In a shocking decision, the left-wing MoveOn.org group is today killing its § 527 fundraising arm, which became extremely controversial during the 2004 campaign when it raised millions in "soft money" to support John Kerry by circumventing regular spending and fundraising rules. Instead, MoveOn will ask people to donate to its political action committee or PAC. The effect is that rather than donations at $5000 a pop, it will have to rely on advocacy at only $50 or so per donation.
Why is this important? Because Barack Obama proved one can win a nomination, and potentially an election outright, by relying on smaller donations and not on the largesse of the powerful. Running a third party campaign with money from unions and progressive businesses would have run counter to the message Obama has run on, that this should be a people's campaign and not just one for those who have "access" or the means to buy it. And under § 527 of the US Tax Code, such foundations don't have to reveal where their money comes from, unlike charities and churches which elect to run under § 501(c)(3). Non-disclosure also goes against the spirit of Obama's official campaign.
In my opinion the 527s while serving an important purpose defeat it by hiding behind a wall. They had too much influence over the Bush - Kerry race four years ago and it's time this relic was shown the door it deserves.
The challenge to equivalent 527s on the right: Will they do the same and pack up too? Now that's something I like to see. McCain said he can't control negative advertising. Disavowing these secretive organizations outright would be a first step.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Suggestion to M. Dion
Following up on my last post regarding M. Dion's proposals on how to tax carbon emissions and putting it back in the form of tax cuts:
Emphasize over and over again the benefit this would have for seniors and for people with children. Point out this will mean more money in their pockets, tax free, each and every month; that this shows a real commitment in the goal to substantially reduce levels of poverty to meet the 30-50 goals (30% reduction of the number of people living below the poverty line, 50% less children living in poverty; both goals reached over five years.)
It's important to contrast how this will help value families, to the hot hair of PMS' claim to support family values. How $100 per month fully taxable per child under six is much different than $100 or more per month tax free for every kid under eighteen.
That low income seniors deserve a roughly equivalent break to wealthy seniors (a $600 per year increase in the Supplement is roughly the same as what richer seniors who don't get the GIS get in their pocketboot, after taking into account the doubling of the pension amount, at an average 40% bracket).
That even single people are going to get modest help -- unlike with the Cons, where the group I'm in gets squat.
In short, don't get Swift Boated, M. Dion. Don't allow yourself to be Swift Boated. Fight fire with fire, day in and day out. Act as if the election campaign started yesterday, no matter when you actually decide to pull the plug for real.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Emphasize over and over again the benefit this would have for seniors and for people with children. Point out this will mean more money in their pockets, tax free, each and every month; that this shows a real commitment in the goal to substantially reduce levels of poverty to meet the 30-50 goals (30% reduction of the number of people living below the poverty line, 50% less children living in poverty; both goals reached over five years.)
It's important to contrast how this will help value families, to the hot hair of PMS' claim to support family values. How $100 per month fully taxable per child under six is much different than $100 or more per month tax free for every kid under eighteen.
That low income seniors deserve a roughly equivalent break to wealthy seniors (a $600 per year increase in the Supplement is roughly the same as what richer seniors who don't get the GIS get in their pocketboot, after taking into account the doubling of the pension amount, at an average 40% bracket).
That even single people are going to get modest help -- unlike with the Cons, where the group I'm in gets squat.
In short, don't get Swift Boated, M. Dion. Don't allow yourself to be Swift Boated. Fight fire with fire, day in and day out. Act as if the election campaign started yesterday, no matter when you actually decide to pull the plug for real.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
A green line in the sand
It's taken long enough -- too long in my personal opinion -- but finally, Stéphane Dion has finally drawn a line in the sand. And the line is coloured green. In most parts of the world, a "Green Line" is a formal or informal cease-fire line -- such as that which exists between Israel and the West Bank, the Turkish and Greek parts of Cyprus, the Muslim and Christian parts of Beirut, the Catholic and Protestant neighbourhoods of Belfast. However a first review of Dion's new plan which he is calling "The Green Shift" certainly impresses me, for the most part.
The plan puts a tax at the source of pollution -- the more one pollutes, the more one pays. That's as it should be. It also offers broad-based tax relief, with an across the board tax cut of between 1.5 for lower incomes to 3.5 percent for the middle class; recognizing that most higher incomes (below $122,000) can no longer be considered "rich" in this country. (I know quite a few two income families with a combined gross of over $100,000 and they certainly don't see themselves as wealthy in any sense of the phrase.)
It also gives relief to families (including a major boost in the Child Tax Benefit, which would go a long way towards meeting the Campaign 2000 goal of eliminating child poverty) and lower income seniors, as well as to people in rural areas and the Far North to recognize the higher costs of living relative to urban areas, something I've suggested for quite a long time. It also makes several non-refundable tax credits fully refundable; similar to what Québec has done at the provincial level for years.
I do have a couple of concerns. First, while gasoline won't be taxed any further (supposedly; oil companies can always pass on their costs in the wholesale price), diesel will go up 7 cents a litre. With truckers barely making it by as it is with oil hovering at $133 a barrel any income tax cuts they get will be eaten up by higher operating costs. We've already seen the effect with higher food prices -- stores can't be expected to absorb the costs on their own entirely.
Second, while the plan calls for increases in carbon taxes to be passed back to Canadians in the form of personal and corporate income taxes to be monitored by the Auditor General, it is not explained exactly how this will be done. Because our top accountant only monitors spending after the fact -- in some cases up to three years after -- there's no way of knowing whether we're being scammed at the front end or at the back if retailers decide to engage in some mischief.
To put it into some perspective, this proposal is in effect an accounting change as big as the conversion to the Euro currency; and while there were set exchange rates by the European Central Bank that did not stop some retailers across the board from rounding up to the next euro rather than using rounding up or down as called for. This continues to be an issue as more countries adopt the currency. Even if incidents of price gouging were few and far between, first impressions are very hard to eliminate when proof is offered.
