Phast Thoughts

Some Crazy Guy Claimed the World is Flat Today at the World Economic Forum

2012-01-26T20:26:00.000-08:00

Apparently, some people simply don’t believe what is obvious and clear to everyone else. Clearly, the world is not flat, and dedicating effort to live in a flat world is wasted effort. However, there was some crazy guy (some may call him a ‘radical’), who gave a keynote address to the World Economic Forum about how the world is flat earlier today.

But he didn’t going to just make this claim, and let it be at that. Oh, no. He gave a lecture on how he is coming up with solutions to living in a flat world and try to show everyone how great his own county is doing, living in this flat world. He told everyone else that they are fools for even considering that the world might not be flat, and that all we need to do live within the restrictions of a flat world and all will be fine.

For example, he is declaring that his own country is heavily involved in researching anti-gravity boots that will allow us to walk on the underside of the planet. He is also proposing putting up barriers at the edge of the world so that people don’t fall off accidently.

Even the head of the World Economic Forum, a strong believer in a flat world for his entire life, has declared that maybe, just maybe, the world isn’t flat and we should look at solutions to live in a round world.

Of course, the World Economic Forum isn’t going to be discussing if the world is flat or round – we all know that. They are going to be discussing the fact that free market capitalism doesn’t work – of course, we also all know that. Founder and president, Klaus Schwab set the tone by declaring that the move to the free market hasn’t worked as it was supposed to and declared that “A global transformation is urgently needed.”

The crazy guy isn’t just some random person; it is the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper. And although he isn’t proposing solutions to live in a flat world, he is proposing solutions to living in a world that where free market capitalism works for everyone – which is every bit as untrue as declaring the world is flat. Coming on the heels of his governments declaration that environmentalists concerned about new oil pipeline’s are ‘radicals’, I’m sensing a trend that this is a man who refuses to accept the world we are living in and would rather live in some fantasy world where pollution, poverty and inequality don’t exist.

Rather than finding solutions to live in some fantasy world, we need to find solutions to the real world – one where pollution, poverty and inequality do exists and one where we need to do something to solve them.

3 Ways to Treat Corporations as Regular Citizens

2012-01-21T11:26:00.000-08:00

As a follow up to my previous article, suggesting that corporations should get a public holiday, but only if they are subject to the responsibilities of other citizens, I’m going to take a look at how we could actually treat corporations as citizens by sending them to war, imprisoning them and executing them.

Sending Corporations to War

Now, we all know that most corporations are patriotic endeavours - It serves to reason that they should also support the American way of life by enlisting in the military. The process would be quite simple. The corporation would simply relocate all its assets to a war zone (say, Afghanistan) and carry out whatever activities the American military needed them to. You might think that this is similar to the way that corporations currently serve the military. However, this will not be so – when a corporation is enlisted in the military, they would only be paid what a normal soldier would be paid when enlisting.

Of course, any damage to the corporations assets that occurs, would of course, be the problem of the corporation. Much like when a soldier comes home from war, they (and their families) must deal with the psychological effects of the war pretty much on their own, corporations would have to deal with the damages that they incurred on their own.

Imprisoning Corporations

Obviously, it is not possible to send a corporation to jail – although in many cases we should be sending those running the corporation to a jail. However, we can still mirror the effect of a prison sentence on a normal person. Being sent to prison essentially suspends life – one can’t work and can’t have regular relationships. Imprisoning corporations needs to have the same effect. To do the same thing to a corporation would simply be suspending its right to do business. This suspension could last, depending on the crime, from a few days to life in prison (essentially revoking their corporate charter).

Executing Corporations

A famous sign from the Occupy Wall Street Protest read ‘I’ll believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one.” It’s time to work out how we would do that. Before starting, I’d like to say that I am not a proponent of the death penalty for either individuals or corporations. However, since it is a law that exists for us, in certain places, it needs to exist for corporations, in those same places.

So, here’s how I see it happening: Gather everything the company owns that can be easily transported into one locations (preferably the corporation’s head office) and burn it all to the ground. We can sell tickets, as well as television and advertising rights, to the event, and use the proceeds to pay employees anything they are owed and a generous severance package. Just think about how many people would pay to get front row tickets to see the American headquarters of BP burned to the ground. How much would the TV and advertising rights be? You could sell sponsorship – “This burning of BP is brought to you by Jack’s Lighter Fluid – if it is a building or just your barbeque you need to start you can count on Jack’s!”

It may seem a bit extreme – and it is – but the death penalty is always extreme and it should be no different with corporations.

It is Time to Demand the 28th Amendment

If corporations can’t (or won’t) submit to these facts of life the for the regular person, then they cannot be considered the same as real people. If corporations want to privileges of citizenship, then they must be willing to deal with the responsibilities of citizenship and the same punishments for their crimes as the rest of us. It is time to demand that corporations either be treated as other citizens or not; demand that they are no longer allowed to have the benefits of citizenship without the responsibilities; demand the 28^th amendment.

Let’s Declare January 20th a National Holiday for Corporations

2012-01-11T21:30:00.000-08:00

The Citizens United ruling in the Supreme Court on January 20^th, 2010, extended more rights of citizens to Corporations. Perhaps it is time we considered extending other rights of citizens to corporations, such as holidays - however, if we did that, we would also have to hold corporations to the same responsibilities as citizens and we would have to be able to send them to war, and imprison or execute them for crimes.

January 20^th, 2012, is a day to be celebrated. It is, of course, the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, which extends more rights of citizenship to corporations. Since corporations are, apparently, just like real people, I think it is time we started treating them more like real people. It is time corporations got a holiday, and January 20^th, a kind of Independence Day, when their rights were finally recognized, is the perfect day.

