Rabid Socialist Bites NDP Donut Jack Layton

Leave it to a frothing at the mouth socialist to be the first to take a bite out of NDP leader Jack Layton. Stan Hister on Rabble.ca begins his article by calling Layton a donut.

Hister's main complaint appears to be what Hister sees as Layton's distancing of the NDP from socialist principles. The crux of Hister's argument appears to be that only socialism can cure society's ills. He believes in the old revolutionary top down restructuring of society where where corporate elites are replaced by bureaucratic ones. It is a tired refrain from a form of thinking that has seen its heyday come and go. But it is none-the-less important to confront these arguments, and hopefully add a few nails to the coffin of an ideology that when fully realized is capable of horrors as great as those of any corporate dominatated society.

The foundation of Hister's argument is that Layton, like a donut, is full of empty calories in the form of quaint homolies about dealing with change on the local level. But like a donut Layton has no nutritional value, because he does not provide an alternative to capitalism, which from a socialist perspective is the root of all evil.

Hister supports his argument by quoting from a Layton interview. However, Hister conveniently paraphrases Layton's response, and twists Layton's words to fit his sugary pastry characiture. Compare where Hister writes:

“At one point Panitch says, 'We get the feeling that the kind of politics you're [Layton] engaged in walks around the margins of capital. You're not talking about taking capital away from capital. Is that where we're condemned to be operating — only where capital leaves us some space? Is there a vision beyond that?' Essentially Layton's answer is yes to the first question and no to the second. Of course he doesn't come out and say that. Instead he goes into a spiel about achieving big changes through 'a huge number of local actions.'“

And this is Layton's actual quote from the interview in question:

“My belief is that the way you transform the big phenomenon is by a huge number of local actions, a multitude of specific interventions at the local level. The older notion of fundamental once-and-for-all transformation of society is less likely to succeed. Besides it's unpalatable to Canadians and to me as well.”

Hister dismisses Layton's argument that substantive change can be achieved locally and gradually over time, because it doesn't appeal to his revolutionary form of socialism. Hister goes on to declare that replacing capitalism is the only only solution. “There's no mystery about what's missing here, about what should be where the hole in the donut is. It's an alternative to capitalism, i.e. a vision of socialism.”

I've always been wary of people willing to depend on an ideology to do their thinking for them. It encourages the kind of lazy thinking and lack of critical awareness that damns local needs and local realities in favour of pursuing utopian fantasies.

We've seen this sort of stupidity operating on a large scale most recently in the United States with a powerful neo-conservative elite setting the American agenda. Their version of utpoia is of American world hegemony, where the United States uses its military might to pacify, democratize and bring the free market to the world. We're already seeing the beginning of the horrors of their first project in Iraq.

“Destroying the village to save it” isn't the kind of change I want to be involved in, nor do I think does Layton. A true and inclusive vision of change requires a lot of hard work and a lot of attention being paid to local needs on a local level. To start willy nilly restructuing society to better fit a utopian ideal at its essense describes the old saying “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

Providing groups and individuals in society with the tools and the incentives to affect positive change should be the role of government. That can come from something as simple as taxing polluters and rewarding green energy. Providing a stable foundation of civic society with a functioning public infrastructure that the public can use to build their own businesses and communities should also be the role of government.

But telling people how they should live every instant of their lives be it either through corporate controlled and promoted consumption, or through elaborate government controlled bueaucracy, not only removes choice, it focuses power in an elite.

Healthy change comes slowly, through painstaking negotiation and endless discussion. Hister seems sadly unaware of even this possibility. Instead he ends his article with an appeal to what else, but utopia... literally nowhere.

NDP's Environmental Platform

Today the NDP released the environmental plank of their election platform. It is definitely a progressive approach, and its focus appears to be on energy consumption, particularly on efforts to create jobs through new environmentally sustainable business ventures in addition to simply cleaning up the environment.

Here are the major points taken from their press release, each point is followed by my commentary:

Climate Change/Clean Energy

• Creating the Climate Change Exchange, which would auction off emission credits for corporations with a decreasing number of credits available, creating market incentives to pollute less. Proceeds from the exchange would fund green energy projects, including an east-west transmission grid to help replace coal power with hydro power.

Emission credits are billed as a method to alleviate some of the pain that will be felt by polluting industries. Personally, I think they are more for political show. Credits won't convince polluters to support the NDP, and there is a possibility that they can be exploited. Money to fund green energy projects can just as easily be found by tying surtaxes on dirty energy sources to a green energy fund.

• Leveraging all of the government’s Petro-Canada stake to create a new Crown corporation for renewable energy, with innovation centres in solar, tidal, wind and geothermal energy across Canada, located close to fossil fuel centres.

This is an interesting idea. I'm usually in favour of tying money gained from industry directly to innovation in that industry, as it keeps the process transparent. The industry isn't simply taxed blindly and the money dropped into general revenue.

• Phasing in a tax-shifting regime to wean Canada away from its dependency on fossil and nuclear energy and moving aggressively towards a new, green energy future.

I don't like the shifty language used here. I think it means dirty energy sources face higher taxes, while green sources receive reduced taxes and/or tax credits. This is a vital incentive to move to sustainable sources of energy. I think tax revenue here is best tied directly to providing tax credits and grants to green energy companies and research.

• Establishing a national building retrofit program to cut pollution, create jobs and lower energy bills, paid for through a revolving loan fund with funds coming from and profits going to the Canada Pension Plan.

A good idea, but it should function in conjuction with higher taxes for buildings that don't meet enhanced standards, especially if adoption of retrofit programs is slow. Again revenues from this form of taxation should flow directly back into supporting the retrofit program.

• Supporting aggressive investment in public transit and passenger rail; and mandatory fuel efficiency for vehicles as part of a green car industrial strategy that includes working with progressive American states to create common markets for green cars.

Another good idea. Working directly with municipalities would help with public transit, and again tying taxes (e.g., on gas, on gas guzzlers) to help fund public transit would be wise.

Environmental Public Health

• Implementing a public infrastructure program with a focus on drinking water and waste water treatment.

I think everyone remembers Walkerton. For many parts of Canada this has been an area that has been neglected for too long. An eye should be kept on new water treatment approaches that are less expensive and more environmentally friendly. Take a look here.

• Creating a federal department of water stewardship to develop common standards, and to implement a ban on the bulk export of water.

This one will piss off the Americans, but it is a very good idea none-the-less. Water is going to be the oil of this century. Making sure Canadians have proper control of the resource so that we receive a fair return, and that our own needs are being met, is vital.