Be that as it may, this is a significant change in thinking,and certainly if implemented the most important tax reform in twenty years. It will also make people think about their energy choices. It's the kind of thinking big and outside the box that we need and it's something I can certainly support.
One should not be surprised that PMS would come out swinging against this. He wants to protect the profits of Big Oil without a windfall tax -- something a carbon tax would address in a roundabout way. We can lead, follow or get out of the way. I prefer a leader than a follower.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
The plan puts a tax at the source of pollution -- the more one pollutes, the more one pays. That's as it should be. It also offers broad-based tax relief, with an across the board tax cut of between 1.5 for lower incomes to 3.5 percent for the middle class; recognizing that most higher incomes (below $122,000) can no longer be considered "rich" in this country. (I know quite a few two income families with a combined gross of over $100,000 and they certainly don't see themselves as wealthy in any sense of the phrase.)
It also gives relief to families (including a major boost in the Child Tax Benefit, which would go a long way towards meeting the Campaign 2000 goal of eliminating child poverty) and lower income seniors, as well as to people in rural areas and the Far North to recognize the higher costs of living relative to urban areas, something I've suggested for quite a long time. It also makes several non-refundable tax credits fully refundable; similar to what Québec has done at the provincial level for years.
I do have a couple of concerns. First, while gasoline won't be taxed any further (supposedly; oil companies can always pass on their costs in the wholesale price), diesel will go up 7 cents a litre. With truckers barely making it by as it is with oil hovering at $133 a barrel any income tax cuts they get will be eaten up by higher operating costs. We've already seen the effect with higher food prices -- stores can't be expected to absorb the costs on their own entirely.
Second, while the plan calls for increases in carbon taxes to be passed back to Canadians in the form of personal and corporate income taxes to be monitored by the Auditor General, it is not explained exactly how this will be done. Because our top accountant only monitors spending after the fact -- in some cases up to three years after -- there's no way of knowing whether we're being scammed at the front end or at the back if retailers decide to engage in some mischief.
To put it into some perspective, this proposal is in effect an accounting change as big as the conversion to the Euro currency; and while there were set exchange rates by the European Central Bank that did not stop some retailers across the board from rounding up to the next euro rather than using rounding up or down as called for. This continues to be an issue as more countries adopt the currency. Even if incidents of price gouging were few and far between, first impressions are very hard to eliminate when proof is offered.
Be that as it may, this is a significant change in thinking,and certainly if implemented the most important tax reform in twenty years. It will also make people think about their energy choices. It's the kind of thinking big and outside the box that we need and it's something I can certainly support.
One should not be surprised that PMS would come out swinging against this. He wants to protect the profits of Big Oil without a windfall tax -- something a carbon tax would address in a roundabout way. We can lead, follow or get out of the way. I prefer a leader than a follower.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
US vacillates on illegal immigrants, EU moves ahead
While the United States continues to vacillate over immigration reforms and how to deal with the 11 million illegal migrants in the country -- no thanks to Lou Dobbs' legion whose king dismisses even the most modest changes as "amnesty" -- the European Union is moving full steam ahead to standardize policies regarding illegal immigrants across 25 of the 27 countries. (Opting out for now are the UK and Ireland, I suspect in part because of the implications it would have on their separate Common Travel Area.)
I am obviously concerned about permitting detentions for up to 18 months, although states may elect to have a lesser period than that. (However, the wide variety of holding periods -- ranging from 32 days in France to an indefinite period in 6 of the Schengen nations -- led to a great deal of uncertainty.) As well, those ordered deported could face exclusions from Europe for up to five years.
I am also concerned part of the pushback is coming from the presence of so-called "illegals" from Romania in Italy even though, far as I know, they have every right to have residence in any EU state like any other EU citizen even though Romania won't join Schengen until 2011 at the earliest. The violence being committed against the minority community there is, for what it's worth, totally unacceptable.
But I do find it interesting that, for all its diversity and all its bureaucracy -- a relatively large group of prosperous and sovereign nations such as the EU can actually all agree on something so important; while one country, the US, continues in quagmire. Unbelievable.
And it is also amazing to consider that the same people who oppose reforms, those who view Ronald Reagan as the greatest person who ever lived (until George W Bush, of course) forget that in 1979, a year before his second and ultimately successful run for President, Ronnie actually supported open and customs-free borders with Canada and Mexico; anticipating in a way the Schengen arrangement that presently exists in much of Europe (and which, while very successful has somewhat exacerbated the "problem" with migrants who find their way to the states with the most generous social programs).
Hopefully, the next President will find a way to unite people around the issue and come up with common sense immigration reforms -- no matter what Lou Dobbs or any other heartless person like him thinks. If it also leads to a partial loosening of border controls for the vast majority of law-abiding citizens and trade in the NAFTA area, so much the better.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
I am obviously concerned about permitting detentions for up to 18 months, although states may elect to have a lesser period than that. (However, the wide variety of holding periods -- ranging from 32 days in France to an indefinite period in 6 of the Schengen nations -- led to a great deal of uncertainty.) As well, those ordered deported could face exclusions from Europe for up to five years.
I am also concerned part of the pushback is coming from the presence of so-called "illegals" from Romania in Italy even though, far as I know, they have every right to have residence in any EU state like any other EU citizen even though Romania won't join Schengen until 2011 at the earliest. The violence being committed against the minority community there is, for what it's worth, totally unacceptable.
But I do find it interesting that, for all its diversity and all its bureaucracy -- a relatively large group of prosperous and sovereign nations such as the EU can actually all agree on something so important; while one country, the US, continues in quagmire. Unbelievable.
And it is also amazing to consider that the same people who oppose reforms, those who view Ronald Reagan as the greatest person who ever lived (until George W Bush, of course) forget that in 1979, a year before his second and ultimately successful run for President, Ronnie actually supported open and customs-free borders with Canada and Mexico; anticipating in a way the Schengen arrangement that presently exists in much of Europe (and which, while very successful has somewhat exacerbated the "problem" with migrants who find their way to the states with the most generous social programs).