You might be wondering what a corporate holiday looks like. Well, you know how on a holiday for the rest of us, we don’t have to work, but we still get paid? Well, a corporate holiday works the other way around – we still work, but the corporations don’t have to pay us. Or, if we need them to pay us, we can just work at time and a half (obviously having to work 1 and a half times as long as normal for the same pay).

That just made me think of something else that corporations need – overtime pay. So, when we work more than eight hours (or however many it is in your jurisdiction), the corporation has to pay you extra, right? Well, is that fair to a corporation? After all, they are the same as you and me. When a corporation has been working for more than 8 hours in a day, everyone should have to start working at time and a half (again, 1.5 hours work = 1 hour pay) so it is fair to the corporation who has to put in such long hours.

It is time we started respecting corporations as equals, not as something less than ourselves. Just as we look back and are ashamed that in past generations women didn’t have the same rights as men, blacks didn’t have the same rights as whites, future generations are going to look back at us and be ashamed that we did not give corporations the same rights as other citizens sooner. Let us start with this one little thing, giving corporations their own holiday, then we can move on to more important issues like the right to vote, welfare and unemployment insurance.

Of course, if we wanted to extend these rights to corporations, we would also have to extend the responsibilities of citizens to corporations. We would have to be able to arrest corporations for their crimes (I think we’ll need some new prisons), send corporations off to war (rather than letting them profit from it), execute corporations in states with the death penalty (not that I agree with that, but they need to be treated like their peers), make them pay same tax rate that others pay (in other words, actually paying taxes).

What’s that? It isn’t actually physically possible to arrest a corporation, or to send it off to war or to put it in the electric chair? Oh, I guess that is because corporations aren’t people. Guess somebody better tell the US Supreme Court, because they seem to be under the wrong impression.

On January 20^th, demand that the US government admits that corporations are not, and never could be, entitled to the same rights as citizens. Demand the 28^th amendment.

Conservatives and Other Radicals are Ruining my Country

2012-01-09T18:07:00.000-08:00

As the debate over the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline heats up, Stephen Harper and members of his Conservative government are claiming that ‘radical groups’, such as environmentalists, are trying to extend the public consultation. We must see this aggressive rhetoric for what it is - nothing more than an unashamed attempt to fire up the conservative core against ‘evil’ environmentalists.

In an open letter earlier today Canada’s natural resources minister Joe Oliver referred to environmental groups as ‘radical groups’, when referring to the public consultation phase of the Enbridge pipeline approval process. Seriously, all environmental groups are radicals? What is this guy on? Going even further, Harper himself claimed that foreign money was behind the plot to hold up construction of a new pipeline. When did he become so concerned over foreign interests in oil, considering most of the money from the tar sands flows right out of the country? Then I started thinking about it. It makes complete sense for a Harperite to refer to environmental groups as radical.

One might assume, from the rhetoric coming from the Harper camp, that these ‘radicals’ are threatening to disrupt a potential pipeline, or those who are building it. At the very least, one must assume that they are protesters disrupting the consultation process. No, not at all. The ‘radicals’ are those who have signed up to speak at the public consultation on the project. That’s it. Although there may be a few who want to push a specific agenda unrelated to this specific pipeline, the vast majority are local people with local concerns. Concerns such as the devastation that would be caused by a pipeline leak or oil tanker spill in one of the most pristine natural environments left in the world.

Is it really radical to be concerned with issues like climate change (especially after the train wreck that was the DuranClimate Change deal)? Is it really radical to be concerned about oil spills in your own backyard, oil spills that can affect the quality of life’s essentials, such as cleanwater, as the speakers at the public consultation are? That is not radical. Radical is to think that changing the climate is okay, so long as we don’t have to change the way we live. Radical is thinking that corporate profits are more important than local interests. Radical is thinking that we need oil more than we need water. Humanity survived, even thrived, for tens of thousands of years without oil, but wouldn’t last a week without fresh water.

The environmentalist groups aren’t the radicals. Stephen Harper and his group of cronies are the ones who believe it is okay to put profits before people, put oil before water and trade short-term gain (but not for you or I) for long-term pain.

But let’s not kid ourselves. This isn’t about the environment or the tar sands or even about jobs and the economy. It’s about getting re-elected and it’s about ideology. Harper knows that most of the people speaking out against the pipeline won’t support him anyway, so he will fight them and insult them to fire up his core supporters, the minority of the Canadian population who buy into Harper’s crooked Conservative ideology and really believe that this public consultation (remember, this is over a public consultation!) is some kind of battle between capitalism and socialism. That minority is able to give him the support and money (mostly the money) to get re-elected. So all Harper is really only concerned about is making sure environmentalists are seen as some kind of threat (even better when it is a foreign threat) to ‘our way of life’.

So I put the questions to you, who are the radicals: the environmental groups and concerned local citizens or the Conservatives?

7 Reasons Why Iran in 2012 is Nothing at All Like Iraq in 2003

2012-01-04T21:32:00.000-08:00

I’ve read a lot lately about the current situation in Iran being a lot like the situation in Iraq in 2003. Sure, America is once again threatening war against a middle eastern, Arab, Muslim, oil producing country, but you if you look deeper, you’ll find the real differences. To prove it, here are 7 reasons why Iran in 2012 is nothing at all like in Iraq in 2003:

1. Terminology

In Iraq, America accused Iraq of attempting to create weapons of mass destruction. In Iran, they are accusing them of trying to producing nuclear weapons. Obviously, these are completely different things.

