A Line in the Sand

There is a story in today's news that I hope is an April Fool's Day joke. According to the story, the government of Afghanistan is considering a law that would make it illegal for a woman to have sex with her husband or to leave the home without her husband's permission. It would also grant custody rights to fathers and grandfathers.

I know that Afghanistan is their country and that their ways are different than Canadian ways, but if this actually becomes the law over there, then I think Canada has no option but to immediately cease any and all support of the government. In other words, our government should immediately withdraw all of its troops and end all of its financial aid to the government.

If Afghanistan wants to go back to the Taliban's way of doing things -- and I will be the first to agree that they have the right to choose to do so -- they can do so. All that I am saying is that they can do it without the blood and treasure of my country.

No Man Is A(n) (Economic) Island

There is a bit of gallows humour that goes something like this:

Q: What is the difference between a recession and a depression?
A: A recession is when your neighbour loses his job; a depression is when you lose yours.

Yesterday, the firm I work for laid off some 300 people. I worked with at least nine of those people. I consider three of them to be friends.

Somehow it feels like a depression to me.

The Great Right-Wing Media Elite Conspiracy of '09

I am getting tired of the consistent right-wing stance of the Canadian media. Everyone -- including that bastion of left-wing liberalism, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation -- seems to be taking the side of York University in the strike which has gone on for three months.

You don't believe me? Consider this -- the media outlets have not been afraid to inform the public that the CUPE union members rejected the University's offer of a 10.7% increase over three years. Nor have they been loath to report that the union is holding out for a 15.8% increase over two years. Taken together, these statements make the union seem pretty darned greedy.

Obviously, the right-wing media elite has conspired to keep the public unaware of all the additional work and value-added services that the union must be offering to justify their expectations. After all, they couldn't possibly expect a raise of 15.8% to provide the same levels of work, could they?

A Day Which Will Live in History

Today, Barak Hussein Obama was inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States. Over a million people gathered in Washington to see the historic event, and hundreds of millions more throughout the world watched the event on television, viewed it on streaming video over the Internet, or listened to it on the radio.

Some were drawn by the fact that Obama is the first black man elected to the highest office in America. Others were drawn to his message of hope and transformation. Still others were relieved and gladdened b the fact that George W. Bush's reign has finally ended (and I use that verb on purpose, since GWB is a proponent of the "imperial" presidency theory).

Personally, I did not watch the event. I had work to do and I knew that the airwaves would be filled with the recap this evening. I suppose I am also a bit more neutral towards Obama than many other Canadians. On the one hand, I appreciate his message and I fervently hope that he is able to move the United States in the direction outlined in his speeches and envisioned in the Constitution. On the other hand, I think people, especially people in other countries, may be disappointed.

People have compared Barak Obama to both Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. Lincoln truly was a great man, perhaps the only man who could have held the Union together at the time of the Civil War. He was also the President who suspended Habeas Corpus and the man who signed the Homestead Act, which opened up the West to widespread settlement by whites, thus ending the independence of the native societies of the Great Plains. Similarly, Kennedy was a strong defender of the post-war American "empire" who authorized attempted or actual military action and/or regime change in Cuba, South-East Asian, and, ironically enough, Iraq.

I guess my point is that as inclusive and as transformative as Barak Obama appears to be, he is still the head of an imperial power. Whether the rest of the world likes it or not, he will have to act in the best interests of his nation, which is the United States of America and not Canada, Kenya, members of the European Community, or any other entity.

I like the United States. As irritating and as arrogant as its self-anointed vision of itself as the "city on the hill" that inspires the world, I would rather live in a world where the United States of America aspires to be a model of a just society than a world where the United States is just another cynical power that bullies weaker nations and ignores international law.

The Hard Side of Equality

Much has been made of the fact that Hillary Clinton is the first woman to mount a serious campaign for the presidency of the United States of America. Some might say that too much has been made of it. Some would just say that it's about time.

As Clinton's campaign began to lose traction against Obama, many of her supporters have begun to take opposition to her historic mission as a manifestation of sexism. If you don't support Hillary, the thinking goes, you oppose equal rights for women in America.

Now, I can understand the passion that people feel about the campaign but I think Clinton's loyalists are missing the point: true equality means that voters have the option to vote against Clinton. But somehow I think this campaign is less about equality and more about power.

Downward, Ho!

