Sandra Finley

May 132015
 

http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/kerry-signals-advance-of-north-american-union-plan/

by Jerome Corsi

 

NEW YORK – It was in last year’s State of the Union address that President Obama announced an ambitious trade agreement negotiated behind closed doors with North American and Pacific Rim nations – the Trans-Pacific Partnership – that drew little attention.

Now, ahead of Tuesday’s State of the Union address, Secretary of State John Kerry presented evidence that a plan originating with the George W. Bush administration to evolve NAFTA into a European Union-style confederation in North America between the U.S., Mexico and Canada has been put into overdrive with the Obama administration’s effort to obtain “fast track authority” to rush the Trans-Pacific Partnership through Congress with limited debate.

In a joint press conference in Washington Jan. 17 at the conclusion of a ministerial meeting with Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird and Mexican Foreign Secretary Jose Antonio Meade, a reporter posed a question to Kerry. The secretary of state was asked if the U.S. planned to reopen NAFTA and engage in direct negotiations with Mexico and Canada to avoid future conflicts between the Trans-Pacific Partnership currently before Congress and the forthcoming Atlantic counterpart, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, now being negotiated with the Europeans.

Kerry’s surprising answer suggested that with the expected ratification by Congress of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, the Obama administration already considers the U.S., Mexico and Canada as part of a “post-NAFTA” world.

“I think that stepping up, all of us, to the TPP, is a very critical component of sort of moving to the next tier, post-NAFTA,” Kerry answered. So I don’t think you have to open up NAFTA, per se, in order to achieve what we’re trying to achieve.”

The Canadian foreign minister, Baird, reinforced Kerry’s point.

“Now listen, we believe that NAFTA’s been an unqualified success; the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations, which all three of us are in, offer us the opportunity to strengthen the trilateral partnership, and we’re keen to use that opportunity to do so,” he said.

(Link no longer valid:  Jerome Corsi’s “Late Great USA” uncovers government deceptions that threaten U.S. sovereignty)

Anticipating the rubber-stamp passage of the TPP by Congress through “fast track” authorization, the White House will have an opportunity to kick off the “post-NAFTA” era at the next North American Leaders Summit meeting between the “three amigos” of President Obama, Mexican President Peña Nieto and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

The meeting in Toluca, Mexico, is scheduled for Feb. 19.

As WND reported, Obama announced in his 2013 State of the Union address the plan to add the trans-Pacific free-trade agreement to the trans-Atlantic agreement already in place.

“Fast-track” authority would allow the Obama administration to move the TPP through Congress with a simple majority vote. The rules would limit debate so that no amendments could be introduced to modify the language of the agreement the Obama administration has negotiated behind closed doors.

Leapfrogging NAFTA

As WND reported, the Obama administration has shut down the Security and Prosperity Partnership website, spp.gov. The last joint statement issued by the newly formed North American Leaders Summit, operating as the rebranded SPP, was issued April 2, 2012, at the conclusion of the last tri-lateral head-of-state meeting between the U.S., Mexico and Canada, held in Washington, D.C.

Without much fanfare, the White House wrapped Mexico and Canada into the TPP negotiations.

On June 16, 2012,  U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk issued a statement announcing that Mexico had decided to join the TPP negotiations.  (Link no longer valid)

“We are delighted to invite Mexico, our neighbor and second largest export market, to join the TPP negotiations,” said Kirk. “Mexico’s interest in the TPP reflects its recognition that the TPP presents the most promising pathway to boosting trade across the Asia Pacific and to encouraging regional trade integration. We look forward to continuing consultations with the Congress and domestic stakeholders as we move forward.”

Three days later, with similar language, the USTR announced Canada had decided to join the TPP negotiations.  (Link no longer valid)

“Inviting Canada to join the TPP negotiations presents a unique opportunity for the United States to build upon this already dynamic trading relationship. Through TPP, we are bringing the relationship with our largest trading partner into the 21st century,” said Kirk. “We look forward to continuing consultations with the Congress and domestic stakeholders regarding Canada’s entry into the TPP as we move closer to a broad-based, high-standard trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific region.”

