Sandra Finley

Jun 032014
 

(This is also about Lockheed Martin Corp, only because it is a useful example.)

“The community” is doing an excellent job of educating citizens to what is going on, through letters-to-editors.   Keep them rollin’ in!

Gordon Barnhart is the Acting President of the University of Saskatchewan, in the wake of the firing of Ilene Busch-Vishniac.

My email below to Barnhart is hard-hitting perhaps.  I think this is NOT the time to use velvet gloves.

= = = =

From: Sandra Finley

Sent: June-03-14 10:55 AM

To: Gordon Barnhart

Cc: ‘Leonhardt, Lesley’

Subject: RE: U of S Appoints Interim Provost

 

Dear Interim President Barnhart,

 

Thank-you for the information regarding the interim appointment of Ernie Barber to the Provost’s position.

 

The imbroglio at the U of S today arises out of a line of failed leadership, people who do not recognize the limits to their “power”.  They did not know when to say “no, this is going too far beyond the limits of democracy”.   (Leadership cannot just go along to get along. Leadership must meet the moral challenge of the day, as was said by Jesse Jackson.)

 

I wish to be upfront.  Silence does not serve well.

 

Fortunately, the appointment of Ernie Barber is only interim.  Else, there will be continuing problems because the root goes unaddressed:  appointments are going to people who do not understand leadership.

 

I have known Ernie Barber and have nothing personal against him.   He is a “nice” man.  He knows how to say “yes”, how to obey;  perfect for falling in line with the “U15” (15 universities in Canada that are on a corporate agenda).

 

That is not what is needed.   The University of Saskatchewan has been built by the people of the Province.  It belongs to, and is for the purpose of serving THEIR needs.  The University must have strong leadership that knows its masters.  Leadership SERVES – – yes.  But “who” is critical.

 

I have appended a specific and egregious example of Ernie’s ability to contort reality to serve the wrong (corporate) masters.  It is documented in the Minutes of University Senate.  I wrote about it in the fall last year, in a different but related context.

 

I hope it will serve to remind everyone of the need to find true leaders.

 

All the best to you, in your position of Interim President.

 

Sandra Finley

Elected Member-at-Large

U of S Senate

 

APPENDED:

  • Lockheed Martin Corporation is worming its way into our “educational” institutions.
  • The “intellectuals” become part of the enabling machinery. Look at Acting Dean of Engineering, Ernie Barber, at the University of Saskatchewan who defended Lockheed Martin’s role at successive meetings of University Senate – – he said their involvement is in “renewable technologies“.

Lockheed Martin’s own document for University collaboration reveals the lie.   See Lockheed Martin at U of S. “Collaboration Topics”.

Six months later at the next meeting of University Senate, Barber repeated that LM’s role is in “renewable technologies“.   Give me a break.

It is a very misleading statement. The war industry DOES have an interest in “renewable energy” – – when they invade and destroy your country it would be convenient if they didn’t have to find a source for ALL the fossil fuels they require.  But, even with that said, it is NOT what Lockheed Martin’s “Collaboration Topics” at the University are about.   Does Ernie think that others are inept, do not know, do not read, cannot think? 

Universities are to be married to the search for truth, not part of the spin-doctoring that serves corporate masters.

The betrayal by the “intellectuals” in Nazi Germany is well-documented.  Ernie Barber is only one in a long line.

  • There is Harper’s dismantling of democracy.
  • How about the rise and seeming acceptance of propaganda to replace informed public discussion?
  • Look at Lockheed Martin – – they and the other killers (fanatics, to use the words of the email about Muslims) EXPORT the weapons they manufacture to the terrorists ($$$). They have been convicted over and over again for breaking the “arms export control ” laws. They are ARMING the other fanatics.  Again, a repeat of World War Two.
  • The war industries bankrupt the nation. Look at the wildly escalated debt in the U.S. – – it is currently more than $17 trillion – – a terribly de-stabilizing force in any nation. . . . What does a nation need to combat civilian unrest?

The road we are on is clear enough.

BUT HERE IS THE THING  that becomes evident through A German’s view on Islam:

By looking OUTSIDE, and assigning blame (creating enemies, The Muslim Fanatics), we unwittingly BECOME the ‘silent majority’ in our own country, who SHOULD have spoken up about our own situation, but didn’t.

If people were not so busy shaking the stick and bombs at “others”, they might be able to see what is happening right here.

If democracy falls, it will be because of the blindness caused by ego. Ego wants “us” (our country, our University) to be seen as “good” . (It also diverts us to other “ego identifications” – – possessions, social status, physical appearance, family history – – with our gaze focused in the wrong direction we don’t see the invaders coming.)

We can’t even see the Corporate Force when it turns and is now directed at the soul of our own country.

So (the appended email): it is not so much a ‘silent majority’, as a majority who are blinded to what is happening in their own country, through the role of ego with its nationalistic, racial, religious, . . . identifications.

/Sandra

 

 

From: Leonhardt, Lesley Sent: June-03-14 8:13 AM To: University Senate

Subject: U of S Appoints Interim Provost

 

Good morning Senate members,

 

Please see the following message announcing Dr. Ernie Barber as interim provost.

 

Thank you.

 

Lesley

 

From: Office of the President Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 2:10 PM Subject: U of S Appoints Interim Provost

 

To the University of Saskatchewan community,

After consultation with the board and senior leaders, I am pleased to announce that Dr. Ernie Barber has agreed to act as the university’s interim provost effective July 1, 2014.

Not only does Dr. Barber have experience in the provost’s office, as a dean and as a senior leader on campus, it was evidenced from my discussions and own experiences that he is well respected and held in high regard by many.  I also believe that Dr. Barber’s skills and leadership style will be a good complement to my own and I look forward to working closely with him.

Dr. Barber will hold the position of interim provost until a permanent candidate is in place.  To assist in transition from his leadership position in the Global Institute for Food Security, Dr. Barber will not be taking up the post of interim provost until July 1, 2014.  During the month of June I have reassigned urgent matters usually handled by the provost to other individuals as needed. Please contact the Provost’s Office should you have questions on specific matters.

We will be sharing this news with the external community this afternoon. Please see the attached news release.

Sincerely,

 

Gordon Barnhart,

Interim President and Vice-Chancellor

Attachments:    Media Release Announcing Interim Provost June2014.pdf

For more information, contact (306) 966-6612.

Sent to students, staff and faculty by the Office of the President.

May 142014
 

UPDATEDMay 14, 2014 10:10 AM CT

CBC News

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.2642637

The university confirmed that it fired professor Robert Buckingham, but would not comment further.

When Buckingham showed up to work this morning, he said he was met by two police officers. He said they handed him a note, which talked about a letter he released yesterday called ‘The Silence of the Deans.’

Buckingham said the university claimed he breached his contract through the letter, and irrevocably damaged his relationship with the university.