2. Role of the UN

In 2003, the US declared that Iraq was developing weapons, and the UN sent an inspector – who reported that he couldn’t find any evidence. In 2011, the US got much smarter. Rather than making claims contradictory to a UN inspector, they just got someone sympathetic to their cause elected to the head of the IAEA (thank you Bradley Manning – allegedly - for producing the diplomatic cables showing this!), and had him write a report on old information that came to completely new conclusions.

3. George W Bush vs Barrack Obama

One of them is a warmonger and corporate apologist who gave himself (and all future presidents) the right to imprison anyone, anywhere in the world without due process. The other probably can’t spell either Iraq or Iran.

4. Supporters

In 2003, the US had the support of Britain. In 2011, Canada and Israel are their main wingmen. This time, they have two foolish ‘friends’ supporting them, not just one (although, one must wonder who is being friends to whom in the case of Israel). Again, they learned from their mistakes and realized that two is better than one.

5. Iraqis vs Iranians

After the invasion of Iraq, it became clear that the Iraqi people were not happy with their American liberators. It isn’t clear why, but surely Iran would welcome democracy with open arms – after all there have been pro-democracy protesters in Iran over the past few years. Assumedly, this means Iranians would be thrilled when American come and brought Democracy with them.

6. Link to Al-Qaeda

In 2003, America tried to draw a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Probably because the link was shown to be unquestionably false, they didn’t bother trying to draw the same link between Iran and a terrorist group. (Hey, it still counts as a difference – it isn’t easy coming up with 7, you know).

~~7. Oil~~

Wait, no they are both major oil producing nations, scratch that one.

~~7. Iraq was on America’s list of ‘regime change’ targets~~

Nope, that one too – they were both on the list of countries that American neo-cons (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz , among others) under George W. Bush wanted to invade and impose government changes.

~~7. Culture~~

Hmmm, both Arabic countries, is the fact that they speak a different language enough?

~~7. Religion~~

Never mind, further research shows them to be both predominately Muslim countries.

7. They aren’t spelled the same

I-R-A-Q is not the same as I-R-A-N. Knew that I’d find one more.

It wasn’t easy, but I did manage to find 7 ways in which these two situations are completely different – just don’t ask me to come up with 8. Can we please now accept the fact that these are two completely different situations and just get on with the invasion, and subsequent destruction of Iran, along with the 7 years of civil war that will inevitably follow (and the hundreds of thousands of civilian lives that will be lost), so that a non-existent threat can be extinguished?

Interesting Related Articles:

Canadian Progressive World has an interesting video on how corporate media manipulates support for international wars, going back as far as the Spanish-American war, and continuing through World War 1, Vietnam and Iraq and how this manipulation is supporting escalating the situation in Iran.

Majority Rules…. Except When it Doesn’t

2012-01-02T21:31:00.000-08:00

There is a growing trend in both Canada and the United States for political parties to completely ignore, or even insult, large portions of the electorate because they will never vote for their party anyway. This trend is dangerous and undermines democracy.

The other day I read this article, published at People Politico, about how Republican Presidential candidates are insulting a large portion of the American public – the same public that they need to get them elected. I didn’t think too much about it at the time, but it stuck with me. When I got to thinking about it, what really struck me is that we have the same thing going on in Canada. Here, the Conservative Party (basically, our version of the Republican Party) knows that about 60-70% of the population would never vote for them, so they completely ignore us, and only govern the country for those who may vote for them. This is extremely dangerous, because now you have a government working not for the best of the entire country, but only for the best for their own supporters.

The article, entitled "Presidential Candidates: We Are ALL Americans," speaks about how Republican candidates have said continually made comments that are either offensive to a large group of American voters or made promises against the will of a majority of voters. These comments range from saying that liberals are trying to destroy the country (Herman Cain) to claiming that Obama and those he associates with are anti-American (Michelle Bachman). If it isn’t enough to insult a large group of voters, does it make sense to take a stance that most Americans are against, such as being against same-sex marriage (when 53% of Americans think same sex marriage should be legal)?

In Canada, we have been dealing with this issue for some time now in our Government. The current governing party, the Conservative Party, routinely insults or ignores the will of the majority of the country. Since the Conservatives know that 60-70% of the population would never vote for them, they simply ignore them. In the Canadian multi-party electoral system, (we have 5 parties with representation in the government) a single party only needs about 40% of popular support to win a majority government (roughly the equivalent to an American party having control of Presidency, Senate and House of Representatives). In the most recent election, in 2011, the Conservative Party got just under 40% of the popular vote, which was enough to give them a majority in Parliament. However, since less than 62% of the population voted, only about 25% of the population voted for them.

The Conservatives know that I will never vote for them, so I am ignored. They know that those who are a part of the Occupy protests will never vote for them, so they are ignored. They know that those who are homeless, destitute or downtrodden will never vote for them, so they ignore them. Their actions speak to the fact that they are ignoring the will of most Canadians. They are pushing for harsher prison sentences for minor crimes (building new prisons along the way) even though most Canadians know that this will not prevent crime. They are spending more on the military and clearly taking Canada away from a peacekeeping country to being an aggressive supporter of American military policy, even those most Canadians oppose this. They are delaying action on climate change, even when most Canadians insist upon action. They continue to export poisonous asbestos, even while Canadians oppose it. But it doesn’t matter to them. They don’t need the votes of most Canadians. They only need the votes of 25%, and so pleases those 25% is all they care about.