Hopefully, the next President will find a way to unite people around the issue and come up with common sense immigration reforms -- no matter what Lou Dobbs or any other heartless person like him thinks. If it also leads to a partial loosening of border controls for the vast majority of law-abiding citizens and trade in the NAFTA area, so much the better.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Feet
I had a working title for this post, two actually, but both were really tasteless. Still, this is starting to get real, real scary. Six human feet, severed from the rest of the bodies they belonged to, have now washed ashore on Vancouver Island. No motive, no clear connection. Even the Mounties who take pride in always getting their man or woman are stumped.
Who wouldn't be?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Who wouldn't be?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Enjoy the fishing lodges while you can
One reason why nuclear power plants are usually located near huge bodies of water is the relative ease in which a confined area can be contained if there is an "incident" like Three Mile Island or an "accident" like Chernobyl.
The same cannot be said of lakes and rivers which are converted into tailing ponds for mines and tar sands. Once they're gone, they're gone forever. We've already seen the damage done in Alberta and in Labrador. Now, as Terry Milewski reported the other night on CBC News (and as he details in a web article with his byline), more lakes are being targeted in British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, the NWT and Nunavut. A total of 16 sites. These are prime fishing spots we're talking about, huge sources of income for fishing lodges in the most remote parts of the nation. For Aboriginals, they are as hallowed ground as, say, St. Joseph's Oratory in Montréal is to Catholics in Canada.
To be fair, the regulations in question that permit this ecological terrorism were written in 2002 during Jean Chrétien's third term. However, since 2006 when PMS came to power there has been a move towards speeding up approvals without considering the consequences. At a time when we should be protecting our watersheds and even increasing the size of wetlands, we're destroying them piecemeal.
I am all for development and reducing regional disparities. There is a right way and a wrong way to do it. As someone writing about native spirituality wrote decades ago, "Our God is your God. The Earth is precious to Him, and to harm the planet is to heap contempt upon its Creator." Even many Christians have understood or are coming to understand the Earth is the Lord's, not humans', and we can't just keep taking without putting back. How can we expect to go to the Happy Hunting and Fishing Ground, if we wipe out the terrestial equivalent here in the vale of tears?
Mining, without doubt, is one of the best paying job classifications even at the entry level; but we need to ask ourselves, what price progress? Whatever bureaucrats or courts are deciding to rule in favour of business and not the people are, quite frankly, stupid idiots. When it comes to non-renewable natural resources, we owe it to ourselves and future generations to be extremely careful.
Terry Milewski once referred to the federal government as the "forces of darkness." That expression can certainly be applied to this kind of irresponsible development. Out west, farmers say "water's for fighting" in response to the tar sands projects; it's bloody well time natives and non-natives stood together to stop the bullshit being inflicted upon other bodies of water as well.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
The same cannot be said of lakes and rivers which are converted into tailing ponds for mines and tar sands. Once they're gone, they're gone forever. We've already seen the damage done in Alberta and in Labrador. Now, as Terry Milewski reported the other night on CBC News (and as he details in a web article with his byline), more lakes are being targeted in British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, the NWT and Nunavut. A total of 16 sites. These are prime fishing spots we're talking about, huge sources of income for fishing lodges in the most remote parts of the nation. For Aboriginals, they are as hallowed ground as, say, St. Joseph's Oratory in Montréal is to Catholics in Canada.
To be fair, the regulations in question that permit this ecological terrorism were written in 2002 during Jean Chrétien's third term. However, since 2006 when PMS came to power there has been a move towards speeding up approvals without considering the consequences. At a time when we should be protecting our watersheds and even increasing the size of wetlands, we're destroying them piecemeal.
I am all for development and reducing regional disparities. There is a right way and a wrong way to do it. As someone writing about native spirituality wrote decades ago, "Our God is your God. The Earth is precious to Him, and to harm the planet is to heap contempt upon its Creator." Even many Christians have understood or are coming to understand the Earth is the Lord's, not humans', and we can't just keep taking without putting back. How can we expect to go to the Happy Hunting and Fishing Ground, if we wipe out the terrestial equivalent here in the vale of tears?
Mining, without doubt, is one of the best paying job classifications even at the entry level; but we need to ask ourselves, what price progress? Whatever bureaucrats or courts are deciding to rule in favour of business and not the people are, quite frankly, stupid idiots. When it comes to non-renewable natural resources, we owe it to ourselves and future generations to be extremely careful.
Terry Milewski once referred to the federal government as the "forces of darkness." That expression can certainly be applied to this kind of irresponsible development. Out west, farmers say "water's for fighting" in response to the tar sands projects; it's bloody well time natives and non-natives stood together to stop the bullshit being inflicted upon other bodies of water as well.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
What's wrong with Kansas? (Grand juries by petition edition)
Regular reads will know of my personal distaste and reprehension at abortion, and that I am personally pro-life.
However, this story in today's NYT makes me wonder to what extent people will go to stop abortions. There used to be a saying, "Who said anything about America? This is Mississippi" -- in response to what many rightly considered the most racist state and legal system in the country. Now, it's Kansas' turn for ignominy of a different kind.
A physician in Kansas, one of the few in America that still performs "late term" abortions, has been relentless picketed, been the subject of lobbying groups -- and even shot. Now, he's facing a grand jury investigation. It's not the first, it would seem, but in an unusual move enough signatures on a petition were gathered in order to force a grand jury to convene to determine if there is enough evidence that abortions were performed after 22 weeks -- a criminal offense in Kansas.
It's not the first time a petition has been used to force a grand jury to convene. In the last few years, it's been used 10 times -- eight against explicit videos magazines, two on violations of reproduction laws. So far, there has been only one conviction from this procedure. Originally used against the adult video stores, most simply decided to close down rather than fight the charges; itself a form of censorship. (What was it that Justice Harlan Black once said: "I recognize obscenity when I see it?" Certainly I recognize the harmful effects pornography can have, but if women aren't being raped or tortured and there are no children involved -- and the consumers recognize that what they're consuming is fantasy and not even plausible in real life -- I think people should mind their own business.)