He was escorted off campus by the pair of officers. He was told to stay off university property, but will be allowed to return at a later date to collect his personal belongings.

He said his tenure and benefits have been revoked.and cannot comment further until he obtains a lawyer.

Sask. opposition weighs in

Saskatchewan opposition leader Cam Broten said that Premier Brad Wall should be calling university president Illene Busch-Vishniac in for a meeting. He said the provincial government did not hesitate to get involved at First Nations University of Canada and the University of Regina in 2005.

The leader of the Saskatchewan NDP said this is “not some university in Arizona run out of someone’s basement” but a real, reputable university whose reputation will be hurt by this.

‘The Silence of the Deans’

In a public letter Buckingham titled “The Silence of the Deans”, he detailed a December 2013 meeting between senior academic leaders at the school. He said Deans and Vice-Presidents were in attendance. Buckingham claims that president Busch-Vishniac told the group not to “publicly disagree with the process or findings of TransformUs”. Buckingham alleges President Busch-Vishniac went on to tell the group that if they did speak out against the cost-cutting process their “tenure would be short”.

“I felt, at that time, [the] deans were being threatened,” Buckingham told CBC News on Tuesday afternoon, a few hours after his letter was raised by the NDP in Question Period at the Legislature. “If we did share publicly, [President Busch-Vishniac] stated that our tenure would be short. I thought that was a threat. What I am concerned about here is freedom of speech at a university,” Buckingham said.

Warned again

Buckingham, who became Dean of the School of Public Health at the U of S in 2009, said it was always his intention to come to the school, improve the school and leave his post at the university after five years. Because of this, he contends university administration, including Provost Brett Fairbairn were vigilant in reminding him that speaking out against TransformUs, publicly, was not condoned; especially as the university prepared to make the details of the TransformUs plan public in May 2014.

Buckingham points to an email sent by Provost Fairbairn on April 29, 2014, addressed to him and Dr. Ken Sutherland the Associate Dean and Professor of Fixed Prosthodontics at the U of S, as evidence that academic leaders were muzzled.

An excerpt from the email reads; “you are in an especially tough position and are subject to the expectation the president has of all of its leaders, that you will support TransformUs and the university’s messaging.”

University issues statement

Following the circulation of Buckingham’s letter on Tuesday, CBC News requested an interview with either President Busch-Vishniac or Provost Fairbairn. CBC News was advised no formal interview would ever be granted on the matter, however the university’s communications department forwarded the following statement and said it was attributable to the Provost:

“The University of Saskatchewan has high expectations of its senior leaders to support the university’s directions and to lead their implementation. Top among current priorities are the university’s TransformUS initiatives. Leaders have opportunities to express personal opinions in leadership discussions. Once decisions are made, all leaders are expected to support the university’s directions,” read the statement.

However, Buckingham hopes his decision to publicly speak out against TransformUs will encourage others in similar positions to do the same.

“I certainly felt stifled and muzzled,” Buckingham said “I think there are probably other Deans at this university who are feeling muzzled also, afraid to speak out.”

May 122014
 

 

The next census is in 2016.   There are renewed calls for a mandatory long-form census.

So frustrating!  The articles and comments mention nothing about Lockheed Martin’s role.

 

I “commented” on two news articles (links follow),  using basically this:

= = = = = =

 

TO:   Auditor General Michael Ferguson

 

Dear Michael Ferguson,

 

Reported May 10, CTV:

 

As a result of data not being released due to quality concerns, potential users of this data for approximately 25 per cent of geographic areas do not have reliable National Household Survey data available for their use,” said Michael Ferguson’s report.

Read more: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/internal-survey-blasts-feds-for-missing-database-long-form-census-1.1815886#ixzz31YOKXg5O

 

I only wish to bring to your attention very important information about the data collected by StatsCan, seldom mentioned in the news coverage:

RE: “data missing because of the demise of the mandatory long-form census”

Thousands of citizens do not comply with StatsCan surveys and censuses because of the out-sourcing of work to Lockheed Martin Corp.    Lockheed Martin is a very large player in the American war machine. ONE of their specialties is surveillance.

Because of the Patriot Act, data bases to which Lockheed Martin has access can be turned over to the NSA and other American “defence” agencies.

Surely, the leaks by Edward Snowden leave no doubt about the security and privacy of information on citizens at StatsCan. (And note that your record in the data base has your name on it; the records are not “anonymous”.)

If the Snowden leaks fail to convince you, check the news 2014-05-08 Chantal Bernier says Ottawa snooping on social media  (Privacy Commissioner’s) report:

  • the Government, without warrants, through the Telecoms, is accessing our telephone and email conversations.

If you still have doubts, try the Oct 2013 news  2013-10-09  Inside Canada’s top-secret billion-dollar spy palace, CBC News

Do you know of a single police state that does not, or did not, use detailed files on citizens?   And to what use the data is put?

 

We have a Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information for very solid and compelling reasons.

 

Anyone who espouses a mandatory long form census, especially given the above developments has to be out of their mind, as I see it  (these developments are only the last items on a well-established trend line that goes back to 2003 when the first census contracts were awarded to Lockheed Martin Corporation)

 

Yours truly,

Sandra Finley

THE TWO NEWS REPORTS 

1.    Internal survey blasts feds for missing database: long-form census

Dean Beeby, The Canadian Press
Published Saturday, May 10, 2014

Read more: http://bc.ctvnews.ca/internal-survey-blasts-feds-for-missing-database-long-form-census-1.1815886#ixzz31YIFkmnm

 

2.   Despite bad reviews, Tories sticking with voluntary census for 2016

The Canadian Press
Published Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/despite-bad-reviews-tories-sticking-with-voluntary-census-for-2016-1.1777421#ixzz31YHa8IPY

 

May 122014
 

http://www.nationofchange.org/how-privatization-perverts-education-1392652405

By Paul Buchheit

Profit-seeking in the banking and health care industries has victimized Americans. Now it’s beginning to happen in education, with our children as the products.

There are good reasons—powerful reasons—to stop the privatization efforts before the winner-take-all free market creates a new vehicle for inequality. At the very least, we need the good sense to slow it down while we examine the evidence about charters and vouchers.

1. Charter Schools Have Not Improved Education

The recently updated CREDO study at Stanford revealed that while charters have made progress since 2009, their performance is about the same as that of public schools. The differences are, in the words of the National Education Policy Center, “so small as to be regarded, without hyperbole, as trivial.” Furthermore, the four-year improvement demonstrated by charters may have been due to the closing of schools that underperformed in the earlier study, and also by a variety of means to discourage the attendance of lower-performing students.