It seems the same thought pattern is taking hold of the Republican Party in the States. This cannot be allowed to happen. Governments must be accountable to all the people, not only the select few who vote for them and provide them with money. Any politician who willfully ignore or insults a portion of the electorate is pandering to a select group within the population. When a minority is controlling the agenda for the entire population, democracy does not exist.

Interesting Related Articles:

The Common Progressive has an article about how Newt Gingrich told a gay voter that he should vote for Obama - yet another example of a Presidential candidate refusing support from one portion of the population to pander to a different portion.

Barrack Obama: The Betrayer of Belief in Democracy

2011-12-30T17:50:00.000-08:00

The Legacy of the Obama Administration is fast becoming one of Lies, Broken Campaign Promises and False Hope for Change

When Barrack Obama was declared President on November 4^th, 2008, there was an unparalleled sense of hope and of belief in democracy. Under Obama, everything would be different. He promised ‘Change that we can believe in’. He told us that ‘Yes, we can’. He promised to shut down Guantanamo Bay, end the war in Iraq within 16 months, make real progress in fighting climate change, end the culture of lobbying in Washington and extend health care to all. His fundraising campaign - targeting individuals, rather big business – told us that he would be a President for the people, not for corporations. Alas, we didn’t listen to our Mothers when they told us that anything that seems too good to be true probably is.

There was no change. Guantanamo Bay is still open, still holding foreign citizens without charges or any illusion of due process, still trying individuals in military tribunals with no judicial oversight. The war in Iraq is officially over, but only because Iraq refused to give American soldiers criminal immunity (thanks to Bradley Manning, now in a military jail awaiting trial for ‘adding the enemy’). Also, there are still 16,000 individuals employed by the American government being left in Iraq, half of whom are military contractors – doesn’t sound like the end of a war to me. Fighting climate change? As the recent conference in Durban shows, nothing is being done. Under Obama, the White House is still in the hands of large corporations – a recent report shows that lobbying is just as effective under Obama, as it was under George W. Bush. Finally, his fundraising campaign is no longer about the individual who believes in him (hmmm, I wonder why). Obama is getting a massive amount of money from Wall St, and is expected to raise $1 billion for the campaign – that kind of money buys a lot of favours.

Democracy falters when there is no trust left. We become disenfranchised, we lose the will to vote, we feel powerless. We opt out of the democratic system, and when that happens, all we get is what we’ve got – a system that doesn’t listen to us or care about us. Barrack Obama isn’t the worse President the US has ever had, not by a long shot. He is a definite improvement over George W. Bush, both internationally and for the US. His real crime is the betrayal of trust among those of us who dare to believe in something better. Obama was that something better – and he turned out to be no different than the rest of them.

As a Canadian, I don’t have a huge vested interest in Obama, but I still feel betrayed by his promises that he would bring change. I can’t imagine how someone who voted for him must feel.

Bradley Manning: A True American Hero (Allegedly)

2011-12-23T18:30:00.000-08:00

Bradley Manning helped end the war in Iraq by exposing war crimes and the efforts to cover them up. Rather than being praised as a hero, he is being treated as a scapegoat for those who allowed the crimes to be committed in the first place.

Bradley Manning is the truest American Hero of our generation, and yet, for some reason, he is being treated worse than a common criminal. He’s being treated, in fact, like a terrorist. He (allegedly) stood up for the values that American claims it represents - truth, justice and equality for all. He did what a good soldier does; he did not blindly follow orders, but fought against the true enemy – in this case, members of his own government and the military he served.

The documents he (allegedly) unveiled showed evidence of war crimes. Most famously, there was the video of American soldiers murdering a number of unarmed and unthreatening civilians (including a reported and his driver), from the safety of a helicopter. There was the incident where American soldiers brutally executed a group of eleven civilians (including five children and four women) in a house; the house was then bombed to destroy the evidence (allegedly). This evidence led directly to Iraq’s refusal to extend immunity from the law for American soldiers, which is the reason that America is withdrawing. Barrack Obama didn’t end the war in Iraq; Bradley Manning (allegedly) did. Maybe he should have been the one who got the Nobel Peace Prize.

Included in the documents released were the seeds that germinated into the Arab Spring. Unveiled was the gross opulence and corruption that existed in the Tunisian government, which was tolerated and accepted by American officials, who supported the Tunisian dictatorship. When knowledge of the corruption within the government became clear was when the revolt started.

He did not ‘aid the enemy,’ the charge that he is being accused of. Even the American military has admitted that the information he (allegedly) leaked had no effect on national security. All he did was bring out evidence of war crimes, and evidence of corruption and arrogance of American diplomats. The information was embarrassing to officials, not dangerous. Since when was it a crime to unveil a crime? If the system were working properly, the information that was leaked should have been known and acted upon. Perpetrators of war crimes should have been exposed and tried. And yet, Bradley Manning’s punishment is much worse than the culprits he exposed. He has been kept in solitary confinement for 17 months, in conditions being investigated as potentially torturous, and faces the likelihood of life in military prison. And those that he exposed? Nothing.

Bradley Manning (allegedly) stood up to the corrupt parts of his government and said, “No, you cannot get away with this. You cannot get away with murder, you cannot get away with corruption, you cannot just cover it up.” Maybe the American military should look to themselves, rather than Bradley Manning in this case. After all, if no war crimes had been committed in Iraq (or if the evidence simply hadn’t been destroyed or ignored), then no evidence of war crimes would have needed to be leaked.