The law dates back to the days when railroads ruled and there were battles over which cities got to be the county seats. It was meant to be a check against abuse of power; but this 1887 law remains on the books, so all that is needed to force a grand jury to meet is 2% of a county's turnout in the previous general election plus 100. In Wichita, that's 3500 signatures and a self-styled "pro-life" group gathered double that, 7000.
What's bothersome about this are the following: First, this amounts to judiciary by poll. People don't like the fact prosecutors won't file charges because of lack of evidence, and DAs may very well have a reason why they know the charges won't stick. So they file private charges of their own, or gather a petition. The implications of this, rule by mob, are frightening. This may be something some people may approve of but people of conscience should not. A similar petition law next door in Oklahoma led to a grand jury trying to figure out if there was a conspiracy in the Oklahoma City bombing beyond Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. The ham sandwichers spit out the ham sandwich and stated clearly there wasn't.
Second, by issuing a sub poena for medical records to find out if a crime has been committed, this rides the edge of harassment of women who have had to make a very difficult decision. The Kansas Supreme Court has allowed this investigation to proceed but has warned against a fishing expedition. Problem is, that's precisely what the petitioners want; smoking guns so they can hound the women to no end.
For what it's worth, the clause in dispute states that an abortion may only be performed after 22 weeks where the fetus is not viable, or a pregnant woman would otherwise face "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." This is so broad that it could be and probably should be declared void for being too vague. Other states which have drawn a line use such terminology as, say, the continuation of the pregnancy would cause damage to the fetus, or to the physical or mental health of the mother," a formula which courts have upheld.
There's a reason why there are district attorneys. There job is to represent the interests of the people. They are the order in "law and order," and if they feel no law has been broken then their decision should stand. If voters don't like it, they can vote out the DA in the next election. Otherwise, we could get Jim Crow back via the back door -- and rule by mob is the very antithesis of representative democracy and an independent judiciary.
Moreover, if voters want to restrict abortions further it should be down via legislation, not the courts -- and to use the courts makes the pro-life lobby guilty of the judicial activism they vehemently oppose. Of course, they also oppose pro-family programs and policies such as Head Start, WIC and lower-income tax relief. Little wonder why the pro-life dude writing this doesn't want anything to do with the radicals.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
However, this story in today's NYT makes me wonder to what extent people will go to stop abortions. There used to be a saying, "Who said anything about America? This is Mississippi" -- in response to what many rightly considered the most racist state and legal system in the country. Now, it's Kansas' turn for ignominy of a different kind.
A physician in Kansas, one of the few in America that still performs "late term" abortions, has been relentless picketed, been the subject of lobbying groups -- and even shot. Now, he's facing a grand jury investigation. It's not the first, it would seem, but in an unusual move enough signatures on a petition were gathered in order to force a grand jury to convene to determine if there is enough evidence that abortions were performed after 22 weeks -- a criminal offense in Kansas.
It's not the first time a petition has been used to force a grand jury to convene. In the last few years, it's been used 10 times -- eight against explicit videos magazines, two on violations of reproduction laws. So far, there has been only one conviction from this procedure. Originally used against the adult video stores, most simply decided to close down rather than fight the charges; itself a form of censorship. (What was it that Justice Harlan Black once said: "I recognize obscenity when I see it?" Certainly I recognize the harmful effects pornography can have, but if women aren't being raped or tortured and there are no children involved -- and the consumers recognize that what they're consuming is fantasy and not even plausible in real life -- I think people should mind their own business.)
The law dates back to the days when railroads ruled and there were battles over which cities got to be the county seats. It was meant to be a check against abuse of power; but this 1887 law remains on the books, so all that is needed to force a grand jury to meet is 2% of a county's turnout in the previous general election plus 100. In Wichita, that's 3500 signatures and a self-styled "pro-life" group gathered double that, 7000.
What's bothersome about this are the following: First, this amounts to judiciary by poll. People don't like the fact prosecutors won't file charges because of lack of evidence, and DAs may very well have a reason why they know the charges won't stick. So they file private charges of their own, or gather a petition. The implications of this, rule by mob, are frightening. This may be something some people may approve of but people of conscience should not. A similar petition law next door in Oklahoma led to a grand jury trying to figure out if there was a conspiracy in the Oklahoma City bombing beyond Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. The ham sandwichers spit out the ham sandwich and stated clearly there wasn't.
Second, by issuing a sub poena for medical records to find out if a crime has been committed, this rides the edge of harassment of women who have had to make a very difficult decision. The Kansas Supreme Court has allowed this investigation to proceed but has warned against a fishing expedition. Problem is, that's precisely what the petitioners want; smoking guns so they can hound the women to no end.
For what it's worth, the clause in dispute states that an abortion may only be performed after 22 weeks where the fetus is not viable, or a pregnant woman would otherwise face "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." This is so broad that it could be and probably should be declared void for being too vague. Other states which have drawn a line use such terminology as, say, the continuation of the pregnancy would cause damage to the fetus, or to the physical or mental health of the mother," a formula which courts have upheld.
There's a reason why there are district attorneys. There job is to represent the interests of the people. They are the order in "law and order," and if they feel no law has been broken then their decision should stand. If voters don't like it, they can vote out the DA in the next election. Otherwise, we could get Jim Crow back via the back door -- and rule by mob is the very antithesis of representative democracy and an independent judiciary.
Moreover, if voters want to restrict abortions further it should be down via legislation, not the courts -- and to use the courts makes the pro-life lobby guilty of the judicial activism they vehemently oppose. Of course, they also oppose pro-family programs and policies such as Head Start, WIC and lower-income tax relief. Little wonder why the pro-life dude writing this doesn't want anything to do with the radicals.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Free trade with Colombia. Who's next?