Ample evidence exists beyond CREDO to question the effectiveness of charter schools (although they continue to have both supporters and detractors). In Ohio, charters were deemed inferior to traditional schools in all grade/subject combinations. Texas charters had a much lower graduation rate in 2012 than traditional schools. In Louisiana, where Governor Bobby Jindal proudly announced that “we’re doing something about [failing schools],” about two-thirds of charters received a D or an F from the Louisiana State Department of Education in 2013. Furthermore, charters in New Orleans rely heavily on inexperienced teachers and even its model charter school Sci Academy has experienced a skyrocketing suspension rate, which is the second highest in the city. More trouble looms for the over-chartered city in a lawsuit filed by families of disabled students contending that equal educational access has not been provided for their children.

2. The Profit Motive Perverts the Goals of Education

Forbes notes: “The charter school movement began as a grassroots attempt to improve public education. It’s quickly becoming a backdoor for corporate profit.” A McKinsey report estimates that education can be a $1.1 trillion business in the U.S. Meanwhile, state educational funding continues to be cut and budget imbalances are worsened by the transfer of public tax money to charter schools.

Education funding continues to be cut largely because corporations aren’t paying their state taxes.

So philanthropists like Bill Gates and Eli Broad and Michael Bloomberg and Rupert Murdoch and Jeff Bezos and the Walton family, who have little educational experience among them and, who have little accountability to the public, are riding the free-market wave and promoting “education reform” with lots of standardized testing.

Just Like the Fast-Food Industry: Profits for CEOs, Low Wages for the Servers

Our nation’s impulsive experiment with privatization is causing our schools to look more like boardrooms than classrooms. Charter administrators make a lot more money than their public school counterparts and their numbers are rapidly increasing. Teachers, on the other hand, are paid less and they have fewer years of experience and a higher turnover rate. The patriotic-sounding “Teach for America” charges public school districts $3,000 to $5,000 per instructor per year. Teachers don’t get that money, the business owners do.

Good Business Strategy: Cut Employees, Use Machines to Teach

Article image

 

The profit motive also leads to shortcuts in the educational methods practiced on our children. Like “virtual” instruction. The video-game-named Rocketship Schools have $15/hour instructors monitoring up to 130 kids at a time as they work on computers. In Wisconsin, half the students in virtual settings are attending schools that are not meeting performance expectations. Only one out of twelve “cyber schools” met state standards in Pennsylvania. In Los Angeles public money goes for computers instead of needed infrastructure repair.

K12 Inc., the largest online, for-profit Educational Management Organization in the U.S., is a good example of what the Center for Media and Democracy calls “America’s Highest Paid Government Workers” — that is, the CEOs of corporations that make billions by taking control of public services. While over 86 percent of K12’s profits came from taxpayers, and while the salaries of K12’s eight executives went from $10 million to over $21 million in one year, only 27.7 percent of K12 Inc. online schools met state standards in 2010-2011, compared to 52 percent of public schools.

It gets worse with the Common Core Standards, an unproven Gates-funded initiative that requires computers many schools don’t have. The Silicon Valley Business Journal reports that “Next year, K-12 schools across the United States will begin implementing Common Core State Standards, an education initiative that will drive schools to adopt technology in the classroom as never before…Apple, Google, Cisco and a swarm of startups are elbowing in to secure market share.” States are being hit with unexpected new costs, partly for curriculum changes, but also for technology upgrades, testing, and assessment.

Banker’s Ethics in the Principal’s Office

Finally, the profit motive leads to questionable ethics among school operators, if not outright fraud. After a Los Angeles charter school manager misused funds, the California Charter Schools Association insisted that charter schools be exempt from criminal laws because they are private. The same argument was used in a Chicago case. Charters employ the privatization defense to justify their generous salaries while demanding instructional space as public entities. States around the country are being attracted to the money, as, for example, in Texas and Ohio, where charter-affiliated campaign contributions have led to increased funding and licenses for charter schools.

3. Advanced Profit-Making: Higher Education

At the college level, for-profit schools eagerly clamor for low-income students and military veterans, who conveniently arrive with public money in the form of federal financial aid. For-profit colleges get up to 90 percent of their revenue from U.S. taxpayers. Less incentive remains for these schools after tuition is received, as evidenced by the fact that more than half of the students enrolled in for-profit colleges in 2008-9 left without a degree or diploma.

As with K-12 education, the driving need for profit directs our students to computer screens rather than to skilled human communicators. A Columbia University study found that “failure and withdrawal rates were significantly higher for online courses than for face-to-face courses.” The University of Phoenix has a 60 percent dropout rate.

The newest money-maker is the MOOC (Massively Open Online Course). Thanks to such sweeping high-tech strategies, higher ed is increasingly becoming a network of diploma processors, with up to a 90 percent dropout rate, and with the largest business operations losing the most students. For a 2012 bioelectricity class at Duke, for example, 12,725 students enrolled, 3,658 attempted a quiz, and 313 passed. Yet “schools” like edX are charging universities $250,000 per course, then $50,000 for each re-offering of the course, along with a cut of any revenue generated by the course.

4. Lower-Performing Children Left Behind

The greatest perversion of educational principles is the threat to equal opportunity, a mandate that was eloquently expressed by Chief Justice Earl Warren in the 1954 Supreme Court decision on Brown vs. the Board of Education: “Education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments…Such an opportunity…is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.” But we’re turning away from that important message. The National Education Policy Center notes that “Charter schools…can shape their student enrollment in surprising ways,” through practices that often exclude “students with special needs, those with low test scores, English learners, or students in poverty.”

The Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP), perhaps the most acclaimed charter organization, says it doesn’t do that. KIPP has its supporters and it proudly displays the results of an independent study by Mathematica Policy Research, which concluded that “The average impact of KIPP on student achievement is positive, statistically significant, and educationally substantial.”

But funding for the Mathematica study was provided by Atlantic Philanthropies, the same organization that provided $10-25 million in funding to KIPP.

According to a 2011 study by Western Michigan University, KIPP schools enrolled a lower percentage of students with disabilities (5.9 percent) than their local school districts (12.1 percent), enrolled a lower percentage of students classified as English Language Learners (11.5 percent) than their local school districts (19.2 percent), and experienced substantially higher levels of attrition than their local school districts. For charters in general, the CREDO study found that fewer special education students and fewer English language learners are served than in traditional public schools. And charter schools serve fewer disabled students. According to a Center on Education Policy report, 98 percent of disabled students are educated in public schools, while only 1 percent are educated in private schools.

In New York City, special-needs students and English-language learners are enrolled at a much lower rate in charter schools than in public schools; and Over the Counter students—those not participating in the choice process—are disproportionately assigned to high schools with higher percentages of low-performing students. Special education students also leave charters at a much higher rate than special education students in traditional New York public schools. In Nashville, low-performing students are leaving KIPP Academy and other charters just in time for their test scores to be transferred to the public schools. And Milwaukee’s voucher program, which has been praised as a model of privatization success, has had up to a 75 percent attrition rate.

Equal Access to Education?