This isn’t about leaking documents that he should never have had access to in the first place. This is about scapegoating. If the government and military were to admit that what Bradley Manning (allegedly) did was the right thing, as they surely know it was, then they would have to answer tough questions about what they were doing about fixing the problems that he exposed. They would have to answer questions about why those who murdered innocents during the occupation of Iraq were never brought to justice. They would have to answer why war crimes were ignored and covered up for years. They don’t want to talk about that. It’s much easier to take the actual (alleged) hero of this narrative, 22 years old when he was arrested, call him a traitor and lock him up for the rest of his life. Yes, that’s much easier than actually dealing with the systemic problems that exist in the government and military of American. Much easier by far.

The Durban Climate Conference was a Monumental Success

2011-12-17T14:18:00.000-08:00

COP17, held in Durban, South African from November 28^th to December 9^th was a unparalleled success, as this official statement from the UN declares. There was no expectation that any kind of a deal would get done, and the consensus was that negotiators would leave the conference in shame, unable to work through a deadlock. In this context, the deal to start negotiating a new deal in 2015 was an unprecedented success … if you look at it from the point of view of the politicians who had tasked their negotiators to come up with some sort of an agreement that made it look like they were doing something, while actually just putting off any real decision to someone else, some other time. If you look at it from the point of view of the rest of us? Oh yeah, we got sold out.

We were sold out by politicians who are more concerned with their image than their actions. Politicians more concerned with getting re-elected than building a better world for us all to live in. Politicians who tasked their negotiators with getting some kind of a deal done, so they could claim to be doing something and thus look good to the progressives among their electorate, while actually ensuring the status quo until well after their own elected terms end. So, they try to look good to us, while actually doing everything that the corporations that fund them want. Everyone wins, right? We get some vague promise to do something (maybe) sometime in the future, and the corporations get solid promises of doing nothing for the foreseeable future. Oh yeah, everyone gets exactly what they want.

The Durban climate change talks were doomed to fail. The negotiators appointed were not at all concerned with the science of climate change, or with the consequences of climate change, as stated by the chair of the IPCC, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri in this interview. They were there to represent the selfish national interests of the most polluting nations on earth. They were there to make sure that we stayed the wealthiest countries and that nobody would have much of a chance to catch up – at whatever the cost, even certain climatic disaster.

Make no mistake about the deal that was done – it is absolutely meaningless. Worse than meaningless, because it will be used as an excuse that we can carry on as we have been, for at least the next eight years. The deal says that countries will begin – yes, just begin – negotiating a treaty for binding cuts to emission in 2015 (what have the last 17 COP meetings been about again?), to take effect in 2020. Forget for a minute that scientists say emissions must peak by 2015 to have a reasonable chance of avoiding cataclysmic climate change – after all, we already established the negotiators weren’t at Durban because they were interested in the science of climate change. Think about this: the conference ran 35 hours overschedule to work out the specific wording of the ‘binding cuts’ portion of the agreement – with India refusing the phrase “legal agreement”, because they thought that this wording was to strong legally. They ended up settling on “an agreed outcome with legal force.” But let me ask you this: do you really think India agreed to “an agreed outcome with legal force” understanding that it would be legally binding, if they refused other wording for that same reason? And when they claim that they can’t be legally bound because of the wording, do you think China or the US will agree to binding limits? Not a chance.

Furthermore, what is to stop countries from doing what Canada just did on the Kyoto Accord and walk out on it the year before the targets are supposed to be met? What will the reaction be if the US or China simply says they will not make their targets, and they are withdrawing? Same thing that is happening to Canada for its refusal to meet its international obligations: nothing at all. Besides, even if there is good faith to start negotiating a true deal in 2015 (and you can be sure that there isn’t) what happens if one of the major players changes its mind? What happens if a climate change denier wins the US Presidential election between now and then (or even at any point after that) and refuses binding emissions cuts? The entire deal falls apart.

COP17 in Durban was an absolute farce. It was a show trial for the climate. Everyone knew that no deal would actually get done, but to save face negotiators made some sort of obscure promise to start negotiating at a future date. Negotiators paid more attention to wording like an “agreed outcome with legal force” than they did to the science of climate change. But it doesn’t really matter. Because finding a deal that would reduce carbon emissions isn’t what negotiators were in Durban for. They saved face and did what they were there to do: they managed to propagate the illusion that our political leaders truly want to act, that something is being done on climate change, while actually maintaining the status quo for another few years. Let’s see if the negotiators in 2015 can repeat the great success of 2011, and put off real action for another decade or so.

The Debt Crisis is a Hoax

2011-12-09T23:27:00.000-08:00

I would like to declare, once and for all, that I am a debt crisis denier. There is no such thing as a human caused debt crisis, it is a fabrication by socialists and communists who want to use the ‘crisis’ to force the downfall of our way of life and impose some kind of alternate economic system on us. Below are three key factors that these so-called economists have clearly forgotten in their analysis of the debt ‘crisis’:

There is no proof that ongoing deficits will cause national bankruptcies or the fall of national economies

I want to see final, empirical proof that debt will lead to the fall of a national economy. For example, they say that in Greece, the debt crisis will cause an increase in borrowing rates, which will start an uncontrollable spiral (some are calling them ‘feedback’ effects) that means it will never be able to pay off its debts and suffer an economic collapse as a result. They say this, but they are basis this on assumptions and hunches, rather than cold, hard facts. Maybe it has happened in other countries in the past, but that doesn’t mean it will happen today to Greece. The truth is that there is no absolute proof that Greece’s continued borrowing would directly lead to its default or economic collapse.