Last week, Canada and Colombia reached a deal on a free trade agreement. It may be introduced for ratification by Canada's Parliament as early as today.
Regular readers will know that I am a supporter of free trade in principle; provided that the aim is to raise living standards, not lower them and that national sovereignty in the whole is respected. However, another non-negotiable item is respect for human and labour rights. One certainly can't expect an all-encompassing regime such as exists in the European Union, but there should be a minimum level of respect for what's provided for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in a number of the protocols of the International Labour Organization.
Note the list of countries with which Canada presently have free trade agreements: Chile, Costa Rica, Israel, Peru, the EFTA states (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), Mexico and the United States. Of these, Costa Rica has a serious child prostitution problem the government won't deal with, Israel has a less than honourable record when it comes to the Palestinians, Peru is still locked in a civil war, and Mexico seems to have a convenient way of making Canadian tourists disappear -- and of course, you don't want to mess with a Federale. At the present time, we're in negotiations with Singapore which has one party regularly winning 80% of the seats thanks to gerrymandering and therefore cannot be considered a democracy in any sense of the term; and the country's press is free to criticize other countries' governments but not its own.
What is going on here?
I do believe countries which have proved they have improved their record should be entitled to escalating improvements in trade access, starting with debt relief, then Most Favoured Nation (the lowest level of tariff), then free trade. However, it is in our best interests to seek better access to markets on which we can rely on, countries which have proven they have good overall labour and human rights standards -- the EU, Australia, Japan. Wittingly supporting a still ongoing civil war and illicit drug trade is not my idea of lifting people up. The Colombian agreement does attempt to address human and labour rights but it does not go far enough. And let's not mention the environment.
The minority Parliament here should draw the line. We should not accept this as a fait accompli -- and ratification should be deferred until Colombia can prove they're moving forward and not going back into old habits.
Who's next on the free trade list? Zimbabwe? Sudan? Burma? You get my point.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Regular readers will know that I am a supporter of free trade in principle; provided that the aim is to raise living standards, not lower them and that national sovereignty in the whole is respected. However, another non-negotiable item is respect for human and labour rights. One certainly can't expect an all-encompassing regime such as exists in the European Union, but there should be a minimum level of respect for what's provided for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in a number of the protocols of the International Labour Organization.
Note the list of countries with which Canada presently have free trade agreements: Chile, Costa Rica, Israel, Peru, the EFTA states (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), Mexico and the United States. Of these, Costa Rica has a serious child prostitution problem the government won't deal with, Israel has a less than honourable record when it comes to the Palestinians, Peru is still locked in a civil war, and Mexico seems to have a convenient way of making Canadian tourists disappear -- and of course, you don't want to mess with a Federale. At the present time, we're in negotiations with Singapore which has one party regularly winning 80% of the seats thanks to gerrymandering and therefore cannot be considered a democracy in any sense of the term; and the country's press is free to criticize other countries' governments but not its own.
What is going on here?
I do believe countries which have proved they have improved their record should be entitled to escalating improvements in trade access, starting with debt relief, then Most Favoured Nation (the lowest level of tariff), then free trade. However, it is in our best interests to seek better access to markets on which we can rely on, countries which have proven they have good overall labour and human rights standards -- the EU, Australia, Japan. Wittingly supporting a still ongoing civil war and illicit drug trade is not my idea of lifting people up. The Colombian agreement does attempt to address human and labour rights but it does not go far enough. And let's not mention the environment.
The minority Parliament here should draw the line. We should not accept this as a fait accompli -- and ratification should be deferred until Colombia can prove they're moving forward and not going back into old habits.
Who's next on the free trade list? Zimbabwe? Sudan? Burma? You get my point.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Damn the atoms, we'll split them anyway!
So the government of Ontario has decided that the future lies with nuclear power and that it will built two reactors alongside the existing plants in Darlington. Don't be surprised if the proposals that come from AECL, Westinghouse and Areva demand that four and not two reactors are built -- since Darlington has four already.
Given the history of Darlington -- a series of reactors that wound up costing six times the original projection -- I'm not sure that the site is entirely the best choice. Given the options for siting I would have picked Kincardine. Plants there along with improvements to the transmission lines from there would have been way less expensive. But the fact is regardless of where the reactors are nuclear power in itself is a real bogeyman both in terms of operating costs as well as what to do with all the waste material.
Right now, the Canadian government is considering burying all the waste somewhere in Saskatchewan -- not unlike the proposed Yucca Mountain project outside of Las Vegas. Two words: Terrorists, earthquakes.
Nuclear should be the second to last option, so-called "clean coal" being the very last. Conservation measures as well as renewable energy should have been at the top of the list. I'm very disappointed today.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Given the history of Darlington -- a series of reactors that wound up costing six times the original projection -- I'm not sure that the site is entirely the best choice. Given the options for siting I would have picked Kincardine. Plants there along with improvements to the transmission lines from there would have been way less expensive. But the fact is regardless of where the reactors are nuclear power in itself is a real bogeyman both in terms of operating costs as well as what to do with all the waste material.
Right now, the Canadian government is considering burying all the waste somewhere in Saskatchewan -- not unlike the proposed Yucca Mountain project outside of Las Vegas. Two words: Terrorists, earthquakes.
Nuclear should be the second to last option, so-called "clean coal" being the very last. Conservation measures as well as renewable energy should have been at the top of the list. I'm very disappointed today.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Leader of the band
To all the fathers out there including my own, Happy Father's Day.
Now, a musical interlude from the late Dan Fogelberg.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Now, a musical interlude from the late Dan Fogelberg.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
One, two, three, what are we fighting for by the way?
It's been a little more than 24 hours since a brazen break-out at the prison in Kandahar and 1100 detainees escaped, after the Taliban launched a successful rocket attack. The Canadian Army and the US Marines are now in a joint operation trying to round up those who escaped from Sarposa, diverting the men in women in uniform from their job of protecting the southern part of Afghanistan from the Taliban. It's no accident that among those who broke out are 400 of the Taliban.