It’s been 60 years since Chief Justice Warren declared education “a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.” Belief in the American Dream means that anyone can move up the ladder. But today, only 4 percent of those raised in the bottom quintile make it all the way to the top as adults. Two-thirds of those raised in the bottom of the wealth ladder remain on the bottom two rungs.

Compared to other developed countries, equal education has been a low priority in America, with less spending on poor children than rich ones, and with repeated cutbacks in state funding. But there’s no market-based reform where children are involved. Education can’t be reduced to a lottery, or a testing app, or a business plan. Equal opportunity in education ensures that every child is encouraged and challenged and nurtured from the earliest age, as we expect for our own children.

May 092014
 

Chantal Bernier is challenging the Government on

  1. the indiscriminate, no-warrant collection of personal data by the Government from the Telecom companies.      (The Telecoms typically have both your phone and email conversations.)

ALSO

2.  the data the Government is collecting on citizens through facebook

See  Chantal Bernier says Ottawa snooping on social media (2014-05-08):   http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/chantal-bernier-says-ottawa-snooping-on-social-media-1.2635998

(back-up copy at  http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=12949.)

 

A break-through like this – Bernier’s efforts to heighten public awareness and hold the Government to account –  last only a minute in today’s news.   We can prolong it.  Spread the word.

There’s an on-line petition, right-hand side at   https://openmedia.ca/defendprivacy  

And very good articles on the issue by Michael Geist, Chris Parsons, etc. at  https://openmedia.ca/

CONTEXT IS CRITICAL, BUT MISSING

The news coverage and commentary on what the Privacy Commissioner is saying fails to include  Context.

I tried every which way to submit a “Comment” on the on-line story.   (There are more than a thousand so far.)   But kept getting a message saying there was a problem.

So I sent the CONTEXT to the panelists in the 7 minute video (at the above CBC link) . . . at least they will have it!  See below.

One panelist, Steve Anderson from OpenMedia.ca, understands better than the other two.   He said “Canadians should be VERY ALARMED” by what the Privacy Commissioner is pointing out.

This is an important time to communicate with your Member-of-Parliament.   If you can copy and paste from the following, please help yourself!

/Sandra

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

“CONTEXT”
AS SENT TO PANELISTS and OTHERS

SENT TO:   list, including email addresses, appended

 

Dear  (- – – ),

 

Thank-you for adding your weight to defend the principles of democracy in Canada.

(http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/chantal-bernier-says-ottawa-snooping-on-social-media-1.2635998)

Perhaps you know the following.  But JUST IN CASE you don’t!

Add this to the

  • data collection from social media and
  • the “almost 1.2 million requests for personal information about Canadians from Canada’s major telecom companies . . .”,   keeping in mind that the telecoms have both our phone and email data:

1.    CBC News, Oct 2013 –  “Inside Canada’s Top Secret Billion Dollar Spy Palace”.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-canada-s-top-secret-billion-dollar-spy-palace-1.1930322?cmp=rss/

2.   The Guardian, Dec 2013 – “Edward Snowden revelations prompt UN investigation into surveillance”.   (News story set in the UK, but equally applicable to Canada.)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/02/edward-snowden-un-investigation-surveillance?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

3.   Ottawa Citizen, Nov 2008 – “American officials are pressuring the federal government to supply them with more information on Canadians, says an influential analyst on Canada-U.S. relations.   Not only about (routine) individuals, but also about people that you may be looking at for reasons, but there’s no indictment and there’s no charge,” Christopher Sands of the Hudson Institute told a security intelligence conference in Ottawa  . . .”

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=64f59d78-ce97-48dc-b2fd-381859ce6c84

4.  US Legal, Nov 2009 – NSA to Build $1.6 Billion Storage Facility to House Personal Surveillance Data

http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/11/03/nsa-to-build-2-billion-storage-facility-to-house-personal-surveillance-data/

5.   Hansard, October 9, 2003 –  Government contracts to Lockheed Martin Corp for work related to the data base on Canadians at Statistics Canada.

(Note that the data is being added to continuously, every day, through StatsCan “surveys”.  StatsCan is no longer limited to once-in-five-year data collection on citizens through censuses.  Also, individual records are not “anonymous”.  Your name is on your record.)

“Bill Blaikie pressures government on Lockheed Martin Government Contracts

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

We have heard a troubling rumour that Statistics Canada has awarded a multi-million dollar contract to an American corporation to do the dress rehearsal for the census in 2005 and subsequently the census itself. That corporation, we have heard, is Lockheed Martin, one of the biggest munitions companies in the world.  . . . ”   (Not to mention that it also specializes in surveillance.)

6.   BC Privacy Commissioner, Oct 2004 —  “Access to personal information through the USA Patriot Act”

Excerpt:

“On the first question, we have concluded that, if information is located outside British Columbia, it will be subject to the law that applies where it is found, regardless of the terms of an outsourcing contract. Therefore, if an outsourcing arrangement calls for personal information to be sent to the US, that information would be subject to the USA Patriot Act . . .

Further, we have concluded that it is a reasonable possibility that the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FIS Court) would issue a FISA order requiring a US-located corporation to produce records held in Canada by its Canadian subsidiary or, indeed, require any person or corporation within the jurisdiction of that court to disclose records held outside the US that they control because they have the legal or practical ability to obtain the records.  . . . ”

(The Government and citizens of Canada, owners of the StatsCan data base for example, would never be told if Lockheed Martin turned over access to the data base to the NSA or some other entity within the American Govt.)

7.   Ottawa Citizen, June 2008 –  “. . .  the Conservatives’ Canada First Defence Strategy was quietly released Thursday night on the Internet. . . .”

(Link no longer valid)  http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=c3fcf7c4-0f60-41e1-89f8-0c95a2640229

Text from this Canadian military strategy document (Canada and the U.S.), as it was then:

“.. the two nations’ armed forces will pursue their effective collaboration on operations in North America and abroad. To remain interoperable, we must ensure that key aspects of our equipment and doctrine are compatible. . . . ”

8.  New American, March 2011 –  The U.S. has invested heavily in the development of biometrics

“…The Department of Homeland Security has been using iris scans at some airports to verify the identity of travelers who have passed background checks and who want to move through lines quickly. The department is also looking to apply iris- and face-recognition techniques to other programs. The DHS already has a database of millions of sets of fingerprints, . . .

“It’s going to be an essential component of tracking,” warned Barry Steinhardt, director of the Technology and Liberty Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. “It’s enabling the Always On Surveillance Society.”

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/7927-fbi-announces-creation-of-biometric-database

 

If the preceding can be helpful in some way,   I will be happy.

I am conversant with these matters because I run an email network.  And because I was on trial for 5 years, in and out of Court,  over the question of Lockheed Martin’s involvement in the StatsCan data base on citizens.