Economies go in natural cycles

We are currently in a ‘cooling’ phase, but next year we could just as likely be in a ‘warming’ phase - human caused debts have nothing to do with it. Economic downturns have been around as long as there has been an economy. Was the great depression a result of debt? No. Was the economic expansion in the 90’s and early 2000’s due to a lack of debt? No. Although there may seem to be some correlation between debt and economic strength today, history has not always followed this same pattern, therefore it is just a coincidence.

There is no consensus among economists

There are some out there who would have you believe that there is consensus among economists that a debt crisis that could lead to the fall of national economies. There is no consensus; there is ongoing debate about the effect of debts on the economy (see this respected article, which refers to David Hendry’s findings that debt may not be related to economic health measures). We have come up with a list of 500 businesspeople who do not believe that debts and the health of the economy are linked (some of them are even real economists who haven’t requested their names to be removed from the list).

I could go on, but I’m sure you can see that what you have been told about the debt ‘crisis’ is simply a fabrication, a socialist plot to replace our way of life. Unless more proof can be provided that debt indeed harms national economies, there is no reason to drastically change the way we are living our lives and running our countries.

It is true, however, that we should work towards a long-term solution to debts. I propose that by the year 2020, all countries in the world start working on a treaty to reduce national deficits. Of course, the standards would be entirely voluntary, and I would only support such a move if developing nations like China and India (sources of much of the increase in world deficits) also agreed to reductions. Anything else would put us at an economic disadvantage, and we can’t possibly give up our privileged place in the world and allow others to join us.

A Typical Cabinet Meeting in the Harper Government

2011-12-05T22:30:00.000-08:00

Ever wondered what a cabinet meeting in Stephan Harper’s government is like? I think it would go something like this:

As Stephan Harper walks into the cabinet meeting room, his smile turns to a scowl. He surveys each of his ministers in turn, giving them each the briefest of scowls, before turning his attention to the head of the table, where a mountain of file sits before an enormous throne. Walking down one side of the table, passing half of the ministers (seated on small stools, with not so much as a scrap of paper on the desk before them), Harper slowly makes his way to his seat of power and sits down. Every minister looks at him expectantly, to see which file he picks up from the pile first.

“Hmmm, let’s see,” Harper muses, “Let’s start with the Ministry of Defense.” Peter MacKay sits straight up and folds his hands on the empty table in front of him. Harper takes a long time reviewing the file he selected. “I think we will press ahead with the plan to buy the F-35 fighter jets, despite the fact that the Americans seem to be having doubts and despite the soaring costs. Peter 1 , what do you think?”

Peter MacKay clears his throat, and says, “Sir, Of course I’m in favour of giving the Canadian military the tools it needs, but can I see the file, before I make up my mind? It sounds like there might be some reason to give it a second thought…” He trails off as Harper glares at him.

“Peter 1, do you want to sit here and argue with me, or do you want to go for a helicopter ride?” MacKay perks up and gets a glint in his eye. “That’s right, there is a private jet waiting outside, to take to you an air force base where a helicopter will take you on a fishing trip. Doesn’t that sound like more fun than sitting through this meeting?” MacKay bobs his head, “Maybe try fishing out of the helicopter itself, that should be fun. They might not want to do it, because it isn’t safe, but I’ll have your office call them and make them do it anyway. Off you go.” MacKay lets out a squeal of delight and runs out of the meeting room.

“Okay, what’s next?” Harper considers his files, “Let’s get the environment out of the way. Peter 2? Peter 2!”

Peter Kent wakes up from a slumber with a shocked, “Who? Me?” He is surprised to be called upon.

“Of course you, do you know another Peter 2?” Harper asks with a chuckle. Half a second later, all the other ministers gave a chuckle as well. “You’re off to Durban this afternoon, right?”

“Yes, your highness, I am. My jet is waiting outside.”

“Actually, Peter 1 took it fishing. I want you to charter another plane. And, Peter 2, I want you to get the most polluting thing you can find, do you understand? I want a cloud of black smoke behind it a mile long. I want to make sure that those greenies at that conference know that we aren’t joking around - we‘re into polluting and we’re into polluting big and nothing and nobody is going to stop us.”

“Yes, your highness!” Peter Kent leaves with cabinet room.

As he is leaving, a messenger comes in with a file. “Urgent notice regarding Attawapiskat First Nation for Aboriginal Affairs.” John Duncan, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, rises to accept the file, but is cut off by Harper.

“I’ll take that, thanks.” Harper contemplates the file for a long time. “Hmmm, seems there is a crisis in Attawapiskat. John, I’m going to allocate $10 million dollars for you to solve this problem. With that money, I want you to hire the best consultants and accountants that you can to write a report on what has happened and recommendations to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”

“I’ll get right on it, your worshipfulness .” Duncan replies, and gets up to leave.

“And John,” Harper stops him, “I want you to make it perfectly clear to these people that the reason for this crisis is entirely to do with internal issues at Attawapiskat First Nation and their report better reflect that. I don’t want to spend $10 million and end up with a report with surprises in it - that would be a waste of taxpayer money.” With a bow, Duncan leaves.

Harper checks the clock. “I have a meeting with my hair stylist that I can’t miss - he is the most sought out stylist in Ottawa.” Harper looks at the mountain of untouched documents, “We didn’t even get through half of the files! It takes so long when I have to explain everything to you idiots. I expect you to all stay here all night working.” Harper summons several couriers, “Remove all these files, the information is much too important for any of these people to see it.” Harper then puts on a sweater-vest, picks up a cup of Tim Horton’s coffee and strides out of the office, leaving a roomful of Ministers twiddling their thumbs at an otherwise empty table.