Now, with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Obama administration appears to have leapfrogged SPP ambitions to work toward creating an EU-style confederation by including Mexico and Canada in the TPP configuration.

The 12 nations in the TPP – along with Mexico, Canada and the U.S. – are Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and Japan.

A graph shows the reach of the agreement across the Pacific, including Peru and Chile in South America; Australia and New Zealand; Malaysia and Vietnam in Southeast Asia; Singapore; and Japan.

May 112015
 

Alan Rusbridger is another who will go down in history.   I think his actions are pretty amazing.  Test your conclusions against mine:

 

Share the link.   I am sending it to you, and to people who have, or who manage investment portfolios.    Rusbridger is doing powerful work on climate change alongside  Bill McGibben (350.org) and millions of others around the Planet.   Powerful (in the best sense of the word) people are coming to the aid of the grassroots movement to get going on climate change.    You and I can add to the power simply by ensuring that everyone knows  what’s going on.

 

The “divest/invest” movement has come a long way in the short time since I posted

 

 

Today, I picked off some URLs through google, in case you are interested in approximating the size of the effort to  “Keep it in the ground”.     See

 

See  also  (2015-04-02)   This $1.2 billion news organization just pulled its money out of fossil fuels.  The Guardian.

Alan Rusbridger, Editor, The Guardian Newspaper  “gets it”:

For the purposes of our coming coverage, we will assume that the scientific consensus about man-made climate change and its likely effects is overwhelming. We will leave the skeptics and deniers to waste their time challenging the science. The mainstream argument has moved on to the politics and economics. 

The coming debate is about two things: what governments can do to attempt to regulate, or otherwise stave off, the now predictably terrifying consequences of global warming beyond 2 degrees C  by the end of the century. And how we can prevent the states and corporations which own the planet’s remaining reserves of coal, gas and oil from ever being allowed to dig most of it up. We need to keep them in the ground.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

AVAAZ (41 million members worldwide) is part of the action:

From: Nick Flynn – Avaaz  Sent: May 9, 2015

Subject: Let’s wind down Chevron

 

Our pension and mutual funds own the companies causing catastrophic climate change. These funds could strike a massive blow against man-made climate change, but only if they listen to us  – let’s tell them to shift course now!
SEND A MESSAGE

Dear friends, Climate change threatens everything we hold dear and we all have a part to play in fighting it.  If you have a pension fund, you have the power to  demand a fossil-free future and fire this right into the heart of the board room.  Even if you have no fund, your voice still counts.   Pension funds use our hard-earned money to buy shares in the companies frying the planet.  They own BP, Chevron and Exxon Mobil on our behalf. and they could tell them to keep their fossil fuels in the ground, but they let them gamble with our climate and our savings instead.   Why do they ignore the risks? Because they follow the Wall St herd and nobody calls them out on it. Now, a new on-line tool lets us challenge this lazy thinking. You can use it to tell your pension fund to order Chevron, the largest polluter in history, to give your money back rather than spend it on digging up fossil fuels.      Just tick the ballot box and send your fund a powerful message about how to vote at oil and gas company shareholder meetings.  Let’s create an unprecedented chorus they’ll find impossible to ignore.     Even if you don’t have a pension, tick the ballot box to lobby the largest funds on earth: http://www.avaaz.org/wind_down_Chevron_5

Pension and other retirement funds have a tough but important job — helping people enjoy their later years in peace and security. They own the majority of shares in the world’s biggest companies and they have a say in key  decisions.  If we can force them to use their  votes to demand that fossil fuels stay in the ground, it will be impossible for oil and gas companies to ignore.   Pension funds have a legal duty to listen to the people whose money they spend but they never normally hear from them.  VoteYourPension.org has created a revolutionary new tool that will deliver a deafening message – that we want  funds to demand  fossil fuels  stay in the ground.  Hearing from hundreds and thousands of us will cause panic in their board rooms. If they ignore us, they will need to explain why and they’ll find that hard to do given the financial risks and the climate science. Click to demand a change of course instead of a change of climate: http://www.avaaz.org/wind_down_Chevron_5

We keep hearing how corporate vested interests and Wall Street control our lives and subvert our democracy – now our time has come to use our biggest weapon, one that we didn’t even know we had. It is time to take back shareholder control, save our planet and save our savings. Our planet’s climate is hanging by a thread, warming as fast as the worst case predictions scientists were making just a decade ago.

