven't You?
No one can accuse Tom Walkom or Jim Travers of being conservative shills, anything but. The same goes for the Toronto Star itself, probably the strongest voice for Canadian Liberals. Yet they've all but written off Michael Ignatieff and his wobbly, timid leadership of what he's transformed into today's Conservative Lite Party of Canada.
Read this, and this, and this. And this is just scratching the surface.
The Liberal Party is not supposed to be Canada's alternate conservative party. The Liberal Party is supposed to be, as the name suggests, liberal. The Liberal Party is not supposed to be Stephen Harper's Parliamentary water boy. The Liberal Party is not supposed to cower and flinch every time Harper fakes a punch.
Look, this guy has had 18-months during which he's gone from bad to worse. The country and the Liberal Party are the worse off for it. Time after time this leader has gone to the wrong side of policies, the Harper side. Michael Ignatieff did not get handed the leadership so he could be the best thing Stephen Harper has going for him. He was not given the keys to Stornoway so he could while away his time jockeying for position instead of doing his job as Leader of the Opposition.
Enough.
Read this, and this, and this. And this is just scratching the surface.
The Liberal Party is not supposed to be Canada's alternate conservative party. The Liberal Party is supposed to be, as the name suggests, liberal. The Liberal Party is not supposed to be Stephen Harper's Parliamentary water boy. The Liberal Party is not supposed to cower and flinch every time Harper fakes a punch.
Look, this guy has had 18-months during which he's gone from bad to worse. The country and the Liberal Party are the worse off for it. Time after time this leader has gone to the wrong side of policies, the Harper side. Michael Ignatieff did not get handed the leadership so he could be the best thing Stephen Harper has going for him. He was not given the keys to Stornoway so he could while away his time jockeying for position instead of doing his job as Leader of the Opposition.
Enough.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)