Proud to be Canadian? Not During Durban Climate Change Conference

2011-11-28T20:00:00.000-08:00

When you are Canadian, everyone in this country expects you to be proud to be Canadian - talking about how great Canada is is a national pastime. However, as the Durban Climate Change Conference begins today, I must declare that I am, in no way, proud to be Canadian. The Canadian Government… sorry, the Harper Government will begin its attempt to sabotage any good faith negotiation going on at the conference over the next two weeks.

But it doesn’t have to be like this. Just imagine a world where Canada was a leader on environmental issues. Just imagine if believed in fulfilling its international obligations. Just imagine replacing the blinding anti-Kyoto rhetoric that we constantly get, with comments from the government like:

“Kyoto is the past… We need to find a way to continue its good work into the future.”

“We've already declared that however acute the international pressure, we will insist on a second commitment period target under the Kyoto Protocol."

Imagine if articles in the newspapers read like:

“There is a recognition that Kyoto isn’t fair. But there is also a recognition that something has to be done, and working under Kyoto without major emitters like the US is better than working under a strictly voluntary system or no system at all” Canada’s Environment Minister Peter Kent told The Canadian Press before leaving for Durban. “And it's certainly not as effective as we’d like, but there has to be an understanding that we cannot criticize others for not being a part of the Treaty if we aren’t a part of it ourselves, and doing nothing is not an option.”

Imagine if, instead of criticism, environmental groups and other political parties could praise the government:

“It Kyoto succeeds these next two weeks in Durban,” says Garry Neil, the executive director of the Council of Canadians “Canada will have played a leading role, to our collective pride.”

“It’s very promising from an environmental perspective,” said Matt Horne, Climate Change Director at the Pembina Institute. “It sends a pretty strong signal that Canada is serious about the international process being successful. It certainly is going to be a big positive checkmark on our international reputation.”

"It will reverberate around the world," Elizabeth May told CTV about Canada’s efforts to strengthen the Kyoto Accord. "Canada will be a hero globally if it goes through with this."

Imagine if Harper himself actually believed in making a positive change for climate change:

Stephan Harper once wrote a letter to all members of the Reform Party, shortly after being elected leader, in which he extoled the virtues of the Kyoto Protocol and urged Reform Party supporters to put pressure on the Liberal government to ratify the treaty. Among his points was:

“Kyoto is essentially a progressive project to suck carbon emissions out of the economies of wealth-producing nations.”

If that were what I was reading in the paper, hearing on the news, then I would scream at the top of my lungs, “I am proud to be Canadian! I am proud that we make a difference! I am proud that we stand up for what is right!” Instead, I sit in front of my computer and type; I am ashamed to be Canadian. I am ashamed that we out our needs in front of the needs of the world. I am ashamed that we stand in the way of what is right.

Exporting Poison for Profits

2011-11-25T18:07:00.000-08:00

Imagine that you read this article in the paper one day:

Iran Selling Poison for Profits

It has been revealed that Iran is selling the dangerous chemical Marelconzen to African countries desperate for cheap water purification. As you may know, Marelconzen is chemical that purifies water that was widely used from the mid-1920s, until the early 80’s, when evidence starting pouring in about its detrimental effects to human health.

Marelconzen was considered a lifesaver, at one time. Its ability to instantly remove parasites and diseases from water was miraculous. However, it came at a cost. Marelconzen is harmless, if mixed with water in an exact way - one gram of Marelconzen per litre of water. However, if you use too much Marelconzen, it can be lead to a host of health problems, including heart failure and cancer. The World Health Organization estimates that 100,000 people a year die from Marelconzen exposure.

Evidence of Marelconzen’s dangerous properties started to appear in the 50’s and by the mid 80’s, these problems were too great to ignore; in the 90’s and early 2000’s many countries starting banning Marelconzen. In the industrialized world, it has been replaced by safer methods of water purification. However, in developing countries, it is still being used, and still causing health problems.

Iran is the world’s leading producer of Marelconzen and continues to export it to developing countries, despite having an effect ban on domestic use. Iran claims that since Marelconzen can be used safely, if mixed in exact proportions, it is up to importing countries to use the chemical safely.

However, if it can be used safely, why is it banned in Iran? Why is it banned in 60 countries worldwide, including the European Union and Australia? Last summer the Iranian government blocked an attempt to have Marelconzen listed as a hazardous chemical in a United Nations treaty. This listing had the potential to save tens of thousands of lives, but Iran chose to oppose it, for the simple goal of profiting from selling poison to those who are desperate.

Clearly, Marelconzen is too dangerous to be used. Governments across the world have realized this and switch their water purification systems to other, safer methods. Iran needs to be held to account for its criminal disregard for the health and safety of those who are buying its poisonous Marelconzen.

How do you feel about reading that a country like Iran is export a dangerous, unnecessary chemical to other countries, when it has banned the chemical for being too dangerous? Now, reread the article, and replace ‘Iran’ with ‘Canada’ and ‘Marelconzen’ with ‘Asbestos’. How do you feel about it now?

The Canadian government is at a crossroads on the issue of exporting Asbestos, and many members of Parliament (even members of the governing Conservative Party) support a ban on exporting Asbestos. Add your voice – sign this petition and help end this national embarrassment.

What if car safety was regulated like oil and gas exploration and finance?

2011-11-21T21:54:00.000-08:00

It is time to cut the red tape on the overregulated automotive industry. The standards for testing a new automobile before it can go to market are destroying this iconic North American industry. Other sectors, such as oil and gas exploration and finance, are showing us that amazing things can happen when the industry is allowed to do as it wants, and regulation only comes into play when there is a problem, not beforehand. I propose that the automotive industry get the same treatment - allow it to make the products that the market demands, without the rigorous safety testing that is currently required. Clearly industry self-regulation works - just look at the finance industry - and it needs to be applied to safety standards in the car manufacturing industry.