A standard, if historically inaccurate, scene in many western movies is the Indian attack on a wagon train. The brave, God-fearin' agents of civilization and progress would circle the wagons to form a temporary fort. The blood-thirsty heathens would then proceed to ride in circles around the laager in order to provide the settlers with as many opportunities to kill them as could be fit into a ten-minute scene.

It was largely bunk, of course, but "circling the wagons" is a handy metaphor for what is happening with the Democratic Party in the United States. The only difference is that the settlers tended to shoot out towards the menacing horsemen, whereas the Democrats seem to be intend on shooting into the laager.

Yesterday, the Party's rules committee issued a decision to resolve the contentious issue of delegates from Florida and Michigan. Both states moved their primaries to January earlier in the year in defiance of the Democratic National Committee, which in turn banned delegates from those states from sitting at the upcoming national convention. When this all happened, both Clinton and Obama agreed not to campaign in those states. Obama even went so far as to remove his name from the Michigan ballot.

In yesterday's decision, the rules committee decided to give each delegate from Florida and Michigan half a vote at the national convention, which seems like a generous concession considering that the states had been clearly informed that their delegates would have no votes. Obama's camp is content with the decision, but Clinton's team are furious and threaten to keep on fighting to the bitter end. Some Clinton partisans have even declared that if she does not win, they will leave the Democratic Party and will become Independents.

After 8 years of one of the most inept (Republican) administrations in history, John McCain will have to work hard to get elected. But if the Democrats keep circling the wagons and shooting in, his job will be a little bit easier.

Panties for Peace

The Canadian Press ran a story a few days ago informing us that Canadian women are being asked to send panties to the embassy of Myanmar in Ottawa as a form of protest against thatcountry's military junta. According to the group that launched the campaign -- Panties for Peace! -- the generals fear that contact with women's underwear will sap their power.

I know that the connection is somewhat tenuous but I, for one, applaud PFP!'s initiative. After all, women have been throwing their panties at Tom Jones for years and he certainly has not been oppressing the people of Myanmar.

Talk About Irony

I came across a news item earlier this week that talked about how much time Canadian kids are spending in front of a screen. According to its annual report on children's physical activity levels, Active Healthy Kids Canada claims that 90 per cent of Canadian kids fail to meet guidelines on physical activity. A contributing factor: children in the 10-to-16 age group typically spend 6 hours a day in front of a television, computer, or video screen.

As alarming as this was, it paled in comparison to the realization that I heard about this news item on the television news -- and then came across it again while checking out the news on-line.

A Fly in the Ointment

The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled today to dismiss Martin Mustapha's appeal.

Back in 2005, Mustapha sued Culligan of Canada Ltd. and was awarded damages in the amount of $341,000. The basis for his lawsuit? He found a dead fly (and part of a second fly) in a large bottle of water that Culligan delivered to his house.

Now, Mustapha was not awarded over $300K just because of the presence of insects in his water bottle. No, he was originally awarded the settlement because his response to those tragic circumstances was insomnia and depression. Oh yeah, his business and sex life were also adversely affected.

Today's SCC ruling not only quashed the original ruling, but Mustapha has been ordered to pay Culligan's legal bills. Although the case seems a bit silly, it does establish rules for "reasonableness" that should result in fewer frivolous lawsuits in the future.

Unfortunately, it also means an end to Retirement Plan # 3. I guess it is back to the old drawing board.

Something Odd Out of China

There was an earthquake in China the other day. Thousands have died, and many others remain unaccounted for.

The Summer Olympics are scheduled to start in a few months, so the Chinese government felt obliged to reassure tourists that China is safe.

I don't know which is worse -- the fact that they feel they must make such a statement or the fact that they think it will actually have an impact on Olympic tourists.

R.I.P. Civility

There was a time when my favourite city's nickname was "Toronto the Good". Not anymore. At least, not when Torontonians are riding the public transit system.

Every day I see the same acts of rudeness:

1. Perfectly healthy young men and women sit on subway and bus seats while pregnant women, parents with small children, and the elderly are forced to stand.
2. People of all ages place backpacks, briefcases, and shopping bags on the empty seat next to them, so as to drive other commuters to seek another seat elsewhere or to stand.
3. People playing their music at incredibly loud levels which can be heard across the bus or subway car.
4. People conducting conversations about work, their personal lives, the personal lives of others, the presumed personal lives of others, or the desired personal lives of others at such loud volumes than one cannot help but become party to the information.
5. People heavily salting their conversations with obscenities including that perennial favourite, the "F-word".