• Applying the polluter-pay principle and creating jobs by cleaning up toxic sites.

For too long polluters have gotten away with dumping toxic waste. Fines need to be massively beefed up. Corporate reoffenders should be decertified and their assets sold off, and management should face criminal charges, fines and jail time.

• Overhauling the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to reverse its current focus on voluntary action, and replace it with mandatory pollution prevention.

Like the above point, all the laws need to be harsh enough to ensure that it will cost polluters more to pollute than the money they will save by "externalizing" the cost of proper disposal.

• Supporting farmers trying to reduce dependence on pesticides, and supporting municipalities in legal battles with chemical corporations.

One of the areas the NDP needs to focus on a little better is food production. They should tax pesticides, factory farms and agribusiness in general. The proceeds should go directly to tax credits and grants to organic farming and similar types of sustainable food production. Increasing the cost of polluted food, and subsidizing organic food will encourge growth of the organic food industry. Being generally more labour intensive organic farming will also promote job growth.

• Implementing a moratorium on new genetically engineered crops, and respecting Canadians’ right to know what they eat through mandatory labelling of GMOs.

This is simply common sense. GMOs impact on the environment have not been properly studied over long enough a period of time. In addition, people should have the right to know what they are eating.

• Passing a true endangered species law that protects species’ habitat and gives scientists, not politicians, the power to determine whether a species is at risk.

That Canada doesn't have a strict set of standards for determining endangered species is a bad joke. This particular move is long overdue.

Fear Mongering at Bargain Rates!

In today's National Post, ex-CIA spook James Woolsey is quoted as saying that the upcoming Canadian election may provoke a terrorist attack, and presents the Madrid bombings as an example of why. He suggests the terrorists were out to influence the Spanish elections, and suggests they succeeded, because the Spanish are planning of pulling troops out of Iraq.

Spook is a good name for Woolsey, because all he's selling is fear. Woolsey makes no case for what sort of direction terrorists would be seeking to influence Canadian elections. Given that Canada didn't join the Iraq War, committing terrorist violence here would simply harden the Canadian resolve to fight terrorist groups.

Moreover his argument that Spanish reaction to the Madrid bombings hurts the so-called war on terror also does not hold up under even light examination. The Iraq War appears to have created more terrorists. Resources that could have been spent fighting terrorists, have instead been spent invading and occupying Iraq. The reaction of the Spanish electorate appears to be the most rational. They are moving to refocus their efforts on fighting terrorists, instead of being distracted by imperialist fantasies.

But on the whole, I really find this war on terrorism idea loathsome. Stating that we're at war is a form of terrorization, and it is a distraction from other better approaches to solving the problem of terrorist groups.

You can no more make war on terror than you can on drugs or crime or poverty. The metaphor is a very poor one because these kinds of problems cannot be solved by violence. Reducing the threat of terrorism can only be accomplished by taking actions in a number of areas. Using military might should be the least important of these. Combating terrorist groups is best done through cooperation between different levels of government and government services, along with information sharing between countries. It is first and foremost a police action. It is about finding and arresting the criminals who are planning the violence. Bombing, invading and occupying Iraq has done nothing to stop terrorist criminals.

But, it is just as important to address the roots of terrorist violence. Terrorist groups receive a lot of the support they do because of the social inequity and oppression in many regions of the world, and particularly in the Middle East. The industrialized west is complicit in much of this social inequity, all in the name of maintaining access to cheap labour and cheap natural resources. Terrorism will only increase if these inequities continue. Making the effort to address these inequities will reduce the support many terrorists receive.

Confronting the ideologies that support terror through counter argument and by setting a better example are also vital actions to take. You can't simply allow the right of free expression to void responsibility to argue against the inciting of violence and hatred by radical, militant Islamic groups. It is imperative that alternate points of view be provided, but simply talking the talk is not enough, we have to walk the walk, we have to set a better example.

Allowing the violation of civil rights, committing assassinations, essentially ignoring the rule of law because we have the might to make right; all of these things demonstrate a willingness to use violence. Supporting oppressive governments to gain access to cheap oil or other resources again uses violence to get our way. Is it any wonder that violence is a tool terrorists are willing to use, when it is a tool so readily employed by the wealthiest nations? Our use of violence may coerce some while our gaze is on them, but as soon as our back is turned they will find a way to strike back, and one of those ways is terrorism.

Declaring war on terror simply dumbs the whole issue down. It is the refuge of salesmen looking to peddle their services. They want to scare you into buying their very simple plan. But to truly make a difference requires thought and no small measure of sacrifice.

Boob of the Week

While there are always boob candidates every week, I tend not to like repeating the same person too often. On the boob-o-meter Bush and Blair always tend to get the highest rating week by week, but it gets kind of boring blasting them all the time, even if they deserve it.

This week, however, there have been boobs a plenty here in Canada. The federal government sponsorship scandal continues to amaze me, both with the blatant corruption involved, but also now on the inept nature of the parlimentary inquiry investigating it.

This brings me to this week's boob, Myriam Bedard. Bedard is a former Canadian Olympic champion who has been in the news recently because of her desire to toot her whistle about the sponsorship scandal, of which she apparently has some knowledge. Bedard appeared before the sponsorship inquiry this week, and made a number of unsubstantiated allegations that appear based on heresay evidence. Now I can understand wanting to help unearth corruption, but you'd think someone like Bedard, as familiar as she is with being in the media spotlight, along with her business experience, would understand that libel can result in a lawsuit.

Now I agree that it is certainly important to get to the bottom of this scandal. But since it is dealing with potentially criminal activities, not to mention the damage it will do to the reputations of those involved, it needs to follow some form of due process. As the days pass the inquiry is looking more and more like a three ring circus.

Sharon Wants Terror

With the Monday morning murder of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the Sharon government of Israel has clearly signaled that they want to escalate the violence in the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. As always it is innocent civilians who will suffer most from this cycle of revenge.

What I find truly abominable, is that the Sharon government knows full well the kind of revenge Palestinians will seek for this act. Yet they are still willing engage in atrocious acts that will guarantee an atrocious response. The Sharon government seems willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent Israeli civilians, because they know they can simply blame the deaths on Palestinian terrorists.

And of course the Sharon government and their families have little to fear directly from Palestinian retaliation. No they get to hide behind Israeli tax payer provided 24 hour security. But the bulk of Israeli civilians now must try to get on with their lives while waiting for the next suicide bombing. Sharon can then use those murders of Israeli men, women and children as a pretext for further atrocities against Palestinians.

Will the Conservatives be Less Popular with a Leader?