I certainly do wish those on the side of right all the luck that can be mustered in this emergency; but the fact is that Kabul and Kandahar among other cities in the region are far from secured as it is and the last thing Canada and the US needed was this migraine. More important, the border areas are still unsecured as well. We've been at it for seven years, and this is all we have to show for it? Little wonder why people back on the homefront are getting exasperated.
Another interesting point that should be mentioned: While I obviously am rooting for Barack Obama in this fall's elections in the States, he has said that he's looking to Canada to further increase its commitment in Afghanistan, by 1000 to 1500 troops; the price he's demanding for sending another 5000 Marines who would have otherwise been deployed to Iraq. I submit Afghanistan would have been much further along on the road to recovery if the Iraq expedition had never been fought in the first place but I also think Canadians have no appetite to top up our deployment when we've already said we're out of there in 2011.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
I certainly do wish those on the side of right all the luck that can be mustered in this emergency; but the fact is that Kabul and Kandahar among other cities in the region are far from secured as it is and the last thing Canada and the US needed was this migraine. More important, the border areas are still unsecured as well. We've been at it for seven years, and this is all we have to show for it? Little wonder why people back on the homefront are getting exasperated.
Another interesting point that should be mentioned: While I obviously am rooting for Barack Obama in this fall's elections in the States, he has said that he's looking to Canada to further increase its commitment in Afghanistan, by 1000 to 1500 troops; the price he's demanding for sending another 5000 Marines who would have otherwise been deployed to Iraq. I submit Afghanistan would have been much further along on the road to recovery if the Iraq expedition had never been fought in the first place but I also think Canadians have no appetite to top up our deployment when we've already said we're out of there in 2011.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Hampton walks away
Yesterday, Howard Hampton announced that he is resigning as the leader of the Ontario NDP. While I disagreed with him on much and could never find a way to vote for the party, I think he was absolutely right about the mess that came from electric deregulation; the ramifications which we will have to deal with for decades to come.
In last year's election he was trying to discuss some of the other real issues that are affecting Ontario greatly, especially child poverty and long-term care which are items I am also worried about. The election instead was fought over public education which while important is only one piece of the puzzle to make this province competitive again. They are issues that need to continue to be discussed. In that respect, it's now more regrettable than before that Ontario voters rejected proportional representation -- we should have the right to split the ticket if we so wish so we can have as many views as possible represented.
I respect people of principle, and Hampton was certainly that.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
In last year's election he was trying to discuss some of the other real issues that are affecting Ontario greatly, especially child poverty and long-term care which are items I am also worried about. The election instead was fought over public education which while important is only one piece of the puzzle to make this province competitive again. They are issues that need to continue to be discussed. In that respect, it's now more regrettable than before that Ontario voters rejected proportional representation -- we should have the right to split the ticket if we so wish so we can have as many views as possible represented.
I respect people of principle, and Hampton was certainly that.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
RIP Tim Russert
A friend of mine and I were on our way to meeting some other friends in Toronto late yesterday afternoon when I heard on the radio that Tim Russert had died at the age of 58, just hours after flying back to Washington from Rome to attend a celebration for his son's graduation and then going right back to work to tape an interview. To say that my friend and I were shocked would be an understatement. On the way back, we heard on my satellite radio -- tuned into Fox News, a rarity for me -- that Russert had an enlarged heart and coronary heart disease. Coming as it did barely a week after the passing of Jim McKay, it was very hard to comprehend and still is early this morning as I write these words.
Like many other bloggers, I had in recent months become very critical of Russert and the kinds of questions he wasn't asking and the fact he tended to have many more conservative guests than those who were liberal or neutral. However, there are two things that made him stand out as a great broadcaster. One, he did ask some very tough questions of his guests and was able to turn around a once very boring show, Meet the Press, which is the world's longest running program on television (on the air since 1947). A show that had lost its spark during the 1980s.
Two, he had incredible integrity. In last year's perjury trial of Scooter Libby, Russert wound up testifying despite a long-standing journalistic code not to reveal one's sources. When he was finally asked on NBC's nightly newscast why he responded to the sub poena both at the grand jury and later the trial -- once he had finished his testimony at the latter -- he bluntly told anchor Brian Williams something his mother and his father ("Big Russ") both had taught him; that if you tell the truth the first time you don't have to tell the same story twice. In other words, Libby was caught in a lie and Russert felt his duty to call him out even if he was an otherwise reliable insider.
That's the kind of ethics journalism badly needs right now, especially in a world where if and when Angelina Jolie Voight had her twins is considered more important than how many died in Iraq on the same day of the alleged "blessed event." And in this historic year, it will be all too painful to know that Russert won't be there to tell the story of how Obama v. McCain winds up.
That even the team at Fox was devastated shows you just how big this loss is. Coming as it did just before Father's Day and the realization that Big Russ will now have to bury his son is the biggest insult.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Like many other bloggers, I had in recent months become very critical of Russert and the kinds of questions he wasn't asking and the fact he tended to have many more conservative guests than those who were liberal or neutral. However, there are two things that made him stand out as a great broadcaster. One, he did ask some very tough questions of his guests and was able to turn around a once very boring show, Meet the Press, which is the world's longest running program on television (on the air since 1947). A show that had lost its spark during the 1980s.
Two, he had incredible integrity. In last year's perjury trial of Scooter Libby, Russert wound up testifying despite a long-standing journalistic code not to reveal one's sources. When he was finally asked on NBC's nightly newscast why he responded to the sub poena both at the grand jury and later the trial -- once he had finished his testimony at the latter -- he bluntly told anchor Brian Williams something his mother and his father ("Big Russ") both had taught him; that if you tell the truth the first time you don't have to tell the same story twice. In other words, Libby was caught in a lie and Russert felt his duty to call him out even if he was an otherwise reliable insider.