[If you happen to be the young lady whose telephone conversation I overheard would make a sailor blush, may I recommend Paul Fussell's excellent book on the Second World War, Wartime. Not only does his chapter on said word use it almost as much as you did, but he does it in a witty way, which your conversation was sadly lacking. But I digress.]

I won't even get into the lack of civility on the roads -- especially around intersections on yellow lights.

Right or Right?

If you've ever doubted that Canada is different from its neighbour to the south, perhaps a law enacted in Florida this week will convince you.

On April 15th, Governor Charlie Crist signed the Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008. The law allows employees and customers with permits to carry concealed weapons to store firearms in their vehicles while locked on company property. The law forbids most business holders from restricting concealed-permit holders from storing guns in their parked vehicles even if the parking area is accessible to the general public. Certain employers (including schools, nuclear power plants, and prisons) are exempt from the law.

Even though Florida is now the sixth US state* to enact such legislation, it did not have an easy time getting passed. The business community and the National Rifle Association scrapped it out for years before the bill action became law.

Interestingly enough, the legal challenge is likely to be on constitutional grounds since it is an infringement on the private property rights of business owners as enshrined in both the United States and Florida constitutions. That should be an interesting match up: private property rights versus the right to bear arms.

* In case you are wondering, the other five states are Alaska, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, and Oklahoma. The Oklahoma law is currently in the appeal process in the US Court of Appeals.

I'm Back -- And This Time It's Personal

That's right, folks, I am back and boy am I pissed off!

I have spent the last four or five months watching the governing Conservative Party act like a bunch of bullies and frankly I am getting tired of of what passes for a commitment to democracy in the halls of Parliament.

When Harper et al were still the loyal opposition, one frequently heard rumblings of a "democracy deficit" in parliament. The Prime Minister's Office, or so the story went, had centralized so much power under the various Liberal incumbents that the Prime Minister of Canada now has more direct power than the President of the United States. Under the Tories, however, Members of Parliament would become relevant again, Senators would serve a viable purpose, and politicians of all stripes would cooperate and sing Kumbaya as a new golden age of Canadian democracy unfolded.

Now, I haven't been to Ottawa in over a decade, but I can pretty well guarantee you that you won't be hearing Kumbaya anytime soon. In fact, the only singing you are likely to hear is the Liberal caucus singing The Death March every time He Who Passes For A Leader enters the room, but that is something for a future post.

The reason I am mad enough to start up this blog again is Bill C-10, particularly Section 120. C-10 is an omnibus bill -- a technical phrase for tacking on a whole bunch of garbage that one wants to enact into law but which is so contentious (and, often, mean-spirited) that the only way you can pass it is by attaching it to a law that no opposition parties can defeat without looking like mother-hating baby-killers. It is a notorious tactic for people who are so scared of losing a free vote that they do not have the balls, guts, or backbone (take your pick) to propose it as a separate bill.

This particular omnibus bill is designed to amend the Income Tax Act, which probably does need amending. Unfortunately, the Tories have added in a bunch of amendments which are assaults on free speech and therefore do not belong in a democratic society.

In particular, Section 120 would allow the Heritage Minister to pull tax credits from production if the Minister determined them to be "contrary to public policy". The Minister and, presumably, his or her henchmen would create guidelines to identify topics that should not receive taxpayer funding. Television programs or films that contravene the guidelines would risk having its tax credits withdrawn. They might even be asked to repay funding that was already received.

In effect, the government would be denying access to tax credits to anyone who expressed a viewpoint that differed from the authorized version of acceptable content. Think of this as a made-in-Canada version of the Hays Code, albeit a version that was introduced 78 years later. If you want to look at it a different way, the government wants the power to censor productions that do not meet its definition of good taste or political correctness.

The Tories, of course, deny this. The Heritage Commissar, I mean Minister, Josee Verner claims the bill "has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with the integrity of the tax system. The goal is to ensure public trust in how tax dollars are spent." Well, Minister Verner, putting limits on artistic expression and free speech does not increase this member of the public's trust in how you are spending his tax dollars.