Surveillance is characteristic of a police state.  The evidence when accumulated is clear:  Canadians are on a precipice.  The time is well past when we all need to fight with every means at our disposal to reverse the slide into a fascist (corporate) state.  Once again – – many thanks for your contribution.

 

Best wishes,

 

Sandra Finley

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

APPENDED

The preceding was sent, with minor variations, to:

1.   Chantal Bernier, Federal Privacy Commissioner  (a special thank-you)

Anne-Marie.Hayden    AT    priv.gc.ca

Dear Anne-Marie,

I will be very appreciative if you will forward this to Chantal Bernier:

Bless you, Chantal Bernier,   . . .

 

2.   The “specialist”  Christopher Parsons.

I’m a postdoctoral fellow at Citizen Lab (U of T, Munk School)  focusing on ubiquitous digital surveillance and its accompanying privacy issues. Toronto, ON.

christopher   AT     christopher-parsons.com

 

3.   Panelist  Bill Robson, President and CEO of the C D Howe Institute   (Strange bed-fellow for me!)

Bill_robson   AT    cdhowe.org

 

4.   Panelist  Goldy Hyder, President, Hill & Knowlton

Hello Jackie,

I will be appreciative if you can forward this to Mr. Hyder.

jackie.king    AT   hkstrategies.ca

 

 

 

 

May 082014
 

The article is copied below.

But go to the URL – – there are two video clips of discussions on the issue that you might like to see.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/chantal-bernier-says-ottawa-snooping-on-social-media-1.2635998

IMPORTANT NOTE:   in the news coverage there is NO reference at all to the closely-related,

2013-10-09 Inside Canada’s top-secret billion-dollar spy palace, CBC News   

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Chantal Bernier says Ottawa snooping on social media

Privacy commissioner urges government to clarify rules for when and where data can be collected

By Pete Evans, CBC News

Chantal Bernier, Canada's interim privacy commissioner, wants Ottawa to clearly define what information government departments are allowed to collect on Canadians from social media.

Chantal Bernier, Canada’s interim privacy commissioner, wants Ottawa to clearly define what information government departments are allowed to collect on Canadians from social media. (Canadian Press)

 

Federal government departments are collecting data on Canadian citizens via their social media accounts for no good reason, Canada’s privacy watchdog says.

In a letter to Treasury Board president Tony Clement in February, interim privacy commissioner Chantal Bernier says “we are seeing evidence that personal information is being collected by government institutions from social media sites without regard for accuracy, currency and accountability.”

The letter dated Feb. 13 also reads: “Should information culled from these sites be used to make administrative decisions about individuals, it is incumbent upon government institutions to ensure the accuracy of this information.”

Clement replied to her letter, promising to ask Treasury Board officials to study the matter and report back to Bernier.

 

Government questioned

 

The issue came up in the House of Commons on Thursday. NDP MP Megan Leslie asked how the government sees fit to collect and stockpile more private information on citizens in a time when privacy issues are becoming more critical. “The government scrapped the long-form census because it was too intrusive, but they’re fine with private companies intruding on the personal lives of millions of Canadians,” she told Clement during question period.

Without explaining what, specifically, was being monitored and collected, Clement justified the practice by saying the government is merely finding new ways of communicating with citizens.

“Whether it’s in a letter or a petition or written on the street, this government always wants to listen to Canadians who want to be heard,” Clement said. “Of course we must and will operate within the law, within the confines of the Privacy Act, and of course we are always willing to engage with the privacy commissioner to ensure that our oversight and our laws, the oversight of government, is modern.”

But “we will continue to communicate with Canadians who want to communicate with us,” Clement said.

The letter is just the latest example of how Canada’s chief privacy watchdog has raised a red flag about troubling gaps in the security of Canadians’ personal information.

 

Other concerns

 

Last month, Bernier’s office revealed that various government agencies have made almost 1.2 million requests for personal information about Canadians from Canada’s major telecom companies, often without a warrant.

Last year, the commissioner’s office criticized two federal government departments for improperly collecting data of a personal nature on prominent First Nations activist Cindy Blackstock. Although it said collection of data about Blackstock’s employer and human rights campaign were fair game, the data collection veered into information of a personal nature — an obvious violation of “the spirit, if not the letter, of the Privacy Act,” the privacy commissioner said at the time.

Bernier sent CBC News her report on Blackstock’s case, which states it is a “misconception that people surrender their right to privacy by posting on Facebook.”

In an email statement today she also said the more recent intrusions into Canadians’ privacy by two government departments underscore the need for guidance in this area.

“It is increasingly important to develop guidelines to clarify privacy protections with respect to the collection of publicly available personal information from social media sites,” she wrote.

“In a recent investigation into the collection of information from a First Nations activist’s personal Facebook page, we took the position that this type of information can only be gathered in situations in which a direct connection exists to the institution’s operating programs or activities,” she added.

Bernier’s office also flagged government snooping on social media in a report to parliamentarians in January, which, much like the letter she sent in February, draws a distinction between the legitimate collection of publicly available data, and that which overreaches into information that the government has no good reason to be collecting or trying to collect.

The Privacy Act does allow for government to collect data from social media, but only when there’s a direct relation to a specific program or activity — it’s not just a blank cheque to collect data for no specific purpose.

“Even in cases where authority exists, institutions may not be ensuring the accuracy of such information,” the letter says.

Privacy lawyer David Fraser agrees, saying he hopes decisions on government programs such as Employment Insurance aren’t being made with inaccurate data. “It’s not just that they’re looking, they’re collecting,” he told CBC News in an interview. “Transparency is the way to deal with this head-on.”

“People using social media [voluntarily] put their information out there … but if it’s being collected on a database that really takes it completely out of that realm,” he said. “We have doors and curtains in our lives for a reason.”

For him, the issue isn’t that public information is being stored, but rather why. “Is there a list of people who’ve shown negative opinions [of the government]? We’re left with a lot of questions and no real answers,” Fraser said.

 

Clarity needed

 

“The public availability of personal information on the internet [does not] render personal information non-personal,” the privacy commissioner said in the annual report to Parliament last year. “For good or ill, research demonstrates that social media users have a certain expectation of privacy,” the letter says.

Bernier calls on government to more clearly define what information from social media can be collected, under what circumstances and for what purpose.

“As there appears to be a lack of clarity around this issue, we would suggest that it would be timely to have the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat develop and issue clear, mandatory guidance to articulate what constitutes ‘publically available’ personal information, how and when such information can be collected and used [and] what responsibilities must be met to ensure its accuracy and currency,” the letter reads.

May 022014
 

http://www.citynews.ca/2014/05/02/canadians-use-of-tax-havens-grows-to-

Canadians’ use of tax havens for both legal and illegal purposes appears to be growing despite government efforts to curtail the practice, says a new paper from a tax avoidance watchdog.