There’s no time to lose.   That’s why Avaaz is partnering with the VoteYourPension.org to take on this massive piece of the climate solutions puzzle.

With hope, Nick, Emma, Bert, Iain, Fatima, Spyro and the whole Avaaz team

More Information

Most fossil fuels ‘unburnable’ (BBC) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30709211

Just 90 companies caused two thirds of man-made carbon emissions (Guardian) http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change

Chevron and others’ carbon footprints http://carbonmajors.org/downloadable-graphics/

Stranded assets – how your pension is being used in a $6 trillion climate gamble (Guardian)  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/apr/19/pension-6-trillion-climate-gamble

Asset Owners Disclosure Project – Vote Your Pension The Asset Owners Disclosure Project is an independent not-for-profit global organisation whose objective is to protect retirement savings and other long term investments from the risks posed by climate change by improving the level of disclosure and industry best practice http://aodproject.net/

Heat-Trapping Gas Passes Milestone, Raising Fears – NYTimes  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html?pagewanted=all

 

Avaaz.org is a 41-million-person global campaign network that works to ensure that the views and values of the world’s people shape global decision-making. (“Avaaz” means “voice” or “song” in many languages.) Avaaz members live in every nation of the world; our team is spread across 18 countries on 6 continents and operates in 17 languages. Learn about some of Avaaz’s biggest campaigns here, or follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

 

 

 

May 112015
 

RELATED:  2015-04-02   This $1.2 billion news organization just pulled its money out of fossil fuels. Climate Change. The Guardian.

– – – – – – – – – –  – – – – – – – – – – – –  – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

 

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/rusbridger-s-campaign-mail-refugees-the-harmonettes-norway-s-9-11-hockey-card-regret-1.3061681/the-press-and-the-planet-1.3063818

 

It was just a few decades ago that The Guardian was a respected, ambitious – yet modestly influential newspaper in Manchester, England.  Under Alan Rusbridger, its editor for the past 20 years, its daily circulation has remained respectable – yet modest, at about 200,000. But with more than seven million people visiting its website every day, The Guardian has become a journalistic powerhouse with  global reach and influence.

It’s broken some of the biggest news stories of recent years: Edward Snowden’s leaks about the National Security Agency’s surveillance and domestic spying programs, the British phone-hacking scandal. It has also partnered with WikiLeaks to release secret American diplomatic cables. In the process, it’s won many of the world’s biggest journalistic awards, run afoul of governments and infuriated some of its rivals in Britain’s notoriously cutthroat newspaper industry. For millions, it is now the website of record, and may represent the future of the news business.

Having succeeded in all of that Rusbridger is stepping down as editor this summer and taking up a new position as Principal of Lady Margaret Hall at the University of Oxford. He will also become chair of the Scott Trust, which owns and funds The Guardian, ensuring its editorial independence. But if you think Rusbridger is coasting towards the end of his tenure, you’d be wrong. He has dedicated his last few months to one of the paper’s most ambitious campaigns yet, reinvigorating coverage of what he calls the Biggest Story in the World – climate change. In a project called “Keep It In The Ground” – the “It” being fossil fuels – Rusbridger and his team are not only challenging readers to think and act to combat global warming, they are also challenging two of the world’s biggest charities to set an example by divesting their holdings in fossil fuel companies.