I am not surprised that some people have praised the legislation. I would never have expected groups like the Canada Family Action Coalition or Real Women of Canada to oppose any legislation that would put a muzzle on anyone who does not support their "traditional" value system. Nor am I surprised that Canadians Concerned About Violence In Entertainment would come out in favour of this. I just don't think they have the right to limit the rights of others to address serious matters.

I have to wonder if any of these proponents of Bill C-10 have ever read any good novels or seen any good television or movies, because if they had they might realize that the world is a complex place. Now, I do not advocate casual violence. I do not encourage abuse of alcohol, tobacco, narcotics, or prescription drugs. I oppose racism in all its forms, sexism, religious bigotry, and attacking people because of their sexuality.

I also oppose a simplistic mindset that refuses to accept the fact that one can include any or all of these themes in a movie without being "contrary to public policy". Especially in a diverse, multicultural democracy. Which Canada is. Or so I thought.

Here are just a few works that address issues which would not be eligible for tax credits were they to be filmed under the proposed rules:

• The Englishman's Boy, a powerful novel that was recently aired as a magnificent two-part miniseries on the CBC. There is abuse of corpses, assault and battery, gang rape, and genocide.
• The Wars, the novel by Timothy Findley, that includes a scene of homosexual sex at a brothel, violence towards rabbits and horses, and several suicides.
• A History of Violence, David Cronenberg's dark masterpiece which is filled with casual violence, matter-of-fact portrayal of prostitutes, and a horrifying, hypnotic knife-wielding ballet between naked mobsters in the shower of a Turkish bath.
• The Boys of St. Vincent, the classic but controversial docudrama about the physical and sexual abuse of orphan boys at the hands of Roman Catholic clergy.

I suppose, though, that there is one silver lining if the bill becomes law. It's been a while since I read my Bible, but I seem to recall rapes, murders, incest, violent attacks, genocide, religious persecution, witchcraft, and other activity which surely would never meet the Minister's guidelines. If the bill passes, I reckon I will be spared the indignity of having to see Biblical bio-flicks financed using credits paid for by good Canadian taxpayers like me.

Book Review: The Shock Doctrine

We live in a world that loves conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories were critical to the success of Fox's The X-Files that dominated the television scene back in the 1990s. Conspiracy theories were a critical element of the blockbuster novel The DaVinci Code. Conspiracy theories are at the heart of many accounts of the mysterious events that occurred at Roswell, New Mexico. Detective Munch's belief in conspiracy theories is a recurring element of the Law and Order character's personality. And a conspiracy theory of monumental proportions is at the heart of Naomi Klein's new book The Shock Doctrine, The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.

Conspiracy theories are often discounted as products of overactive imaginations and that, it seems, is the response that some critics in the "serious" business press seem to have taken when reviewing Klein's book. Having just finished the book, though, I think she may be onto something -- and it ain't pretty.

The Shock Doctrine details case after case of situations where governments took advantage of natural and man-made disasters to manipulate the kinds of whole scale economic changes advocated by Milton Friedman and the so-called "Chicago School" of economics. The changes included privatizing state-owned enterprises, reducing controls on capital, reducing wages and eliminating protection for workers, and vastly increasing the ranks of the unemployed. Although Friedman and friends argued that these kinds of economic transformations would lead to a "trickle-down" of wealth as the efficiency of the market took over from the inefficiency of controlled economies, the reality is a world where the Haves have more and the Have Nots have less.

On the whole, I find Klein's arguments that neo-liberal politicians have taken advantage of disasters to further their political and economic agenda to be convincing. I am less comfortable with Klein's assertion that the gross violation of human rights such as torture, institutionalized murder, and "disappearing" regime critics are directly related to the Chicago School's economic theory. Having said that, there is no doubt that the violations which Klein chronicles did occur after attempts to radically restructure the economies of countries as diverse as Chile, Argentina, China, and Iraq.

I must confess that at times I found The Shock Doctrine a bit depressing. Happily, the final chapter provides a glimmer of hope. Unlike many conspiracy theories, the villains in Klein's book do not have to prevail in the end.