For too long, government safety regulation has forced manufacturers prove that automobiles are safe, rather than finding proof that the automobiles are unsafe, then acting. The costs of this system are astounding in both government bureaucracy and costs passed on the consumer. Government has no place in car manufacturing (unless it is bailing out the industry for its mistakes) and should let the industry work out safety standards and regulations itself.

Just imagine how much more inexpensive a car could be, if it didn’t have to go through such rigorous government mandated safety testing. The industry should be able to test the cars themselves, and provide consumers with the results, if they so choose. Consumers would be given the ultimate choice on which cars to purchase - the proven safe models, or the cheaper, untested (but still, assumedly, safe) ones. Some would say this will put consumers in danger, but I say it is simply the ultimate case of buyer beware.

The oil and gas industry are at the forefront of innovation and development because they are allowed free hand to make decisions to meet market demands, then adjust them due to potential problems. New resource extraction techniques, such as hydro-fracking and deep water oil drilling are assumed to be safe, until proven otherwise - just imagine if car manufacturing were the same!

Car manufacturing is too important to be subjected to lengthy safety reviews. By removing these pointless safety inspections, we would create jobs for everyone and make sure our own cars were on our roads, rather than foreign imports. Our economy and our automobile security depend on less regulation in car manufacturing.

What Kind of Friends Does Israel Need?

2011-11-19T14:36:00.000-08:00

At the Republican candidates’ debate in South Carolina on November 12, Michele Bachmann declared that Israel doesn’t see Barrack Obama as a friend. And isn’t it true that Israel needs friends, right now?

They need friends to prevent Palestine from joining UN agencies, such as UNESCO. They certainly don’t want Palestine to start making friends at the UN - after all, some of Israel’s friends might like Palestine better than Israel themselves, if they got to know them. The US has been a great friend in this matter, having withdrawn funding from UNESCO for making Palestine a member. As an aside, Obama has also promised to veto a Palestinian application to join the UN as a full member.

They need friends to help safeguard their boarders from activists bringing food and medical supplies to Gaza. If they are going to keep boarding ships in international waters, and detaining the passengers, then they will need their friends to continue to look the other way. America and other countries, like Canada, have been great friends by discouraging their citizens from being part of these international activist missions and suggesting Israel has every right to detain those taken in international waters.

They need their friends to support their continued expansion of settlements on Palestinian land. According to the BBC, half a million Israelis live in more than 100 settlements that are considered illegal under international law. Last February, the US vetoed a UN Security Council resolution to condemn Israel for these illegal settlements, even though all 14 other members of the Security Council voted in favour and over 130 counties supported the resolution. America, under Obama, is certainly a friend of Israel when it comes to the illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian land.

I believe that there are two types of friends. There is the type of friend who will stand behind you no matter what, back you up no matter what and fight beside you for anything. The US, and Barack Obama, are friends like this for Israel. However, an even more important friend is the one that stands with you when you are being reasonable, but stands up to you when you aren’t. This is the type of friend that tells you when you are being unreasonable, and makes you face it and change. This is the type of friend that stages an intervention when it is clear that you have a problem. This is the truest friend and this is the kind of friend that Israel needs right now.

Maybe, just maybe, when Michele Bachmann implied that Israel needed a better friend than Barrack Obama, she meant that they needed this second kind of friend. One that will stand with Israel against the very real threats it faces, but at the same time, remind Israel that it has a responsibility to peace. One that will support and uphold Israel’s right to defend itself, but remind Israel that its rights don’t trump others’ right to freedom. One that will celebrate Israel’s place in the world, while insisting that it recognize Palestine’s place as well. I hope very much that this is the friend that Michele Bachman wants to be for Israel - but I doubt very much that it is true.

Municipal Election Financing Reform in Vancouver

2011-11-14T22:03:00.000-08:00

There are those out there who think that election campaign financing in Vancouver needs to be changed. I am particularly concerned by the suggestion that corporations should not be allowed to make any donations whatsoever. What a sorry state our election campaigns would be in if this were the case. Worse still, it would be eminently unfair (maybe even discriminatory, since corporations are legal entities, just like people) to corporations to not allow them to participate at all in politics.

Corporations already contribute far more to election campaigns than ordinary citizens – and they aren’t even allowed to vote. Millions of dollars were spent in the 2008 election, and the spending is likely to be higher in 2011. The biggest individual donors by far are corporations and owners of major corporations. And don’t suggest that they are trying to buy favours - many donate multiple parties in the same city, so clearly they are just trying to make sure the election runs as smoothly as possible, with no ulterior motives.

Some people tell me that maybe we don’t need so much money involved in politics. Rubbish. Without political advertising, how will we know who to vote for? For instance, without hearing our Mayor on his radio ads talking about Tony Tang, how would I have known that I should vote for him? How else would I have known that Tony Tang is a businessman, just like Gregor, for whom fiscal responsibility is important? Without donations to pay for all the lawn signs, how would we know who our neighbours are voting for and how photogenic our potential elected representatives are? These are critical issues and the health our democracy depends on them.

How would you feel, if you weren’t allowed to vote? You would probably want to participate in the formation of government in some way, right? Corporations are doing the exact same thing. They just want to be a part of it. Corporate donations to political parties is a critical piece of the election process, and without it, most of us wouldn’t know who to vote for. Join me in opposing campaign financing reform, to make sure corporations have their voices heard.