May 112015
 

 

  • Fossil Free
    gofossilfree.org

    Church of England divests from dirtiest fossil fuels Amazing news! The Church of England announced yesterday that it will divest its holdings of £12m in thermal coal …

  • Divest Fossil Fuels | We Are Power Shift
    www.wearepowershift.org/campaigns/divest

    It’s wrong to wreck the planet and it’s even worse to profit from that wreckage. The fossil fuel divestment movement is calling on mission-driven institutions to …

     

  • World Bank chief backs fossil fuel divestment drivewww.rtcc.org/…/world-bank-chief-backs-fossil-fuel-divestment-drive          World Bank chief backs fossil fuel divestment drive. Last updated on 23 January 2015
  • How to get your pension fund to divest from fossil fuels
    theguardian.com · 7 hours ago

    Join our Keep it in the ground campaign by putting pressure on your fund managers to invest your cash more sustainably Sign up to our series on personal divestment on the form at the bottom There are no legal barriers…

  • Students Campaign for Fossil Fuel Divestment | A\J …
    www.alternativesjournal.ca/community/blogs/green-student/students…

    Post-secondary students across the country are looking at their schools’ investment choices and asking for change. Megan Nourse reports on the Fossil Free Canada …

  • Students campaign for fossil fuel divestment | The Daily …
    www.dailycal.org/…/27/students-campaign-for-fossil-fuel-divestment

    2013-01-27 · Students campaign for fossil fuel divestment. By Andrea … universities across the nation have already joined the campaign to divest from fossil fuel …

  • An Update on the Fossil Fuel Divestment Campaign
    trentarthur.ca/an-update-on-the-fossil-fuel-divestment-campaign

    The Fossil Fuel Divestment Campaign is just under a year old, and it has already made some serious progress. Students have started campaigns at hundreds of schools …

  • Fossil Free – What is fossil fuel divestment?
    gofossilfree.org/what-is-fossil-fuel-divestment

    The South African divestment campaign helped break the back of the Apartheid government and usher in an era of democracy and equality. Fossil fuel divestment …

  • Fossil Fuel Divestment | University of Toronto Students‘ Union
    utsu.ca/fossil-fuel-divestment

    Fossil Fuel Divestment. … Fossil fuel burning produces the majority … for public institutions to divest from fossil fuels. We have endorsed a campaign led by …

  • Fossil Free Canada
    www.gofossilfree.ca

    … fossil fuel divestment movement that now connects nearly thirty student divestment campaigns across Canada, … unifying student opposition to fossil fuel …

May 102015
 

The move follows the launch of The Guardian‘s own climate change campaign, in partnership with 350.org, to press two of the world’s largest charitable foundations to stop investing in oil, coal, and gas companies.

Click here to join the call for the world’s largest charities to divest.

The chairman of the Guardian Media Group called the move a “hard-nosed business decision” that is justified on both ethical and financial grounds. I couldn’t agree more.

It was also the second billion-dollar divestment commitment in just two days: Syracuse University in New York also ditched fossil fuels this week, demonstrating once again that cutting ties with the fossil fuel industry is both feasible and responsible.

Now is the time to increase the pressure on the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust — two of the world’s largest charities, and both explicitly dedicated to global health — to do the same. Can you help us reach 200,000 signatures this week?

Add your name to the petition calling on the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust to stop investing in the climate crisis.

The Guardian Media Group is leading by example by divesting its entire £800 million (aka $1.2 billion) fund from fossil fuels and committing to invest in socially responsible alternatives instead. You can watch a video and find out more about The Guardian decision here.

When the roll of honor for action on climate change is someday called, I believe The Guardian’s name will be high on the list. They’ve taken a bold step in joining the fight to keep fossil fuels in the ground, both through their journalism and their own investments.

As Alan Rusbridger, their Editor-in-Chief said: “What was a trickle is becoming a river and will, I suspect, become a flood.” 

Let’s make sure The Guardian’s divestment commitment sends a strong signal to other foundations — as well as universities, cities, states, churches, and any institution that holds money and is dedicated to the public good — to get on the right side of history too.

If you haven’t already, click here to add your name.

Thank you,

Bill

P.S. More great news: Earlier today, TransCanada announced that they have abandoned plans to build a tar sands export facility in Cacouna, QC, delaying the Energy East pipeline by at least two years! This is another example of how communities can stand up to Big Oil and win, as well as just how loud the rising tide of voices calling to keep fossil fuels in the ground has become. Click here to read more.