The Shock Doctrine, The Rise of Disaster Capitalism
Naomi Klein
Alfred A. Knopf, Toronto, 2007
ISBN: 978-0-676-97800-1

Tilting At Windmills, 21st Century Style

Okay, President Bush, I'm confused. According to the news reports, you suggested that Europe needs to work with the United States to develop a missile defence system to counter the threat of nuclear missile attacks from Iran. This is despite the fact that (a) Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, (b) Iran does not possess missiles with enough range to reach European targets, and (c) anti-missile defence systems are notorious for not being able to do the job for which they are (expensively) purchased, namely shooting down enemy missiles.

The Russians, for one, are not buying W.'s arguments. The Russian Foreign Minister reportedly stated that "North Korea poses a fundamental threat, but Iran does not", so Russia is likely to oppose any plans to build anti-missile defence systems. And who can blame them? Today's defence against a non-existant Iranian threat could easily become a means of protecting US assets from actual Russian missiles.

Personally, I think it is criminally irresponsible for the President to be pushing for unnecessary weapons systems when tens of millions of his citizens lack proper health care, but then again, he is not so much the President of the United States as he is the President of the International Corporatist Agenda. Unfortunately, it is the little people of America who will be on the hook to pay for what is essentially another government gift to the armaments industry.

A Giant Step -- Really?

I am a little sick of people going on what a "giant step for womankind" it is in outer space. It seems the commander on the space shuttle Discovery's next flight and the commander of the International Space Station are both females. As a result, it will be the first time in five decades of manned space flight that two women are in charge of space craft at the same time.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against two woman commanding space craft. I do, however, hate the fact that people are treating this as an accomplishment rather than asking themselves what took so long for this milestone to be reached.

Go, Stephen, Go

Faux conservative pundit Stephen Colbert announced that he is running for president. It is a joke, but it makes me a bit jealous that I don't live in the States. Maybe Rick Mercer can run for the leadership of the Liberals when Dion is turfed by his troops.

Promise Made, Promise Kept

After totally humiliating his Progressive Conservative opponents in yesterday's election, Ontario's newly re-elected Liberal premier, Dalton McGuinty, announced today that his government was introducing a new statutory holiday. From now on, the third Monday in February will be celebrated as "Family Day".

That McGuinty is a crafty politician -- I had planned on making today's post "One Day Without A Broken Promise", but he ran a positive campaign against me. I know how John Tory must feel.

(By the way, I realize that the NDP, Green Party, Family Coalition Party, Freedom Party, Communist Party, Libertarian Party, and probably other parties also ran against the Liberals, but the Progressive Conservatives were the only party that had a reasonable chance of defeating the incumbents. Of course, that was before the election began and Tory started talking.)

Election Time?

You wouldn't know there was a provincial election going on. At least, not if you go by lawn signs.



I went for a rather lengthy walk earlier in the day and all I saw was a measly six signs: three for the Liberals, two for the Progressive Conservatives, and one for the Green Party. Nobody, it appears, is supporting the NDP this time around. In fact, if volume of lawn signs were an accurate method of predicting the next Member of the Provincial Parliament, the winner would come from Sutton Realty.



The situation is quite different from the last federal election, when signs sprouted all over lawns like mushrooms. I am unsure if the dearth of signs indicates a lack of interest in the election or some sort of new "green" commitment to politics in which the parties are trying to reduce their contributions to landfills.

Home and Native Land - II

It took a while, but the federal government is finally doing the right thing. After decades, native students who suffered at residential schools are now officially eligible for financial compensation.

The government announced a $2 billion plan to compensate up to 80,000 members of the First Nations community. (Over 150,000 children attended the residential schools, but from what I can see the settlement is limited to those people who actually attended the schools and not to their survivors.) The terms of the payment would provide up to $10,000 for the first year they attended residential schools and a further $3,000 for each year after that. The average payout is expected to be $28,000.

Phil Fontaine, the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, referred to the plan as a turning point in Canadian history because it is an admission of wrong-doing, but the plan is not without its critics. The Liberal Party demand that the federal government also apologize to those students who had been forced to attend the residential schools. Interestingly enough, the Liberals did not seem so gung ho about apologizing to residential school students in any of the decades in which they held power.

Others seem concerned that receiving a lump sum payment will lead to a spike in drug and alcohol abuse, and may lead to exploitation. These critics would prefer that funds be channeled to the community through other programs. But as Phil Fontaine says, "This money belongs to the survivors. What they do with it is their business." And frankly, thinking that we are better at deciding how to spend the money is just another version of the thought process that led to residential schools in the first place.