That's the kind of ethics journalism badly needs right now, especially in a world where if and when Angelina Jolie Voight had her twins is considered more important than how many died in Iraq on the same day of the alleged "blessed event." And in this historic year, it will be all too painful to know that Russert won't be there to tell the story of how Obama v. McCain winds up.
That even the team at Fox was devastated shows you just how big this loss is. Coming as it did just before Father's Day and the realization that Big Russ will now have to bury his son is the biggest insult.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Ireland says no
A follow-up to my post from yesterday ...
The final results are in, and it looks like voters in Ireland have, in fact, rejected the Treaty of Lisbon, and also by a fairly wide margin, 53.4% to 46.6%. This in spite of support from the establishment in the country including the two largest parties, the ruling Fianna Fail and the opposition Fine Gail.
This doesn't mean the end of the EU, not by a long shot. Ireland, as most of the continent, is in too deep already in part because it's part of the Eurozone. It does mean, however, that Brussels will have to do something it's been very reluctant to do in the past -- actually listen to the people rather than just the governments of the constituent states. If the EU is a partnership of democratic nations, than democracy should mean more than just an election to a neutered continental assembly every five years.
Common labour, safety and environmental standards, free movement of people and capital and common money make sense on the surface; and for the most part have contributed to Europe's recovery over the last six decades. Digging deep, however, my sense is that Europeans want the EU to get back to basics as a free trade zone and not be the all-encompassing behemoth that it is today, micromanaging nearly every aspect of people's lives except for defence, health, education and welfare -- about the only things the member states have left under their respective jurisdictions.
After all, 27 countries can't be expected to agree on absolutely everything. And I think the line towards even further integration should have ended once the Euro became reality. States still not part of the currency should, of course, have the right to opt in when conditions warrant; but they shouldn't have to give up any more. Not for themselves, not for their people. In fact, they should start taking some things back.
That doesn't make me a Euroskeptic -- not by any means. Just someone who thinks national sovereignty should still mean something in an open border world. I dread the day when Europe fields a united dream team for the World Cup of Soccer. As we've seen the last week or so with the Euro 2008 tournament, national pride still does count for something even in an open continent; a matter the Commission seems to forget at times.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
The final results are in, and it looks like voters in Ireland have, in fact, rejected the Treaty of Lisbon, and also by a fairly wide margin, 53.4% to 46.6%. This in spite of support from the establishment in the country including the two largest parties, the ruling Fianna Fail and the opposition Fine Gail.
This doesn't mean the end of the EU, not by a long shot. Ireland, as most of the continent, is in too deep already in part because it's part of the Eurozone. It does mean, however, that Brussels will have to do something it's been very reluctant to do in the past -- actually listen to the people rather than just the governments of the constituent states. If the EU is a partnership of democratic nations, than democracy should mean more than just an election to a neutered continental assembly every five years.
Common labour, safety and environmental standards, free movement of people and capital and common money make sense on the surface; and for the most part have contributed to Europe's recovery over the last six decades. Digging deep, however, my sense is that Europeans want the EU to get back to basics as a free trade zone and not be the all-encompassing behemoth that it is today, micromanaging nearly every aspect of people's lives except for defence, health, education and welfare -- about the only things the member states have left under their respective jurisdictions.
After all, 27 countries can't be expected to agree on absolutely everything. And I think the line towards even further integration should have ended once the Euro became reality. States still not part of the currency should, of course, have the right to opt in when conditions warrant; but they shouldn't have to give up any more. Not for themselves, not for their people. In fact, they should start taking some things back.
That doesn't make me a Euroskeptic -- not by any means. Just someone who thinks national sovereignty should still mean something in an open border world. I dread the day when Europe fields a united dream team for the World Cup of Soccer. As we've seen the last week or so with the Euro 2008 tournament, national pride still does count for something even in an open continent; a matter the Commission seems to forget at times.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
SCOTUS: What part of "no" doesn't Dubya understand, Part Trois
For the third time in four years, the US Supreme Court has ruled that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- the so-called "enemy combatants" -- do have rights. Significantly, the court upheld the right to seek habeas corpus in the civilian federal court system. It should be no surprise that this decision was made albeit by a narrow margin, 5-4. What is surprising in Boumediene v Bush (Case 06-1195) is the level of exasperation shown by the normally dour and conservative court.
Significantly Justice Anthony Kennedy on behalf of the majority wrote that the US government's claim that Guantanamo Bay is not part of the United States is as specious as the claim that Scotland is not part of the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Magna Carta -- or for that matter, Imperial India during the Raj. Furthermore, as Kennedy points out, if Guantanamo is part of Cuba then it follows that the detainees should naturally be able to seek redress in the Cuban courts but they're being denied even that privilege -- denied, by the United States.
In other words, the US Constitution is extended extraterritorial jurisdiction outside the US to wherever the US effectively has controlling jurisdiction. These includes embassies and consulates as well as military bases set up overseas and her ships at sea. The issue was also settled when it came to the question of whether the Constitution applied to territories it acquired at war including the Philippines (a US territory until just after World War II) as well as Guam and Puerto Rico (which remain territories to this day). To the US claim that a 1950 SCOTUS decision regarding war crimes in Germany, that the detainees there could not use habeas corpus, was dispositive of the issue, Kennedy replied in part that because the tribunals were multi-national it was unclear which country had jurisdiction; but there's no issue of who is in charge de facto in Gitmo.
It is of course, the right decision. But as Justice Souter pointed out in his concurrence, there is also an important issue that many of the detainees have been held without charge for over six years. This impinges on the right to a speedy trial. In a normal war, it may make sense to detain someone somewhat longer than normal, in part to ensure the accused's safety. But in an undeclared war such as the so-called war on terrorism, it has been largely the Bush administration that has set the terms of what constitutes the war. There is no doubt that al Qaeda attacked America and that was an act of war in its own right. However, where no nation has made the first strike (terrorists, after all, have no nation) one has to wonder who has the right to decide when the war has ended. Under the Bush rules, it will never end and therefore the accused -- presumed guilty until proven innocent contrary to habeas corpus -- should be held indefinitely.