Canadians for Tax Fairness says new data shows the use of 10 offshore tax havens by Canadian firms and individuals rose to $170 billion last year, up $15 billion from the year before.

The data shows that Canadian money is flowing into tax havens at a faster rate than investment into non-tax haven countries.

The $170 billion figure almost certainly under-represents the problem, says executive director Dennis Howlett, since Statistics Canada has stopped tracking how much money is being stashed away in the Bahamas, which in 2010 held about $14.5 billion in Canadian money.

As well, Howlett notes the figures only show money being reported and would not capture illegal activities.

The group estimates federal and provincial governments are losing out on close to $8 billion in revenues from the reported use of tax havens alone.

The federal government has joined other advanced nations in efforts to cut down on tax avoidance and cheating, but Howlett says Ottawa hasn’t matched its rhetoric with action. He notes that Revenue Canada has seen deep cuts in staffing over the past few years as part of the government’s public service cutbacks.

The numbers show that about 40 per cent of all Canadian direct foreign investment is held by the finance and insurance industry and that the money flow is mostly into three offshore countries — Barbados, the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg.

Apr 252014
 

Add your weight to the petition – – it’s in the text, near the end.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/04/24

Critics of the new rules say that this could be the moment the internet as we know it will die if the people do not rise to its defense

  – Jon Queally, staff writer
Defenders of an open, innovative and fair internet are up in arms Thursday after learning the Federal Communications Commission is about to issue new rule proposals that will kill the online principle known as “net neutrality.”
The death of net neutrality—which has governed the equal treatment of content since the internet was created—will create, say critics, a tiered internet that allows major internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon to cut special and lucrative deals with content providers who can afford to pay for special “fast lanes.” The result will be an internet that will incentivize slower traffic by ISPs and the creation of privatized, corporate-controlled “toll-roads” that will come to dominate a once fair and free environment.
As reported by various outlets, the  new rules have been circulated by FCC chairman Tom Wheeler to the other members of the commission and will be officially announced on Thursday.
“With this proposal, the FCC is aiding and abetting the largest ISPs in their efforts to destroy the open Internet,” said Craig Aaron, president of the media advocacy group Free Press. “Giving ISPs the green light to implement pay-for-priority schemes will be a disaster for startups, nonprofits and everyday Internet users who cannot afford these unnecessary tolls. These users will all be pushed onto the Internet dirt road, while deep pocketed Internet companies enjoy the benefits of the newly created fast lanes.”

Chairman Wheeler defended the new proposals and denied the rule changes were an attack on the open internet, but Aaron rejected those claims and said that trying to argue these new rules protect net neutrality is an insult.

“This is not Net Neutrality,” he stated. “It’s an insult to those who care about preserving the open Internet to pretend otherwise. The FCC had an opportunity to reverse its failures and pursue real Net Neutrality by reclassifying broadband under the law. Instead, in a moment of political cowardice and extreme shortsightedness, it has chosen this convoluted path that won’t protect Internet users.”

Those who have fought hardest to protect the idea of a free and equal digital playing field for all users, however, said Wheeler’s claims don’t pass the laugh test and rebuked the Chairman’s proposals in the strongest possible terms.

“If it goes forward, this capitulation will represent Washington at its worst,” Todd O’Boyle, program director of Common Cause’s Media and Democracy Reform Initiative, told the New York Times. “Americans were promised, and deserve, an Internet that is free of toll roads, fast lanes and censorship — corporate or governmental.”

And speaking with Time magazine, Lauren Weinsten, a veteran tech-policy expert and prominent Net-neutrality advocate, said: “This is a stake in the heart for Internet openness.”

She continued: “The nation’s largest Internet service providers have hit the ultimate jackpot. These companies keep secret all of the information needed to evaluate whether violations of Internet openness have occurred, and because the FCC moves so slowly, by the time it acts, a company that’s been victimized could be out of business.”

And Free Press’ Aaron put particular emphasis on the perverse incentives the new rules would create, explaining:

The FCC apparently doesn’t realize the dangerous incentives these rules would create. The routing of data on the Internet is a zero-sum game. Unless there is continual congestion, no website would pay for priority treatment. This means the FCC’s proposed rules will actually produce a strong incentive for ISPs to create congestion through artificial scarcity. Not only would this outcome run counter to the FCC’s broader goals, it actually undermines the so-called Section 706 legal basis for these rules.

This proposal is short-sighted and should be strenuously opposed by the broader Internet community — including millions of Americans who have urged Chairman Wheeler and his predecessors to safeguard the open Internet. The only parties cheering this idea on will be the largest ISPs who stand to profit from discrimination. We urge Chairman Wheeler’s colleagues not to support this item as currently drafted and demand nothing less than real Net Neutrality.

 

Both Common Cause and Free Press have already posted petitions on their sites where concerned citizens can voice their opposition and join the fight to oppose the FCC’s new rules.

The Free Press petition states, in part:

People everywhere understand that the Internet is a crucial driver of free speech, innovation, education, economic growth, creativity and so much more. They demand real Net Neutrality rules that protect Internet users from corporate abuse.

But the Federal Communications Commission is proposing rules that would kill — rather than protect — Net Neutrality and allow rampant discrimination online.

Under these rules, telecom giants like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon would be able to pick winners and losers online and discriminate against online content and applications. And no one could do anything about it.

We must stop the FCC from moving forward with these rules, which would give the green light to ISPs eager to crush Net Neutrality.

The agency can preserve Net Neutrality only by designating broadband as a telecommunications service under the law. Anything else is an attack on our rights to connect and communicate.

_____________________________________________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

 

 

 

 

Apr 172014
 

A comprehensive article (below), excellent info.

ASIDE:

  • Biotech stocks have been plummeting.   Wall Street Journal.  The biotech ETF has dropped 23% since peaking in late February.   Attributed to being “oversold”.

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/04/15/biotech-stocks-take-out-key-technical-level-as-plummet-continues/

  • The next March Against Monsanto (MAM) is May 24, 2014.   Is there one in your community?  I have added a couple of new Canadian MAM’s:

List of March Against Monsanto (MAM), No to GMO, & GE Free Groups, emphasis on Canada)

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

Monsanto and Big Food Losing the GMO and ‘Natural’ Food Fight

(Link no longer valid:  http://www.nationofchange.org/monsanto-and-big-food-losing-gmo-and-natural-food-fight-1397741911)

After 20 years of battling Monsanto and corporate agribusiness, food and farm activists in Vermont, backed by a growing Movement across the country, are on the verge of a monumental victory—mandatory labels on genetically engineered foods and a ban on the routine industry practice of labeling GMO-tainted foods as “natural.”

On April 16, 2014, the Vermont Senate passed H.112 by a vote of 28-2, following up on the passage of a similar bill in the Vermont House last year. The legislation, which requires all GMO foods sold in Vermont to be labeled by July 1, 2016, will now pass through a House/Senate conference committee before landing on Governor Peter Shumlin’s desk, for final approval.