May 092015
 

Ellen Dorsey, executive director of the Wallace Global Fund and another key figure . . . :

“I think at pivotal moments in history we have seen editors and media outlets stand up and take unprecedented action. One could think of the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement in the US and I liken the Guardian’s campaign to that kind of courageous action. I hope it will bring other institutions along to follow suit . . .”

– – – – – – – – – – –  – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/climate-change-guardian-threat-to-earth-alan-rusbridger

 

As global warming argument moves on to politics and business, Alan Rusbridger explains the thinking behind our major series on the climate crisis

 

Antony Gormley Connection by Antony Gormley. Illustration: Antony Gormley

 

 

Journalism tends to be a rear-view mirror. We prefer to deal with what has happened, not what lies ahead. We favour what is exceptional and in full view over what is ordinary and hidden.

Famously, as a tribe, we are more interested in the man who bites a dog than the other way round. But even when a dog does plant its teeth in a man, there is at least something new to report, even if it is not very remarkable or important.

There may be other extraordinary and significant things happening – but they may be occurring too slowly or invisibly for the impatient tick-tock of the newsroom or to snatch the attention of a harassed reader on the way to work.

What is even more complex: there may be things that have yet to happen – stuff that cannot even be described as news on the grounds that news is stuff that has already happened. If it is not yet news – if it is in the realm of prediction, speculation and uncertainty – it is difficult for a news editor to cope with.  Not her job.

 

For these, and other, reasons changes to the Earth’s climate rarely make it to the top of the news list. The changes may be happening too fast for human comfort, but they happen too slowly for the newsmakers – and, to be fair, for most readers.

These events that have yet to materialise may dwarf anything journalists have had to cover over the past troubled century. There may be untold catastrophes, famines, floods, droughts, wars, migrations and sufferings just around the corner. But that is futurology, not news, so it is not going to force itself on any front page any time soon.

Even when the overwhelming majority of scientists wave a big red flag in the air, they tend to be ignored. Is this new warning too similar to the last? Is it all too frightening to contemplate? Is a collective shrug of fatalism the only rational response?

 

The climate threat features very prominently on the home page of the Guardian on Friday even though nothing exceptional happened on this day. It will be there again next week and the week after. You will, I hope, be reading a lot about our climate over the coming weeks.

One reason for this is personal. This summer I am stepping down after 20 years of editing the Guardian. Over Christmas I tried to anticipate whether I would have any regrets once I no longer had the leadership of this extraordinary agent of reporting, argument, investigation, questioning and advocacy.

Very few regrets, I thought, except this one: that we had not done justice to this huge, overshadowing, overwhelming issue of how climate change will probably, within the lifetime of our children, cause untold havoc and stress to our species.

 

 

So, in the time left to me as editor, I thought I would try to harness the Guardian’s best resources to describe what is happening and what – if we do nothing – is almost certain to occur, a future that one distinguished scientist has termed as “incompatible with any reasonable characterisation of an organised, equitable and civilised global community”.

It is not that the Guardian has not ploughed considerable time, effort, knowledge, talent and money into reporting this story over many years. Four million unique visitors a month now come to the Guardian for our environmental coverage – provided, at its peak, by a team including seven environmental correspondents and editors as well as a team of 28 external specialists.

They, along with our science team, have done a wonderful job of writing about the changes to our atmosphere, oceans, ice caps, forests, food, coral reefs and species.

For the purposes of our coming coverage, we will assume that the scientific consensus about man-made climate change and its likely effects is overwhelming. We will leave the sceptics and deniers to waste their time challenging the science. The mainstream argument has moved on to the politics and economics.

The coming debate is about two things: what governments can do to attempt to regulate, or otherwise stave off, the now predictably terrifying consequences of global warming beyond 2C by the end of the century. And how we can prevent the states and corporations which own the planet’s remaining reserves of coal, gas and oil from ever being allowed to dig most of it up. We need to keep them in the ground.

 

An oil field in North Dakota, US.

An oil field in North Dakota, US. Photograph: Les Stone/Les Stone/Corbis

There are three really simple numbers which explain this (and if you have even more appetite for the subject, read the excellent July 2012 Rolling Stone piece by the author and campaigner Bill McKibben, which – building on the work of the Carbon Tracker Initiative – first spelled them out).

  1. 2C: There is overwhelming agreement – from governments, corporations, NGOs, banks, scientists, you name it – that a rise in temperatures of more than 2C by the end of the century would lead to disastrous consequences for any kind of recognised global order.
  2. 565 gigatons: “Scientists estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by mid-century and still have some reasonable hope of staying below 2C,” is how McKibben crisply puts it. Few dispute that this idea of a global “carbon budget” is broadly right.
  3. 2,795 gigatons: This is the amount of carbon dioxide that if they were burned would be released from the proven reserves of fossil fuel – ie the fuel we are planning to extract and use.

You do not need much of a grasp of maths to work out the implications. There are trillions of dollars worth of fossil fuels currently underground which, for our safety, simply cannot be extracted and burned. All else is up for debate: that much is not.

We need to keep it in the ground. This was the starting point for the group of journalists who met early in January to start considering how we would cover the issue.

But how?

Some will make the case for governmental action. Within nine months, the nations of the world will assemble in Paris, as they did previously in Copenhagen and Kyoto and numerous other summits now forgotten. Can they find the right actions and words, where they have failed before? It is certainly important that they feel the pressure to achieve real change.

Others will make the case for reducing the fossil fuel exposure of investment portfolios by decarbonisation. Or going further to full divestment from the most polluting fossil fuel extraction companies. Next week, McKibben will describe how the cause of divestment is moving rapidly from a fringe campaign to a mainstream concern for banks and fund managers.

It is now very much on the radar of the financial director rather than the social responsibility department. If most of these reserves are unburnable, they are asking, then what does that say about the true value of carbon-dependent companies? It is a question of fiduciary responsibility as much as a moral imperative.

We will look at who is getting the subsidies and who is doing the lobbying. We will name the worst polluters and find out who still funds them. We will urge enlightened trusts, investment specialists, universities, pension funds and businesses to take their money away from the companies posing the biggest risk to us. And, because people are rightly bound to ask, we will report on how the Guardian Media Group itself is getting to grips with the issues.

 

In addition to words, images and films, we will be podcasting the series as we go along, to give some insight and transparency about our reporting and how we are framing and developing it.

 

We begin on Friday and on Monday with two extracts from the introduction to Naomi Klein’s recent book, This Changes Everything. This has been chosen because it combines sweep, science, politics, economics, urgency and humanity. Antony Gormley, who has taken a deep interest in the climate threat, has contributed two artworks from his collection that have not been exhibited before – the first of many artists with whom we hope to collaborate over coming weeks.

Where does this leave you? I hope not feeling impotent and fearful.

Some of you may be marching in London on Saturday 7 March. As McKibben will argue next week, the fight for change is also full of opportunity and optimism. And we hope that many readers will find inspiration in our series to make their own contribution by applying pressure on their workplace, or pension fund, to move.

But, most of all, please read what we write. Real change can only follow from citizens informing themselves and applying pressure. To quote McKibben: “This fight, as it took me too long to figure out, was never going to be settled on the grounds of justice or reason. We won the argument, but that didn’t matter: like most fights it was, and is, about power.”

 

 

May 092015
 

(For Next-day commentary see:   2015-05-09   The courts stood up to NSA mass surveillance. Now Congress must act .  The Guardian)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/07/us-usa-security-nsa-idUSKBN0NS1IN20150507 

Technology | Thu May 7, 2015

May 092015
 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/the-courts-stood-up-to-nsa-mass-surveillance-now-congress-must-act

The appeals court in New York found that the ‘collect it all’ policy is unlawful. On 1 June, Congress can make sure it is stopped once and for all

NSA After the Edward Snowden leaks not enough has been done to stop mass surveillance. Photograph: Patrick Semansky/AP

One of the documents that Edward Snowden delivered to American journalists two years ago was a now-infamous NSA slide titled “New Collection Posture.” The slide summarizes, in surprisingly candid terms, the objective of the largest, most powerful surveillance agency on the face of the earth. ‘Collect it all’, it says.