Is America a dictatorship of one, or does the balance of powers mean anything? Put it another way: Does anyone wonder how it's possible Vatican City can be an absolute dictatorship when it promotes democracy in Europe (outside the walls of the Holy See) and elsewhere? The only permanent residents there are the Swiss Guard and a few others and even they don't get to vote on whoever gets to be the day-to-day Governor of the compound even if it is from a list of Cardinals.
Who polices the police, in other words? Bush says, no one. Uh-uh. It must be the courts, and the courts will not tolerate nor should it tolerate any attempts to have its jurisdiction circumscribed, no matter what Congress or the President has to say about it. That's as it should be. If Bush disagrees with that, tough luck -- but he said he "respects" the decision. Whatever respect means these days. Pretty much the same as what love meant to Prince Charles when he was married to Princess Diana.
Gitmo was a flawed process from day one. If the government believes it has the right people, then show the evidence and put the accused on trial -- whether that's in a civilian court or a court martial is beside the point; but a military commission where the outcome is predetermined is not the way, and certainly not consistent with habeas corpus. If Bush has any decency left in him, he can save some grace and move the prisoners to Fort Leavenworth or another military stockade; with trials to begin in 90 days or less.
As for the dissenters' claims that some detainees released have gone on to commit other atrocities, that is true in one case; but the counterpoint is, what if Gitmo is creating terrorists where none existed before? Moreover Americans insist upon basic consular rights when they are arrested or detained in other countries, in particular the right to be treated as nationals in the country they are visiting or working in would be. Americans owe the same courtesy to their guests, no matter how gross the crime may be.
Six years is more than enough to gather evidence; in fact it's so long that it's enough to attach jeopardy and produce a default verdict of not guilty.. After all, OJ Simpson gave the district attorney in Los Angeles 60 days when he was indicted in a preliminary hearing, and the LAPD had no issue with that. Some of the detainees at Gitmo are being held on minor immigration violations, no more -- and it's just plain stupid that they are being held to a different standard than Mexicans or Canadians who cross the border at an unauthorized point.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Significantly Justice Anthony Kennedy on behalf of the majority wrote that the US government's claim that Guantanamo Bay is not part of the United States is as specious as the claim that Scotland is not part of the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Magna Carta -- or for that matter, Imperial India during the Raj. Furthermore, as Kennedy points out, if Guantanamo is part of Cuba then it follows that the detainees should naturally be able to seek redress in the Cuban courts but they're being denied even that privilege -- denied, by the United States.
In other words, the US Constitution is extended extraterritorial jurisdiction outside the US to wherever the US effectively has controlling jurisdiction. These includes embassies and consulates as well as military bases set up overseas and her ships at sea. The issue was also settled when it came to the question of whether the Constitution applied to territories it acquired at war including the Philippines (a US territory until just after World War II) as well as Guam and Puerto Rico (which remain territories to this day). To the US claim that a 1950 SCOTUS decision regarding war crimes in Germany, that the detainees there could not use habeas corpus, was dispositive of the issue, Kennedy replied in part that because the tribunals were multi-national it was unclear which country had jurisdiction; but there's no issue of who is in charge de facto in Gitmo.
It is of course, the right decision. But as Justice Souter pointed out in his concurrence, there is also an important issue that many of the detainees have been held without charge for over six years. This impinges on the right to a speedy trial. In a normal war, it may make sense to detain someone somewhat longer than normal, in part to ensure the accused's safety. But in an undeclared war such as the so-called war on terrorism, it has been largely the Bush administration that has set the terms of what constitutes the war. There is no doubt that al Qaeda attacked America and that was an act of war in its own right. However, where no nation has made the first strike (terrorists, after all, have no nation) one has to wonder who has the right to decide when the war has ended. Under the Bush rules, it will never end and therefore the accused -- presumed guilty until proven innocent contrary to habeas corpus -- should be held indefinitely.
Is America a dictatorship of one, or does the balance of powers mean anything? Put it another way: Does anyone wonder how it's possible Vatican City can be an absolute dictatorship when it promotes democracy in Europe (outside the walls of the Holy See) and elsewhere? The only permanent residents there are the Swiss Guard and a few others and even they don't get to vote on whoever gets to be the day-to-day Governor of the compound even if it is from a list of Cardinals.
Who polices the police, in other words? Bush says, no one. Uh-uh. It must be the courts, and the courts will not tolerate nor should it tolerate any attempts to have its jurisdiction circumscribed, no matter what Congress or the President has to say about it. That's as it should be. If Bush disagrees with that, tough luck -- but he said he "respects" the decision. Whatever respect means these days. Pretty much the same as what love meant to Prince Charles when he was married to Princess Diana.
Gitmo was a flawed process from day one. If the government believes it has the right people, then show the evidence and put the accused on trial -- whether that's in a civilian court or a court martial is beside the point; but a military commission where the outcome is predetermined is not the way, and certainly not consistent with habeas corpus. If Bush has any decency left in him, he can save some grace and move the prisoners to Fort Leavenworth or another military stockade; with trials to begin in 90 days or less.
As for the dissenters' claims that some detainees released have gone on to commit other atrocities, that is true in one case; but the counterpoint is, what if Gitmo is creating terrorists where none existed before? Moreover Americans insist upon basic consular rights when they are arrested or detained in other countries, in particular the right to be treated as nationals in the country they are visiting or working in would be. Americans owe the same courtesy to their guests, no matter how gross the crime may be.
Six years is more than enough to gather evidence; in fact it's so long that it's enough to attach jeopardy and produce a default verdict of not guilty.. After all, OJ Simpson gave the district attorney in Los Angeles 60 days when he was indicted in a preliminary hearing, and the LAPD had no issue with that. Some of the detainees at Gitmo are being held on minor immigration violations, no more -- and it's just plain stupid that they are being held to a different standard than Mexicans or Canadians who cross the border at an unauthorized point.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)