Scott Piatkowski wrote an interesting column that appears on rabble.ca. He argues that the Conservative Party will be less popular once they've chosen a leader.

His argument is that whoever wins will alienate voters in one part of the country or another, and he brings up a number of reasons why Harper (the likely winner) will almost certainly do badly east of Alberta.

Living in Vancouver, but being originally from the Maritimes (I'm including Newfoundland here, where most of my family still lives), I find that a lot of people out in this part of the country have a remarkable ignorance for the central and eastern parts of Canada, but the east coastal regions in particular.

What a lot of people in BC and Alberta forget, is that their provinces have been built on the easy availability of natural resources. The only major source of natural resources historically for the Maritimes have been the fisheries, which have largely collapsed.

Cutting down trees and pumping oil out of the ground ain't exactly rocket science. But instead of recognizing their bounty for what it is, westerners have taken the puzzling position that they have some sort of innate self-reliance and go-get'em attitude that brings in money. Harper in particular has repeatedly expressed this western attitude without seeming to understand its natural resource foundation.

For an example of how Albertans react to hard times, look at how they squealed for government support with the damage to the cattle industry brought on by BSE, a crisis created by their greed to save money by using cheap polluted feed.

But more importantly, where an election is concerned, Harper has in the past, expressed the epitome of western bias toward the Maritimes and Quebec in past comments. Piatkowski, lays out a number of Harper's quotes in detail to remind us of his knee-jerk bias.

If Harper becomes leader of the Conservatives, the other parties simply have to remind the electorate of Harper's own past words. He'll get little or no support in either Quebec (which will likely vote Bloc or Liberal) or the Maritimes (which will likely vote Liberal or NDP). The big question will be what will happen in Ontario, because BC and Alberta are likely to be solid Conservative territory, and Saskatchewan and Manitoba will probably be a mix of all three national parties. I just don't see Ontarians, after an election campaign, being able to see Harper as a national leader. They'll either be scared off by his western bias, his Alliance roots in social conservatism, or his brown-nosing pro-Americanism (he was pro-Iraq War after all).

Before the Conservatives can ever hope to be considered a serious national party, they have to come up with a real national candidate. Stronach isn't ready, she'd get eaten up in debates, especially once everyone switched to French, and her lack of experience would lose her a lot of support come voting day. What about Clement? He has less leadership charisma than my dachshund. Feisty, sure, but he also has a lot of Ontario Conservative baggage.

One thing is for sure, the election is going to be messy.

Harper Tries to Savage NDP, but Left Biting Hot Air

Awww...isn't this cute. In today's Globe and Mail Stephen Harper is quoted doing his darndest to attack the NDP by trotting out a number of tired old cliches used as traditional attacks against the left. I'll summarize each point with some commentary:

• The NDP are anti-free enterprise: Well depending on your definition of free enterprise this has some truth. If you think free enterprise means allowing corporations to run roughshod over the environment and happily avoid their tax responsibilities, then yes the NDP would require corporate "citizens" to be more responsible. But a more apt definition would be anti-rapacious enterprise. I would, however, like to see the NDP's full platform on this point (which apparently comes out next week). While I think repealing some of the recent Martin corporate tax cuts is a good idea, I think they should be replaced by progressive taxation in the form of pollution tax credits and outright grants for green industries, while polluters get taxed at a rate that takes the damage they do to the environment into consideration. I think there is a lot of economic potential in fostering green technology and innovation.



• The NDP are against free trade: Well free trade over the past 16 years has proven to have been a mixed bag. One very apparent free trade trend is the movement of jobs to cheaper labour markets. The Americans are currently hand wringing over the amount of white collar jobs being outsourced to India. In reality free trade has proven to be more about the freedom for corporations to exploit cheap resources and labour, thus reducing opportunities in the areas they sell their products. In addition, with the Wal-Mart-ization of North America in particular, we actually have less choice, as large conglomerates force smaller business out through predatory pricing which results in a corporation getting to decide what products we're allowed to buy.


It's a vicious circle, first reduce the public's available income by moving jobs to cheaper markets. That lack of income forces the public to search for ever cheaper goods. Offer the public cheaper goods produced through exploited resources and labour in areas with lenvironmentalnal and labour laws. Sell those goods in direct competition with smaller retailers in order to drive them out of business, and cement yourself in a monopoly position where you can then dictate product availability and price. Rinse and repeat.

Free trade as an idea is old and has proven to be flawed. It has only brought great wealth to a few, while the standard of living for many has declined. Fair trade as an alternative concept is gaining strength, because it focuses on a negotiation where the goal is to find the cheapest fair price. Fair in this case being a price where the producer can turn a modest profit, and not be forced into selling product below the cost of production.


• The NDP are against balanced budgets: This is a laughable accusation given the history of right-wing governments in Canada and the US. Layton rightly points out the kind of deficits right-wing governments in BC, Ontario, and the US are willing to wrack up. Given recent history, we have far more to fear from a Conservative agenda that would slash taxes in favour of corporate profiteering, plunging Canada into an ever deepening spiral of crumbling infrastructure and social services. The resulting poor quality of those services would provide the pretext for the privatization of not just health care, but of all traditional public services; leaving only the protection of private property as the domain of the government. In other words the government would only have to worry about the police and the military....a police state. Balanced budgets are simply about not spending more than you're taking in. The NDP are unproven at the federal level on this point, but there is no evidence that they would do anything other than balance the budget.
  

These attacks by Harper are likely part of his strategy to appear more prime ministerial in the lead-up to the leadership vote on the weekend. I also think they are motivated in part by, as the Globe article suggests, a response to the bandied about idea of a Liberal minority government. But I think there is some legitimate concern on the part of Conservative party members in losing swing and undecided voters, particularly in the west, to the NDP. BC voters in particular have a habit of swinging wildly in their voting habits, as ideology historically isn't their primary concern.

Given that the Martin crew are really just right-wing ideologues in red colours, the traditional right-wing crowd will likely stick to Martin. The exception being alienated and upset western voters in Alberta (as always).

What will make this coming election interesting is how well Layton can sell the NDP, and tar the other parties. With Harper as leader, the Conservatives can easily be targeted with the social conservative baggage of the Alliance. That will scare away a lot of voters east of Alberta, which should split the right-wing vote in the rest of the country between the Liberals and the Conservatives. That leaves a sizable chunk of voters with the only hesitations to voting NDP being "will a vote for the NDP be a wasted vote?", and the propagandized fear of a left-wing party's mythical "fiscal foolishness".

Poor Budgeting Yet Again a Feature of the Martin Government

Today's Toronto Star has provided a leaked run down of the Martin Government's 2004 budget.