Strictly speaking, Vermont’s H.112 applies only to Vermont. But it will have the same impact on the marketplace as a federal law. Because national food and beverage companies and supermarkets will not likely risk the ire of their customers by admitting that many of the foods and brands they are selling in Vermont are genetically [engineered, and deceptively labeled as “natural” or “all natural”;] while simultaneously trying to conceal this fact in the other 49 states and North American markets. As a seed executive for Monsanto admitted 20 years ago, “If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it.”

Proof of this “skull and crossbones” effect is evident in the European Union, where mandatory labeling, in effect since 1997, has all but driven genetically engineered foods and crops off the market. The only significant remaining GMOs in Europe today are imported grains (corn, soy, canola, cotton seed) primarily from the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and Argentina. These grains are used for animal feed, hidden from public view by the fact that meat, dairy and eggs derived from animals fed GMOs do not yet have to be labeled in the EU.

Given the imminent passage of the Vermont legislation and the growing strength of America’s anti-GMO and pro-organic Movement, the Gene Giants—Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, Bayer, BASF, and Syngenta—and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), representing Big Food, find themselves in a difficult position. Early polls indicate that Oregon voters will likely pass a ballot initiative on Nov. 4, 2014, to require mandatory labeling of GMOs in Oregon. Meanwhile, momentum for labeling continues to gather speed in other states as well.

Connecticut and Maine have already passed GMO labeling laws, but these laws contain “trigger” clauses, which prevent them from going into effect until other states mandate labeling as well. Vermont’s law does not contain a “trigger” clause. As soon as the governor signs it, it will have the force of law.

Divisions Between Big Food and the Gene Giants

Given what appears to be the inevitable victory of the consumer Right-to-know Movement, some of the U.S.’s largest food companies have quietly begun distancing themselves from Monsanto and the genetic engineering lobby. General Mills, Post Foods, Chipotle, Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s and others have begun to make changes in their supply chains in order to eliminate GMOs in some or all of their products. Several hundred companies have enrolled in the Non-GMO Project so they can credibly market their products as GMO-free.

At least 30 members (10 percent of the total membership) of the GMA who contributed money to defeat Proposition 37 in California in November 2012, have held back on making further contributions to stop labeling initiatives in other states. Among the apparent defectors in the GMA ranks are: Mars, Unilever, Smithfield, Heinz, Sara Lee, Dole, Wrigley, and Mead Johnson.  Under pressure from the Organic Consumers Association, Dr. Anthony Weil’s natural health and supplements company, Weil Lifestyle, pulled out of the GMA.

Meanwhile a number of the Gene Giants themselves, including Monsanto, appear to be slowly decreasing their investments in gene-spliced GMOs, while increasing their investments in more traditional, and less controversial, cross-breeding and hybrid seed sales.  Still, don’t expect the Gene Giants to give up on the GMO seeds and crops already in production, especially Roundup Ready and Bt-spliced crops, nor those in the pipeline such as 2,4-D “Agent Orange” and Dicamba-resistant corn and soybeans, GE rice, and “RNA interference” crops such as non-browning apples, and fast-growing genetically engineered trees.

America’s giant food companies and their chemical industry allies understand the threat posed by truthful labeling of GMOs, pesticides, antibiotics, growth promoters and toxic chemicals. They understand full well that the GMO monocrops and factory farms that dominate U.S. agriculture not only pose serious health and environmental hazards, but represent a significant public relations liability as well.

This is why the food and GE giants are threatening to sue Vermont and any other state that dares to pass a GMO labeling bill, even though industry lawyers have no doubt informed them that they are unlikely to win in federal court.

This is also why corporate agribusiness is supporting “Ag Gag” state laws making it a crime to photograph or film on factory farms. Why they’re lobbying for state laws that take away the rights of counties and local communities to regulate agricultural practices. And why they’re supporting secret international trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership that will, among other provisions, enable multinational corporations to sue and eliminate state and local laws on matters such as GMOs, food safety, and country of origin labeling.

The bottom line is this: Corporate America’s current “business-as-usual” strategies are incompatible with consumers’ right to know, and communities’ and states’ rights to legislate.

Coca-Cola, Pepsi, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Campbell’s, Safeway, Del Monte, Nestlé, Unilever, ConAgra, Wal-Mart, and every food manufacturer with GMO-tainted brands, understand they’re not going to be able to label their products as “produced with genetic engineering,” or drop the use of the term “natural” on GMO-tainted products, only in Vermont, while refusing to do so in other states and international markets. This is why their powerful front group, the GMA, is frantically working in Washington, D.C. to lobby the FDA and the Congress to take away the right of states to require genetically engineered foods and food ingredients to be labeled, and to allow them to continue to label and advertise genetically engineered and chemically-laced foods as “natural” or “all natural.”

 

Industry’s Last Chance: Indentured Politicians

 

Conspiring with the GMA, Monsanto’s minions from both the Republican and Democratic parties in Congress, led by the notorious Koch brothers mouthpiece, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), introduced in early April in the House a GMA-scripted bill to outlaw mandatory state GMO labels and allow the continued use of “natural” or “all natural” product labels on a wide range of Frankenfoods and beverages.

The GMA’s federal offensive to prop up the dangerous and evermore unpopular technology of transgenic foods comes on the heels of two high-profile ballot initiative battles in California (2012), and Washington State (2013), where GMA members were forced to spend almost $70 million to narrowly defeat GMO labeling forces. The 15 largest contributors to stop GMO labeling in California and Washington include the following GMA members:

(1) Monsanto: $13,487,350

2) Dupont: $9,280,159

(3) Pepsico: $4,837,966

(4) Coca-Cola: $3,210,851

(5) Nestlé: $2,989,806

(6) Bayer CropScience: $2,591,654

(7) Dow Agrosciences: $2,591,654

(4) Kraft Foods (Mondolez International) $2,391,835

(8) BASF Plant Science: $2,500,000

(9) Kraft Foods (now in part Mondolez International) $2,391,835

(10) General Mills: $2,099,570

(11) ConAgra Foods: $2,004,951

(12) Syngenta: $2,000,000

(13) Kellogg’s: $1,112,749

(14) Campbell Soup: $982,888

(15) Smucker Company: $904,977

 

The Fire Next Time

These “dirty tricks,” “dirty money” ballot initiative victories in California and Washington now ring hollow.  If Congress or the FDA, prompted by these same companies, dare to stomp on states’ rights to require GMO labels on GMO food, if they dare to repress the rights of millions of consumers to know whether or not their food is genetically engineered, they run the very real risk of detonating an even larger and more vociferous grassroots rebellion, including massive boycotts and a concerted effort to throw “Monsanto’s Minions” out of Congress. The widespread furor last year over the so-called “Monsanto Protection Act,” surreptitiously appended to the Appropriations Bill, and then, after massive uproar, subsequently removed, is but a partial foreshadowing of the turmoil yet to come.