The idea is that the NSA needs to vacuum up everything it can — because, well, one never knows what information might one day become useful. You can’t find the needles unless you have a haystack, intelligence officials say. You can’t connect the dots unless you first collect the dots. ‘Collect it all’ is a mentality, a mindset.

But ‘collect it all’ is also a legal theory and the significance of Thursday’s extraordinary ruling from an appeals court in New York is that it rejects this theory — or at least one manifestation of it. The government relies on a provision of the Patriot Act to collect the call records of hundreds of millions of Americans — the vast majority of them, needless to say, not suspected of having done anything wrong. On its face, the Patriot Act provision permits the government to collect records that are “relevant” to authorized investigations, but the government argues that everything is relevant because anything might be — one day.

Thursday’s decision rejects this argument categorically. “The interpretation the government asks us to adopt defies any limiting principle”, the court writes. To adopt it, the court observes, would permit the government to appropriate any private collection of data into a government database for future review. This, the court writes: “would be an unprecedented contraction of the privacy expectations of all Americans.”

The decision focuses on the NSA’s call-records program, but its implications are broader. This is because the same defective legal theory that underlies the call-records program is at work in some of the NSA’s other mass-surveillance programs as well. The NSA once collected the internet metadata of millions of Americans, arguing that all of the data was relevant because some of it might be. The CIA is reported to be amassing records of international financial transactions on the same theory. And, until recently, the Drug Enforcement Administration operated its own massive call-records database.

Right after the appeals court’s decision, Senator Richard Burr, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, appeared to disclose that the NSA is also collecting Americans’ IP addresses in bulk, presumably in an effort to assemble a massive database documenting Americans’ activities online. As Marcy Wheeler, who first noticed the disclosure, has since pointed out, the disclosure has mysteriously disappeared from the congressional record. There’s some murkiness about precisely what Burr meant, but there’s no question that Burr’s IP-address dragnet would be an unremarkable extension of the government’s collect-it-all logic.

Thursday’s decision was about the call-records program, but the government will have to consider its implications for other programs as well, including ones that have yet to be officially disclosed to the public.

But perhaps the more immediate effect of Thursday’s decision will be on the debate now unfolding in Washington. The Patriot Act provision that underlies the call-records program is scheduled to sunset on 1 June, and over the next three weeks Congress must decide whether to reauthorize the provision, scale it back or allow it to expire. The appeals court’s decision should strengthen the hand of advocates who believe the revisions currently being considered by Congress don’t go far enough, and it should strengthen the resolve of legislators who have been pushing for more comprehensive reforms.

If Congress can’t coalesce around more comprehensive reform, the best course would be to let Section 215 expire. The intelligence community hasn’t even attempted to make a serious case that this authority is actually necessary. And as the recent ruling reminds us, it’s an authority that’s been grossly abused already and that could readily be abused again.

The court has done its part. Now it’s Congress’s turn.

May 052015
 

In follow-up to:  2015-04-24   Former PM Jean Chrétien to meet with Vladimir Putin in Moscow :

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/the-gargoyle-trudeau-mum-on-chretien-putin-meeting

By Jesse Winter

Former prime minister Jean Chrétien.

Former prime minister Jean Chrétien.   CP

 

Justin Trudeau is keeping mum about former prime minister Jean Chrétien’s recent visit to Moscow.

First, Trudeau’s spokesman, Cameron Ahmad, said the leader won’t comment on whether he was given a heads up or not that Chretien was planning to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Second, he also wouldn’t say whether Trudeau supports the former Liberal chieftain reaching out to Putin.

Chrétien met with Putin on Thursday in Moscow in his role as co-chair of the InterAction Council, a group of former world leaders who advocate for global peace and security, economic revitalization and universal ethical standards.

According to an InterAction Council press release, Chrétien and Putin were to talk about the state of relations between Russia and the West – currently pretty frosty.

The Canadian government in particular has been taking pains to shun Putin politically. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government have used decidedly strong language condemning Putin and urging Russia to “get out of Ukraine.”

The government recently announced a two-year mission that will see Canadian soldiers training Ukrainian fighters as they face Russian-backed separatists in a shaky ceasefire in the country’s east. That brings the Canadian support for Ukraine to more than $400 million.

Harper’s spokesman, Stephen Lecce, says the government wants to know what Chrétien told Putin. “Mr. Chretien was clearly not representing the Government of Canada at this meeting. Our Government’s position on the Putin regime is clear,” he said.

A spokesperson for Chrétien did not return a call for comment. It’s expected that Chrétien will report the details of his conversation with Putin when the InterAction Council meets in Wales this June.

 

May 042015
 

By Reid Robinson, The Starphoenix May 4, 2015

Robinson was an administrator at the University of Regina for many years, serving as dean of arts, associate vice-president academic and university secretary.

 

A recent article by Marina Warner, of the Man Booker Prize committee for 2015, illustrates the deep malaise that is afflicting universities in the United Kingdom. It was entitled Learning my Lesson: The Disfiguring of Higher Education. She ruminates on her own experience as a professor at the University of Essex and provides chapter and verse for her pessimistic analysis. Warner is particularly critical of “managerialist philistinism” that is wrecking the ideal of emancipation through learning.

What relevance does this have to the Canadian experience? Regrettably, some of the more disastrous developments in the U.K. system worm their way into the Canadian system. And “managerialist philistinism” is no stranger to the Canadian scene.

The managerialist approach is accomplished by hiring presidents who see themselves primarily as CEOs rather than academics, and their pay must be CEO-appropriate. At University College London, student protesters at a recent demonstration pointed out that the annual salary of the provost (vice chancellor) could cover the annual wages of about 20 employees on the university’s cleaning staff.

Over the past 10 years, the extraordinarily rapid increase in provost salaries in the U.K. has been mirrored in the increase in presidents’ salaries in Canada. Also in the scramble to be seen to be “accountable,” myriad expensive gatekeepers have been hired to swell the ranks of senior administration.

This diversion of a significant amount of money from teaching and research into administration has consequences, as evidenced in the recent troubles of York University and the University of Toronto. A disproportionate amount of teaching responsibility has been farmed out to lowly paid temporary employees, with inevitable outcomes.

A significant problem that faces Canadian universities is funding. How much comes from government and how much comes from students? This is becoming a major political issue in many provinces.

Consider two very different approaches being taken in the U.K. In England, a revolutionary change was recently introduced to provide the government with substantial savings in university grants. The total cost of the teaching component was charged directly to the student. Thus, typical student fees are now in the range of $17,000.

This was accompanied by an elaborate student loan scheme whereby this cost is all covered, and repayment of the loan is only due over a long-term period (but with interest charged) after the student has graduated and has an income of more than $40,000. The long-term consequences of this approach have yet to be seen, but alarm bells are ringing in that students will start off their professional lives with the equivalent of a mortgage hanging around their necks. The other concern is the perceived long-term default rate.

An immediate consequence is the enormous incentive universities now have to generate income by recruiting students, especially international students who are charged more. Bluntly, many students are inappropriately being persuaded to attend university, with horrendous consequences.

Scotland is using an entirely different approach. Tuition is free for all Scottish students. On his last day in office just after the referendum, First Minister Alex Salmond of the Scottish National Party unveiled a stone monument at a university in Edinburgh, paid for by the Scottish government, that was inscribed with the words he had previously used in the Scottish Assembly: “The rocks will melt in the sun before I will allow tuition fees to be imposed on Scottish students.”

How the issue of student fees in Canada will be dealt with is of enormous importance. It will be of considerable interest to see how these issues play out in Scotland and England. In the present election campaign in the U.K., the Achilles heel of the Liberal Democrats has been their about-face in campaigning in 2010 for abolition of student fees, and then supporting a tripling of fees when they were part of government.

Let’s all hope that the despairing pessimism expressed by Marina Warner about university experience in the U.K does not take root in Canada. Let us, at least, avoid like the plague “managerialist philistinism.”