The Liberals are spinning the budget as "back-to-basics", and here is a list of some major spending items with commentary:

• 11 billion for companies involved in R&D, however, what isn't mentioned is over how many years this money is being spread. I've also heard many complaints from the business community about the time it takes for the federal government to pay these grants once they've been officially awarded, sometimes literally years later or not at all.



• Extra money for the military and foreign affairs is being put off. If this is accurate, it is yet again a disgusting betrayal of the Canadian military that desperately needs new equipment. We all know about the helicopter fiasco, but the Canadian military suffers from equipment shortages at all levels, not just big ticket items. This lack of funding is particularly odious given the next point.



• 4 billion to pay down the debt this year. Yes that's 4 billion. Not having a deficit I can understand, but spending 4 billion dollars to pay down the debt when there are so many areas (the military being one glaring example) that desperately need additional dollars, is criminal. This move is pure politics, and has absolutely no financially prudent motives. Martin is simply trying to rely on the propaganda that got him into the PM's job in the first place, the illusion of fiscal prudence.



• An "economic prudence" cushion of 4 billion to cover unforeseen expenses. Emergency funds are important, but a number of the emergencies Canada has had in the past year were direct results of government cuts to public health (SARS) and infrastructure (Blackout). Taken in conjunction with the 4 billion in debt repayment, it is not prudent to set aside 8 billion dollars in a single year that could be better spent on economic stimulation and a reinvesting in public infrastructure, particularly in the area of public health.



• Cattle farmers to receive 600 million in federal assistance to ease the effects of BSE. A far wiser expenditure would be to provide grants and tax credits to cattle farmers who raise their cattle in environmentally sustainable ways, and begin to heavily tax the feed producers and the factory farm feed lots that appear to be the root of the BSE problem.



• Student aid in the form of "learning bonds" that encourage low-income families to put money away for their children's post-secondary education. What a pant-load this is. In other words, Martin wants to appear to be doing something while doing absolutely nothing. This program will get 100 million (over how many years?), all of that money will likely go to paying the bureaucracy that manages the program. But more important, low-income families struggle to get by as it is, most can't afford to feed their children properly, let alone worry about their future education. In all likelihood, more money will be spent on the program bureaucracy than what is actually saved by low-income families.



• Increase student loan limits....well given the rise in tuition fees this should be a given, but it in no way reduces the financial burden on students. It just adds more to the debt they will have to repay.



• 2 billion nation-wide to "top-up" health care spending. Taken in conjunction with a 4 billion dollar debt repayment and a 4 billion cushion, 2 billion is a slap in the face.

As I mentioned in the points, I can understand avoiding a deficit. While an argument can be made that a deficit can be a wise move when the economy needs to be stimulated to grow, we are not in a recessionary period. But neither are we in a position of vast economic surplus. Wasting money on debt repayment is not financially prudent. As a comparison on a personal level, if your car, which you needed to get to your job, needed repairs, it would be unwise to pay a big chunk of your mortgage principle instead of fixing your car.

What we have here is a budget that lacks basic fiscal intelligence. It is simply a tool the Martin goverment is using to remind Canadians about what made Martin popular as finance minister. So in that sense the budget may be politically effective, while at the same time being economically harmful.

Rachel Corie

Many people in the alternate press, particularly that based on the web, are today remembering the death of Rachel Corie. Rachel was a young American who was murdered by the Israeli military while protesting the demolition of Palestinian homes in the Gaza Strip. In fact she was crushed under the tracks of the Israeli bulldozer she was attempting to stop.

I always feel it is important to consider in rememberances such as this, that Rachel was one among many thousands of innocent victims of the Israeli military and their depredations into Palestinian territory. It is a sad fact that Rachel, having been a young American woman, is seen in the eyes of many in West as somehow more noticable, or dare I say it more important than the many countless Palestinians murdered.

It both saddens and angers me that only when incidents of injustice and horror strike close enough to home that people are willing to take note. But I always try to remind myself that, despite the taint of pure self-interest, it is vital that others do take note. And with that taking note, I hope that at least one person resolves to make some kind of difference in stopping the injustice that occurs daily for the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

Martin Preparing the Ground for Scuttling Kyoto?

An interesting little tidbit just appeared on the CBC website. Apparently the Alberta Minister of the Environment, Lorne Taylor, is claiming a change in Ottawa's attitude to the Kyoto Protocol that is more in line with Alberta's stance on the issue.

Alberta has repeatedly objected to the measures in Kyoto claiming they would harm the economy (apparently the environment can go screw itself).

If Martin is making this move now it suggests he is trying to curry favour in the West in order to ameliorate the harm done by Ad-gate.

Of course I doubt the moves against Kyoto are going to come directly from Martin's mouth, unless he feels he has a significant amount to gain politically, as doing that might hurt support elsewhere.

But I think this is yet another indication of the kind of backroom, underhanded dealing we'll get to see from a Martin led government. Say one thing in public, do something else behind the backs of Canadians.

Why Walls Won't Work

The weekend suicide bombings, in the Israeli port of Ashdod by two Palestinian teens from the Gaza Strip, highlight the flaws of an approach to eliminating terrorism that relies simply on security.

The teens in question managed to slip out of Gaza, despite the enclave being ringed by the Israeli security fence. They managed to somehow get into the heavily guarded Ashdod port and detonate their bombs, killing another eight or ten people. Luckily the bombers' intended target, fuel storage tanks at the port, were too far to be affected.

This incident puts into focus the major flaw in relying on security, particularly in the form of a barrier, for preventing attacks. All barriers are permeable. All security measures can be defeated.

A terrorist, particularly a suicide bomber, who seeks to defeat a barrier only has to defeat it once to be effective. Defeating security is a technical problem. It is about figuring out the process of avoiding the measures in place. Taking planned violent and suicidal action, however, requires another kind of defeat. It requires a defeat of all sense of empathy and self preservation.

It is all too easy to dehumanize suicide bombers. They commit terrible crimes, and usually against civilians. From my point of view it seems inconceivable that I could reach a state where I would be willing to sacrifice myself simply to blindly strike out at some enemy.

But what many in privileged surroundings forget, is that it isn't some nebulous form of evil that motivates suicide bombers. They are, after all, human beings. They have feelings, they think, they have families, they have loved ones. Suicide bombers don't simply appear magically at the behest of some unfathomable evil, they are creations of their environment.

To reach a state where they are willing to die to kill others, is to be in an environment where that horrible choice seems like a logical response. The hatred and despair they feel must remove any normal emotional, moral or ethical hesitation that would stop the destruction of not only their own lives, but the lives of their loved ones who will mourn their loss, and even the lives of their victims. They must somehow believe that to continue to exist in their current environment is worse than dying. They must have no hope.

A crucial question then comes to mind. What in their environment makes suicide bombers consider their ultimate act a rational choice? Simply dismissing their choice as irrational and evil, whether because of rage or political motivation, is a trap. It perpetuates a cycle of violence without end. It does nothing to solve the problem. Everyone is dehumanized.

Taking the time to look at the environment, and from the knowledge gained, find ways to bring back hope, is the only means of creating safety. People who truly believe that they can make a positive difference by helping to build a society, will almost always choose that path over trying to destroy it. The key is to provide an environment where people have that choice.

Imprisoning people in a fence simply makes their everyday lives more difficult, and kills hope. It encourages the very violence it claims to prevent.

If Israelis truly want to live in peace, then they have to begin by creating the foundation for an environment where Palestinians believe they can build a better society. Why do the Israelis have to take the first step? Because they have the overwhelming balance of power. They live in vastly more privileged surroundings than do the Palestinians. They have far more resources at their disposal to start building that foundation.

Yes the Palestinians must also change their ways, but in order for that to happen they must see signs of hope for better lives. As long as Israel fences them in, steals their land, and strangles them economically, that can never happen.

The Spanish Kick Out the Pro-War Party

I must admit to more than a little satisfaction at seeing the defeat of Spain's Popular Party in Sunday's elections. A government that supports a war against the wishes of the majority of its country's population does not deserve to remain in power. But what I find interesting about much of the mainstream press coverage is again another glaring example of bandwagon thinking, and a blatant attempt at manufacturing a sensational story.

Throughout the English speaking western press, the theories behind the Popular Party's loss to the Socialists are focused on the skewing effects of the terrorist bombing last week. The press, however, is also making other assumptions taken as fact.

The first assumption is that the Popular Party was guaranteed to win before the Madrid bombing. Presumably the reporting of a Popular Party victory is based on pre-election polling. But the slant of reporting in most of the articles and coverage I've seen neither emphasizes the unreliability of polls, nor the fact that earlier press coverage predicted a very close election, and likely a minority government. For an example of the kind of slant I'm talking about, here is a snippet of an article from the Washington Post:

"While opinion polls taken before the attacks had given Aznar's Popular Party a comfortable lead, voters overwhelmingly endorsed candidates from the opposition Socialist Party, whose leader, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, has promised to immediately withdraw Spain's 1,300 troops from Iraq, redirect Spain's foreign policy away from the United States and restore good relations with such European allies as France and Germany that had opposed the Iraq war."

Note the casual insertion of assumption in the initial sentence above suggesting the Popular party had a comfortable lead, something not born out in pre-bombing coverage of the Spanish election. A minority government is not a "comfortable lead".

The second major assumption appearing in much of the mainstream press coverage is that the bombing attacks were the deciding factor in the defeat of the Popular Party. While a stronger argument can be made for this assumption, the result of the election only partially supports it.

Again if you look to the quote above, the Washington Post article suggests that "voters overwhelmingly endorsed candidates from the opposition Socialist Party". This is clearly overstating the case. The Socialists will have to form a minority government. There was no overwhelming endorsement.

At best it can be argued that the bombing in Madrid convinced enough undecided voters to vote Socialist in the face of the Popular Party's initial mishandling of the bombing aftermath. By mishandling I'm referring to the attempts by the Popular Party to immediately blame the Basque separatist organization ETA for the bombing, even before an investigation had started. Many Spanish voters apparently saw this move by the Popular Party as an attempt to place blame on an old enemy, instead of a new one gained by Spanish support of the war in Iraq.

What I find interesting about the effect the Madrid bombing had on the election, is that it appeared to get the undecided to actually vote, instead of sit-out the election. It also seems to have convinced enough swing voters (voters with no ideological loyalties), to vote Socialist.

To suggest, however, that the bombing is responsible for the Socialist victory is misleading, and very poor journalism. The election was already going to be close. The Popular Party mishandling of the aftermath of the bombing appears to be the real culprit. The behaviour of the ruling party reminded Spanish voters of the mentality of those who took Spain into the Iraq War, and the reasons many of them opposed it. To sum up that mentality: it is one of total self interest; where the will to power is allowed by any means, including the exploitation of terrorist murder, and where the expression of conscience is only important for the sake of appearance.

It takes effort to explain complexity. It is far simpler and far more sensational for lazy journalists merely blame the Madrid bombing for a massive turn around in election results. The truth is that there was no massive turn to the election. The truth is that a small slice of the Spanish population decided to use their franchise to vote with their conscience.

Madrid Horror

Resorting to terror, whether by planting bombs on commuter trains, or dropping them from the sky on civilians, can never be considered reasonable or even sane behaviour. The kind of brutal destruction of innocent life that follows from such attacks most often encourages greater violence.

I firmly believe the use of terror can only come about when someone, overwhelmed by an intense anger and hatred, seeks to form what in the hater's mind is a logical response. They essentially rationalize a truly irrational and visceral drive. They package it, refine it, and then look for ways to express it. But that horrifying rationalization is not limited to "evil" people hiding in mountain caves of some failed state.

One thing that tends to get lost in much of the agonizing over the loss of life in the aftermath of terror, is that the anger and horror that result are universal human emotions. I believe at these times, when the western media focuses intensely on carnage so close to home, we must also recognize those acts of terror perpetrated in our names as members of the western industrial world.

No I am not excusing the horror in Madrid or in any other terrorist massacre. I am pointing out how important it is at times such as these to not merely turn inward and allow grief and anger to grow into hatred. People must take the time to examine the roots of all this violence. Preventing it is clearly not achieved by simply responding with violence. Preventing it is clearly not achieved by chasing after the myth of security through the destruction of our liberty by creating a police state.

We have to be firm in the face of violence, but we do not have to be brutal. Western civilization claims to be founded on principles of liberty, fraternity and egalitarianism. All too often, while leading our comfortable lives, we forget that such principles are not simply rights but responsibilities. Helping others attain those principles in a shape and form that both they and we can agree upon is a solemn duty. It is a process that takes both time and material sacrifice.

Unfortunately, it appears very few of our governments and even our fellow citizens are willing to recognize this need for sacrifice. Consumption dominates our lives. Buying the best brand names becomes the principle by which we live our lives. That attitude has to change before we can ever hope to live in a safer world.

Get the Violence Out of Hockey

It's not often that I agree with Jeffery Simpson of the Globe and Mail. I find his frequent "Toronto is the Centre of the Universe" mindset a tired cliche, and it infects far too much of his writing. I also disagree with a lot of his opinions on politics. He often demonstrates far too cozy an attitude with the powers that be. That said, I do have to agree with his recent article on hockey violence.

Violence and hockey have a long and intertwined history. In fact, it wasn't so long ago that a player position called a rover existed. The rover's unofficial purpose was to seek out and incapacitate the other team's players, primarily through the use of the rover's stick and the target player's head. Blood on the ice was a common occurance during games in the 1920s and earlier, and revenge was an institution. The kind of men who would gun for you in those days would have made Don Cherry in his prime shake in his skates.

Today the problem with hockey, particularly in the NHL, is an unofficial love of violence, because officials and owners seem to believe it brings in the audience. Of course they deny it, and they react with mock horror when extreme examples of hockey violence, like Todd Bertuzzi's recent attack on Steve Moore occur.

If the NHL really wants to stop incidents like Bertuzzi's from happening then they have to crack down on all instances of violence. Simply making examples of specific incidents and particular players, while allowing other incidents to go unremarked and the players unpunished, will do nothing to stop the problem.

Our game should be about skill, not about who is the toughest most violent bastard on the ice. The NHL should not be allowing the kind of headhunting of top players that takes place when the opportunities present. The Bertuzzi incident has its roots in Steve Moore's hit during an earlier game on Markus Naslund, the Vancouver Canuck's and the league's top scorer. Naslund was out for a week with a concussion, and Moore faced no punishment.

Moore's actions certainly don't justify Bertuzzi's reponse, but the lack of action by the NHL underscores its acceptance of violence as a part of the game. It certainly seems odd to me that a professional league would allow its most skilled players to be targeted by professional thugs.

The question Canadians and the NHL have to ask themselves is: What kind of game to we want? Do we want the lie of the admirable tough guy out to use his fists to control the game? Is that kind of violence necessary for the enjoyment of our favorite sport? Or do we want a game where admiration is reserved for skilled play: the beauty of a dead-on pass, the thrill of a break-away.

The Don Cherrys and the other goons in hockey, who make their money promoting and using violence and mayhem in the game, need to be drummed out of the sport.

Spin Fighter

Rabble.ca has just come out with an interesting article and interview that helps people innoculate themselves against the virus of PR spin flacks.

All the political parties employ a phalanx of PR sorcerers intent on using their linguistic magic to alter the public perception of political events. They all use those skills to stretch the truth, at one time or another, to either reduce the harm of a political attack or scandal, or conversley to magnify it to harm their political opponents.

The Rabble.ca article interviews John Stauber who edits the newsletter PR Watch. He provides a number of pointers for those seeking to cover and understand media campaigns, whether they are directed by political parties, special interest groups, or corporations. Something, I think, regardless of your political stripe would be of use.

A Few More Nails for Martin's Political Coffin

The more I've taken the time to look into PM Paul Martin's past, the more I am surprised by his slippery approach to business, and politics. There is an excellent article in today's Toronto Star on Martin's habits of “implausible deniability”.

The article highlights Martin's claim to not having any knowledge of the tainted blood scandal dating back to the early '80s, despite Martin, during that period, being on the board of the Canadian Development Corporation, which held a controlling interest in Connnaught Laboratories. It was the blood products from that company that were found to be the major source of the tainted blood.

The article also points out Canadian Steamship Lines union busting tactics in Australia in 2003. Again Martin claimed to only know what he read in the papers, despite having regular meetings with CSL management under the supervision of Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson.

And earlier this year it was shown that the government misreported, by a factor of 1000, the amount of money CSL had received from public coffers. Yet again Martin dodged the issue by claiming ignorance.

How much smoke does the Canadian public need before it starts yelling fire? Clearly the current PM either has a problem when it comes to honesty, or he's remarkably incompetent. If Paul Martin has been lying repeatedly to the Canadian public about important issues, particularly over the amount of money a company he owned received from Canadians, can he be trusted to run the country?

Outraged Americans

What is it this time? Apparently porn is gaining popularity during the daily commute. American's are up in arms because they might catch a glimpse of sex while driving.

"Andrea Carlton hadn't planned on telling her daughter about the birds and bees until she was 8 or 9. But that changed the night 4-year-old Catherine spotted a porno movie flickering on a screen in a minivan nearby."

No mention was made of violent recordings. Presumably moms won't have trouble explaining to their four year olds why someone would eviscerate another human being, but the thought of struggling to explain "eewy disgusting" sex just turns stomachs.

Neither was any mention made of making an effort not to spy on what other people are watching. Of course given the needs for post-9/11 security, it is a citizen's duty to check and see if some potential terrorist commuter is watching a film about airplanes, or perhaps paging through an almanac.

Boob of the Week

This little item is late due to time constraints. I'm in the midst of writing a part-time university program application, a business plan, and I have an extra heavy work load at my real job. But enough with the excuses and on to Martha.

Martha Stewart gets the boob prize. Why? Well despite the sympathy she seems to be garnering among many of her fans, who seem to feel she's being hard done by, I find the guilty decision against her something of a vindication. She is guilty of breaking the law for reasons of greed. Sure the amount, some $58,000 US saved by selling stock early through insider trading information, was insignificant when compared to the majority of her fortune. But if a business man making only $100,000 per year was caught in an insider trading scam, people would have far less sympathy for him.

Greed, particularly among the rich, seems to become something of a reflexive action. Perhaps it has something to do with taking privilege for granted. Those who have it perhaps start to believe that privilege should apply to them regardless of the circumstances, even if the law prohibits it. We've seen it repeatedly in the past few years with the numerous corporate scandals such as Enron, Tyco, WorldCom and Hollinger.

Martha Steward had the option of coming clean with the SEC and likely would have faced a stiff fine with no jail time. But she chose to fight the accusation, thus placing herself in the media spotlight. It generated enormous media coverage, and that in and of itself prevented the authorities from doing anything other than holding to the letter of the law, if only to avoid the appearance of favoritism. Then she foolishly chose to use her show as a vehicle to comment on the case. For someone so consumed with appearance, she showed remarkable lack of judgement.

Although another comment I have to make on the subject was the remarkable speed with which the media in the US dropped Martha Stewart. While I don't find it surprising, her brand after all was built on her reputation, it underscores the mercenary attitude of corporate media. Stewart was a materialism guru. Her whole focus was on providing a mass market with the ideas and products that would give her customers the appearance of being a part of the elite. A classic appeal to vanity. She was all about selling the illusion of comfort, with a frosting of wealth and class, attainable if you watched her show and bought her stuff....all available at Kmart for $19.95.

As soon as that illusion of elitism was broken, by being found guilty of a criminal offense, Martha was dropped. The corporate media wasn't concerned with what actually happened. They were merely concerned with the loss of an illusion that would impact their bottom line.

The final question then, which is more disgusting? A woman playing on the vanity and the elitist desires of the public to make a fortune; the corporate media jettisoning her when her brand image took a real hit with her guilty verdict; or the reflexive act of greed that led to her downfall in the first place?

Oily Imperialists?

On Sunday, March 7th the Zimbabwe government detained a plane apparently en route to Equatorial Guinea. The plane, to use a variation of a Tony Blair turn of phrase, was full of "military-related-activities" equipment and alleged mercenaries preparing to engage in the support of a coup plot in Equatorial Guinea. The plane had apparently stopped to pick up weapons in Zimbabwe.

The interesting thing about Equatorial Guinea, a tiny country on Africa's west coast south of Cameroon, is that oil was discovered off the coast in 1995; enough oil to make it the third largest petroleum producer in Africa.

This month's Harper's Magazine featured Equatorial Guinea in its Annotations section. The piece focused on the fact that Equatorial Guinea's president, one Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, had hired Robert Cabelly, the managing director of the American lobbying and PR firm C/R International. Presumably President Mbasogo had hoped Mr. Cabelly would run interference for his regime. You see, in 2002 Mbasogo had 150 political opponents rounded up and accused of plotting a coup. Many were tortured, two died. Not exactly a model of democracy.

The Zimbabwe Home Affairs Minister claims that British, American and Spanish officials convinced police and military leaders in Equatorial Guinea to support the coup. To support this claim they apparently have a suspect in custody who agreed to cooperate with them, one Simon Mann, who they also claim is a member of Britain's elite Special Air Service commando unit.

This is a story still being unearthed, so verification of the connections to the British, Americans and Spanish is still forthcoming. But given the recent Bush Administration actions in Haiti, given the presence of large quantities of oil, and given the money needed to gather close to 100 mercenaries, their military equipment, and charter a jet, it is unlikely this plot was hatched by a disgruntled military leader in Equatorial Guinea.

In fact the British newspaper the Guardian had an article in November of last year highlighting an agreement between Britian and the US to secure African oil.

Perhaps Bush and Blair are uncomfortable with president Mbasogo's stability. The country's state radio did recently announce that the president is in frequent contact with the almighty. Note that I am talking about Mbasogo, and not President Bush, who has made similar claims about God.

It will be interesting to see how this story shakes out in the coming weeks. If the Zimbabwe alleged links to the US and UK are found to be accurate, it will be yet one more indication of the kind of incompetent idiocy in charge at the White House and No. 10 Downing St.

Is Canada Getting Into the Imperialism Business?

Haiti as been front and centre in the news for the past few weeks. The mainstream press has been intent on reporting that recently deposed Haitian president Aristide was a tyrant, who used gangs of thugs to enforce his will. That much of the press seems intent on regurgitating this US State Department line on Haiti, while alarming, is not especially surprising. For alternate, and far more thourough, coverage of the problems involving Haiti I've been forced to turn to the alternative internet based press. Canada's Dominion internet newspaper has been a particularly good source of well researched information on Haiti, as has ZNet. I should note that both are left-wing in their stance on political issues and world events.

In reading the Dominion, I came across links to articles suggesting that at least early as January last year, Aristide's overthrow had been in the planning. In fact, journalist Michel Vastel writing for “L'actualité“ reported that Denis Paradis, who at the time was the Canadian Secretary of State for Latin America, told him that a Kosovo-style UN trusteeship was considered for Haiti during a an Ottawa summit of the Francophonie. This summit included representatives from France, and the United States. More detailed information is available in the following article.

The “Ottawa Initiative“, as it has been now dubbed by many Haiti observers, could very well be part of an orchestrated move on the part of the Bush Administration to provide the appearance of legitimacy for their anti-democratic and imperialistic adventures in Haiti. In the same way the Bush Administration formed a “coalition of the willing“ to make war on Iraq, through threats and bribery; they appear to have also worked very hard, and arguably more successfully, to set up similar circumstances for Haiti.

One question immediately comes to mind. Why would the Bush Administration bother with a poor resourcless backwater like Haiti? The are a number of reasons, but the most prominent is probably that Haiti, as a compliant client state, would serve as an excellent base of military operations. It could be used to put increased pressure on both Cuba and Venezuela, by placing considerably larger military assets far closer to both countries than otherwise would be possible.

But the question that should most concern Canadians, particularly as we approach a likely spring election, is: what role has our federal government played in the overthow of Aristide? Did our federal government know in advance the plans of the Bush Administration? Did they know in advance the plans of the Haitian rebels led by alleged drug dealers and former death squad members? Is Canada now, under Paul Martin, joining with the Bush Administration in engineering the overthow of democratically elected governments?

Paul Martin needs to answer these questions. He needs to come clean on Canada's role in Haiti. If he won't then our press and the government opposition has a responsibility to investigate what has been going on to verify or refute the facts, and not simply take the government at its word.

UN Doesn't like Some of Canada's New Policies on Illicit Drugs

The UN has decided to put pressure on Canada for two of it's policies over the use of what are currently illegal recreational drugs.

The UN's International Narcotics Control Board does not approve of our move to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. Nor do they approve of a safe-injection site, established in Vancouver last year, to give injection drug users clean needles and a safe place to shoot-up. The INCB argues, particularly in the latter case, that Canada is violating international treaties on illegal drug use.

Instead of taking issue with the reasons for establishing a safe-injection site, they base their arguments against it on technical interpretations of the law, and an unsupported suggestion that the existence of such a site will encourage drug use. The real focus of the INCB appears to be a desire for stronger law enforcement world wide; a focus which decades of the American "War on Drugs" has proven to be a failure.

One thing should be very apparent to most people who have followed any of the press reports about illegal recreational drugs over the past few decades; their use is never going to stop. No matter how draconian the punishments, no matter how dangerous the substance is to the health of the user, there will always be a demand. With that demand will come people willing to take the risks required to provide those drugs to customers, because they will be able to demand a very high price for the product, ensuring themselves a considerable profit.

By making the use and traffic of many recreational drugs illegal, governments provide fertile ground for the creation of criminal infrastructure funded by the proceeds of their illicit products. Moreover, by forcing the drug culture underground through criminalization governments create a whole host of additional problems. The recreational drugs themselves are frequently of poor quality, diluted by substances that can be exceptionally harmful to the user. Addicts then end up placing additional burdens on the healthcare systems in place in society. The cost of feeding an addiction, due to the high cost of the drugs, results in addicts neglecting their health, because their entire income must be allocated to feed their addiction. They are unable to afford food or shelter. Many resort to other criminal or dangerous activities such as theft, and prostitution to acquire the money the need to buy the drugs.

Simply increasing law enforcement does nothing to address the roots of the problems created by drug abuse and its criminalization. It addresses only the symptoms, and merely cycles the people involved through the courts and penitentiaries, which creates even greater costs for the public.

The safe injection site here in Vancouver is a first step at attempting to address some of the additional problems created by criminalization. Having a safe place to inject enables users to lessen the dangers to their lives should they overdose, as staff are available to provide or call emergency services. Providing clean needles also reduces the chances of transmitting diseases such as AIDS and hepatitis, which in turn lessens the chance of these diseases harming the general population. A safe injection site can also provide a location for addicts, who want to stop using drugs, to connect with those who can provide them treatment for their addiction.

The argument that a safe injection site will encourage people to take up drug use, is clearly a distraction. What scares those who favour a punishment approach is the possibility of a working example of harm reduction. That in turn would encourage a greater amount of resources being devoted to the development of strategies to deal with drug abuse, that do not resort to criminalization and increased law enforcement. It is the possibility of success with non-punishment based strategies that I believe most concerns the punishment focused.

Why are they concerned? I believe the foundation of their concern, for most, is fear. They fear the possibility that should drug use become acceptable more people will use drugs and more lives will be harmed. Those in law enforcement may fear they will receive less resources to police society, thus making an already difficult job even harder. Both of these are legitimate arguments worth exploring, but neither preclude the possibility of harm reduction and decriminalization strategies. Instead they suggest the need for creative implementation of new strategies that take into consideration the concerns over the possibility of increased drug use, and less effective law enforcement.

For more information on creative solutions to problems of drug abuse in society, take a look at the website of the Drug Policy Alliance.

Sucks to be You: It's not My Tax Haven

A rather rich controversy has struck the Conservative party leadership race, or perhaps to be more specific, a controversy that could only arise for the rich.

The Conservatives have released an ad campaign that attacks Paul Martin for Canadian Steamship Lines' use of off-shore tax havens. Leadership hopeful Belinda Stronach has denied any connection to those ads, undoubtedly in part because her father makes liberal use of tax havens to avoid Canadian taxes.

Stronach defended herself by claiming that she personally does not make use of tax havens, and she distanced herself from her father by saying that he is not a candidate for the leadership. All true, but Ms. Stronach has regularly brought up the success of her father during her leadership bid for the Conservative Party. To bring up a variation of an old cliche, I guess she wants to eat her cake and have it too.

I think it's very important to focus attention on the fact that the wealthy, and only the wealthy, are able to profit considerably by setting up tax shelters in tax havens such as Bermuda, or Switzerland. The money needed to set up such an off-shore tax shelter is considerable. It requires the services of both lawyers and accountants, and it is only profitable when large sums of money are involved. It is not financially feasible for most working Canadians to make use of these loopholes in Canada's tax structure.

The question that has to be asked then is, who's interests are being served by enabling wealthy Canadians to move their money out of Canada? The wealthy enjoy the benefits of Canadian public infrastructure and civil society in order to run their businesses profitably, but those benefits are funded by the Canadian tax payer. Is it ethical for wealthy Canadians to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, while the bulk of their wealth is generated by Canadian society?

Clearly the wealth of successful entrepreneurs doesn't simply appear as the result of their hard work alone. It depends on the contributions of all working Canadians. The wealthy should not only be required to pay their fair share, but there is no good reason they should have tax benefits that less wealthy Canadians cannot enjoy. The fact that such tax breaks are available to such a select few indicates how those with money use the power it provides them to increase their wealth, and they do it to the detriment of all Canadians.

That Paul Martin, and Frank Stronach made millions in extra income by legally avoiding Canadian taxes, while the rest of Canadians had to endure punishing government service cuts, and massive reductions in healthcare funding; indicates an utter lack of ethics on the part of two very rich Canadians. Belinda Stronach, instead of attempting to skirt the issue, should confront it head on, but given her ideological bent, and the source of her own considerable wealth, I suspect that is unlikely.

CBC Sell off?

The Martin government's right wing swing is still in full gear. During a commercial break during the CBC news debate program Counterspin, National Revenue Minister Stan Keyes' apparently announced a plan to sell off the CBC. He seems to feel CBC Television "has become a monster". This news tidbit courtesy of the NDP website.

As of the writing of this post, I haven't found any other news item confirming this account. But I think it is worth commenting on.

Like the BBC in the UK, it is very much in the public interest to have a public broadcaster not beholden to corporate interests. As many of us have seen in the flawed American corporate news reporting on the Iraq War, it is impossible to expect a fair account of what is going on by corporate owned media. In the Iraq War case it is not in their interest, because to undermine the Bush Administration would be to undermine the most pro-corporate president in the history of the United States. Don't bite the hand that feeds you, it would be a bad investment decision, especially after all the money donated by corporate interests to get Bush elected.

Now the CBC is an imperfect beast where its reliance on corporate money is concerned. CBC Television allows advertising in order to make up for poor government funding, so it is partially beholden to corporate interests. However, because the bulk of it's funding is still public, it does manage to do a fair job representing the public interest, particularly where news and investigative journalism is concerned. They certainly could do a far better job, and likely would if their funding was at a level where they could eliminate the need for advertising.

If the NDP story is accurate, then again we have a clear signal on the significant turn to the right that Paul Martin is bringing to the federal Liberal Party. Putting any trust in him to provide for the greater public good is gradually revealing itself to be a grave error.

Aristide Kidnapped?

According to numerous news reports, allegations have surfaced that Haiti's President Aristide was kidnapped by American forces.

Given that Aristide was spirited away in unusual circumstances, he didn't announce his resignation in front of the broadcast media, instead a resignation letter appeared "signed" by him, it stretches credulity to believe he stepped down willingly, and lends credence to the theory that he was forced to resign.

The Bush Administration has denied any direct American involvement in helping the Haitian rebel forces, or in kidnapping Aristide. But they have admitted that weapons provided by the US military to the Dominican Republic military have fallen into rebel hands.

There are also allegations that the Bush Administration blocked Aristide from bolstering his body guard contingent.

Evidence of Bush Administration involvement in the Haitian coup grows stronger by the hour.