Likewise Congress or the FDA should think twice before legally sanctioning the patently outrageous practice of allowing companies to continue to label or advertise GMO or chemically tainted food as “natural” or “all natural.”

Given the fact that 80-90 percent of American consumers want genetically engineered foods to be labeled, as indicated by numerous polls over the last 10 years, and given the fact that it is obviously unethical and fraudulent to label or advertise GMO or heavily chemically processed foods as “natural,” even the FDA has so far declined to come to the rescue of Monsanto and Big Food. In the face of 65 so far largely successful national class-action lawsuits against food companies accused of fraudulently labeling their GMO or chemically-laced brands as “natural, ”Big Food’s lawyers have asked the FDA to come to their aid. But so far, the FDA has declined to throw gasoline on the fire.

It’s clear why “profit at any cost” big business wants to keep consumers in the dark. They want to maximize their profits. The consumer, the environment, the climate be damned. But let’s review, for the record, why truthful food labeling is so important to us, the overwhelming majority of the people, and to future generations.

Here are three major, indeed life-or-death, issues that drive America’s new anti-GMO and pro-organic food Movement:

(1)     There is mounting, and indeed alarming, scientific evidence that genetically engineered foods and crops, and the toxic pesticides, chemicals, and genetic constructs that accompany them, are hazardous. GMOs pose a mortal threat, not only to human and animal health, but also to the environment, biodiversity, the survival of small-scale family farms, and climate stability.

(2)     Genetically engineered crops are the technological cornerstone and ideological rationale for our dominant, out-of-control system of industrial agriculture, factory farms, and highly processed junk food. America’s industrial food and farming system is literally destroying public health, the environment, soil fertility and climate stability. As we educate, boycott and mobilize, as we label and drive GMOs off the market, we simultaneously rip the mask off Big Food and chemical corporations, which will ultimately undermine industrial agriculture and speed up the “Great Transition” to a food and farming system that is organic, sustainable and climate stabilizing.

(3)     Fraudulent “natural” labels confuse consumers and hold back the growth of true organic alternatives.   Consumers are confused about the difference between conventional products marketed as “natural,” or “all natural”and those nutritionally and environmentally superior products that are “certified organic.” Recent polls indicate that many health and green-minded consumers remain confused about the qualitative difference between products labeled or advertised as “natural,” versus those labeled as organic. Many believe that “natural” means “almost organic,” or that a natural product is even better than organic. Thanks to growing consumer awareness, and four decades of hard work, the organic community has built up a $35-billion “certified organic” food and products sector that prohibits the use of genetic engineering, irradiation, toxic pesticides, sewage sludge and chemical fertilizers. As impressive as this $35-billion Organic Alternative is, it remains overshadowed by the $80 billion in annual spending by consumers on products marketed as “natural.” Get rid of fraudulent “natural” labels on GMO and chemically tainted products, and organic sales will skyrocket.

With the passage of the Vermont GMO labeling law, after 20 years of struggle, it’s time to celebrate our common victory. But as we all know, the battle for a new food and farming system, and a sustainable future has just begun.

ABOUT Ronnie Cummins

Ronnie Cummins is founder and director of the Organic Consumers Association.

 

 

Apr 172014
 

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/HEALTH/CALL+CURB+TESTS+SCANS+WISE/9747503/STORY.HTML

CMA call to curb tests, scans wise
By Mark Lemstra, Health Issues

What is going on with the Canadian Medical Association? It used to be an advocacy group that simply demanded spending more money on health care, but now the CMA is promoting evidencebased practices.

On April 3, the association began a campaign, called Choosing Wisely Canada, to reduce unnecessary medical tests and procedures. It is based on a similar campaign launched in the United States in 2011. The Canadian program is funded by the CMA, the University of Toronto and the Ontario government.

Nine national medical organizations were consulted to help determine the diagnostics and interventions being overused. To date, there are 40 tests and procedures listed on the organization’s website, with more to come.

Let’s take one step back at this point and remember what the CMA did in July 2013, when it released a report titled What Makes Us Sick. It was based on comprehensive national consultations and a review of the literature. The CMA report concluded that social factors predict at least 50 per cent of all health outcomes.

The association recommended an action plan to eliminate poverty: that Canada consider a guaranteed annual income to alleviate poverty, and that governments invest more in affordable housing, food security and early childhood development. The CMA concluded that without addressing the social determinants of health, the demands on the reactive health care system will be unsustainable. Although none of this is new, it was refreshing to hear the powerful CMA advocate for evidence-based practices.

The problem is finding a source of money for new proactive social investments. With health care consuming nearly 50 cents of every tax dollar raised in every province, the solution must come from savings in the reactive health-care system.

This is where the latest report from the CMA is so meaningful and helpful. If doctors themselves begin to identify unnecessary tests and procedures, this will save money and free up money for social interventions.

Choosing Wisely Canada’s website advocates for doing fewer imaging tests for low back pain, fewer bone density tests, fewer colonoscopies, reducing the number of electrocardiograms, fewer imaging tests for headaches, less antibiotic use to treat sinusitis, and so on. A common sense descriptor is required in each case, but the overall conclusion is that it is fairly easy to identify and reduce unnecessary tests and procedures.

For example, the group explains that although low back pain can be bothersome, an X-ray, CT scan or MRI isn’t usually necessary because most cases resolve themselves without treatment. As well, more investigation results in more treatment and delayed recovery. It cites evidence that back pain sufferers who receive imaging tests are eight times more likely to get surgery, with no improvement in recovery.

The tests also come with risks that include high exposure to radiation for instance, of the testicles and ovaries, and concern that tests will uncover non-harmful spinal abnormalities that will lead to even more unnecessary tests and procedures.

To be fair, the CMA did not come up with the idea of reducing medical intervention on its own.

In February 2012, facing a $16 billion budget deficit due mostly to the $45 billion spent on health care, the Ontario government released a report by its Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Services. It recommended paying doctors for health outcomes achieved, not for the number of patients seen or tests or procedures performed.

As well, the commission recommended freezing the salaries of doctors and moving 70 per cent of them to salaries instead of fee for service reimbursement. In plain language, doctors had to evolve or have drastic measures imposed on them. Former Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty likely said it best when he concluded in the Canadian Medical Association Journal: “There will be a time when the Ministry of Health is the only ministry we can afford to have – and we still won’t be able to afford the Ministry of Health.”

Regardless of the motivation, the CMA is being incredibly helpful by leading a process in which doctors and patients begin to receive less medical intervention. In a world of long waiting lists, it makes sense to prioritize necessary intervention by removing unnecessary services from the list. Equally important, this will allow governments to invest in social programs that promote health.

© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix