Sandra Finley

2013-04-01 Taxpayers on the hook for a billion dollar toxic cleanup (Arsenic +, Yellowknife). Giant Gold Mine. Globe&Mail

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Economy / Political Economy, Health, Sustainability, Water  No Responses »
Apr 072013
 

RE:  the G&M article below

a toxic smorgasbord of buildings, tailings ponds and a quarter-million tonnes of arsenic stored underground  . . .   before large amounts of arsenic start escaping from collapsing buildings.   … 

The poisoning from the Giant Mine has been known for a long time.   Now, a billion dollars — ALL from tax-payers.

I worked in Yellowknife in the early 1970’s.  My 3 best friends from there, my age,  all died of cancer.  They died in middle age.   One of them was Gina Blondin.  I googled and found a book with a moving tribute to this remarkable First Nations (Slavey) woman.  (I roomed with Gina and her husband, Duncan Pryde.)   The tribute to Gina is in:  Like the Sound of a Drum: Aboriginal Cultural Politics in Denendeh and Nunavut, By Peter Kulchyski.

The First Nations people we have joined in battle:

  • northern Alberta (tar sands)
  • Saskatchewan (uranium and now nuclear)
  • Sarnia ON (the Aamjiwnaang, petro-chemical plants)
  • Grassy Narrows (mercury from upstream pulp and paper mills)

have everything in common with the Dene in the NWT   – the on-going poisoning of their land and their people.  They are robbed of their ability to feed themselves.

The tragedy is not theirs alone – – think of what we could do with a billion dollars.

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/article10659731.ece

BOB WEBER,  The Canadian Press  Published Last updated

 

Cleanup costs at a single northern mine next to Great Slave Lake are ballooning so high they are forcing Ottawa to rethink plans for thousands of contaminated sites across the country.

Documents obtained by northern environmentalists show the government expects the cost of cleaning up the Giant Mine just outside Yellowknife to be nearly a billion dollars – perhaps the largest single environmental cleanup in Canada and paid for entirely by taxpayers.

Initial estimates for safely dealing with the huge site, which includes a toxic smorgasbord of buildings, tailings ponds and a quarter-million tonnes of arsenic stored underground, were about $488-million. A federal progress report on the project says costs have increased as more has become known about the scale of the problem.

“The increase in estimated costs occurred as a result of the normal progression through the preliminary phases of the remediation project [… increased site information and detail obtained over time],” the report says.

Rising labour and equipment costs are also part of the problem. So is the current state of the mine, which is so bad that emergency measures need to be taken this summer before large amounts of arsenic start escaping from collapsing buildings. The official price tag of $903-million could get higher yet.

“There is a potential for the total project cost estimates to increase over time,” says the report, which uses figures as of March, 2012.

The costs are already squeezing funding for other federal cleanups.

The Giant Mine remediation project is funded out of a federal program for contaminated sites. Beginning in 2005, a total of $3.6-billion over 15 years has been earmarked for the program. That was supposed to be enough for 6,765 known toxic sites, including 2,709 “priority” sites. They include the Lennard Island lighthouse off the coast of Vancouver Island, the Happy Valley-Goose Bay air force base in Labrador and Rock Bay in Victoria Harbour. Cleaning up the Faro Mine in the Yukon alone is expected to cost up to $590-million.

Contaminants found on the sites vary widely, but most common are fuel residues, metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls. Environment Canada spokesman Mark Johnson said there’s enough money in the kitty for immediate work.

“There is currently sufficient funding available to cover the cost of planned remediation activities at high priority sites,” he said in an e-mail.

Other sites, however, may have to wait. “The government of Canada will re-examine its approach to identifying the highest priority sites for funding.”

The Giant Mine is getting so bad that the federal government has asked the NWT’s environmental regulator for emergency approvals to clean up the crumbling site. About 3,600 cubic metres of arsenic and arsenic-contaminated material remain in surface structures – uncontained and in many cases exposed to the elements.

Photographs from the site show piles of arsenic dust lying exposed inside the old flues that used to carry it underground. Those flues are pulling away from the building they were attached to and slowly collapsing as concrete and wood pillars that held them up rot away.

Snow blows freely through derelict walls and roofs onto arsenic-contaminated equipment. Asbestos insulation waves in the wind as it flakes off old pipes and buildings. Underground, arsenic-stuffed caverns are in danger of falling in from the surface or collapsing into mined-out areas below. The mine’s main smokestack is crumbling.

Arsenic poisoning starts with headaches, confusion, severe diarrhea and drowsiness. When the poisoning becomes acute, symptoms may include vomiting, blood in the urine, cramping muscles, hair loss, stomach pain and convulsions. Continued poisoning leads to a coma, followed by death.

The cleanup will be so dangerous that buildings will have to be sealed off as they are demolished and removed. Workers would have to wear full hazmat suits and breathe supplied air.

2013-04-03 Opposition parties to join forces, Orillia Packet & Times

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category)  No Responses »
Apr 042013
 

http://www.orilliapacket.com/2013/04/03/opposition-parties-to-join-forces

Opposition parties to join forces ( 6 Comments)  (Please go to the link to see the Comments)

By Roberta Bell, Orillia Packet & Times

ORILLIA – Members of the local federal opposition parties are going national with a joint effort to unseat the Conservative government and bring about electoral reform.

“We’re not talking about a merger. We’re not talking about coalitions. We’re talking about one-time co-operation and the implementation of some kind of proportional representation so that we’re never in this situation again,” said Gord Ball, a member of the Simcoe North Federal Green Party Association executive.

Ball was also the chair of the riding’s unofficial tri-party group that has met over the past year to discuss opportunities for collaboration in the next federal election.

The group, which has kept the focus of its outreach fairly close to home until now, will be hosting a three-day conference called Co-operate for Canada, open to members and unaligned voters from coast to coast, Sept. 27 to 29 at Geneva Park in Ramara Township.

“The goal of the conference is to come up with some realistic strategies that will work in ridings across Canada,” Ball said, “particularly those ridings where the seats are held by members of Parliament who were elected by less than a majority of the voters.”

As opposed to looking at local members of the Green party and NDP as adversaries, Steve Clarke, who ran as the Liberal candidate in Simcoe North in the 2008 and 2011 elections, sees them as partners.

The first-past-the-post system is designed for two parties, said Clarke, a member of the tri-party group.

“Certainly, on the federal scene, now we have more,” he said.

The Stephen Harper government has “100% of the power with only 39% of popular support” because the vote is being split, said Ball, who wants to see a system put in place that better reflects the will of the electorate.

While there are different models of proportional representation, Clarke is an advocate of instant-runoff balloting, a ranking system of sorts where nobody wins unless they have 50% of the vote.

Simcoe North MP Bruce Stanton, who did have 50% of the vote in the last election, sees the first-past-the-post system as one that promotes stability.

“To be successful electorally, you’ve got to reach beyond your ideological base because people won’t support your party otherwise,” he said.

Although Stanton is not opposed to looking at other options, he sees the push for collaboration among opposition members as a “shortcut to success.”

It’s just another avenue of opposing the existing government, he said.

While there’s support for co-operation at the federal level from the Green party, the Liberals and NDP have yet to get onboard.

“We’re hoping that the ground will shift,” said Ball, who’s hoping political collaboration at the grassroots level encourages leaders of the other opposition parties to “rethink” their stance.

Tri-party co-operation is not a long-term goal, said Ball.

There’d really be no need for it after electoral reform, he added.

The Co-operate for Canada conference is not sponsored by the parties or their local riding associations.

The cost of participating is $350 and includes meals and lodging. After June 30, the fee will increase to $375.

For more information or to sign up, visit cooperate4.ca.

Great by COOPERATE! Research: Canadians WOULD vote for cooperation candidates, support electoral reform

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Green Party  No Responses »
Apr 042013
 

http://cooperate4.ca/national-poll/ 

 

Canadians would vote for cooperation candidates, support     electoral reform according to new national poll
    Toronto, ON — April 4th — A new national Environics     poll shows that Canadians think our democratic system is broken,     overwhelmingly favour proportional representation, and are willing to vote     for cooperation candidates to defeat Conservative MPs in the next federal     election.

The telephone poll, which sampled 1,004 voters, comes just days before     voting in the Liberal leadership race is set to begin. Cooperation and     electoral reform have been major topics of debate between the two top     candidates, Joyce Murray and Justin Trudeau.

Poll Findings

1. Canadians more likely to say our democratic system is broken     than effective. When asked if our democratic system is broken and     needed to be fixed, or effective and works well – 45% said broken and 33%     said it works well.

2. Seven in ten Canadians support move to proportional     representation. When asked if they would support a move to     proportional representation – 70% of Canadians would support, with Liberal     supporters at 77%, NDP supporters at 82%, Green supporters at 93%, and     Conservative supporters at 62%.

3. Canadians would vote for cooperation candidates to defeat     Conservative MPs. When asked if they would vote for a candidate     that was jointly fielded by the Liberals/NDP/Greens to defeat a     Conservative – 37% would vote for the joint candidate, 25% would vote for     the Conservative candidate, 18% are undecided and 18% would not vote (this     number is comparable to the number of people in this poll who said they did     not vote in the last election.) Notably, over 70% of Liberal and NDP     supporters would vote for the joint candidate while less than 7% would vote     Conservative.

4. Disenfranchised Canadians would be more likely to vote.     People who did not vote in 2011 were asked if this idea would make them     more or less likely to vote in the next election – 22% said more likely,     10% said less likely, and 66% said it would have no effect.

To see detailed results, please click here:

http://s3.coop4.ca/Environics-Cooperation-Poll-Details.pdf

The poll was funded by 692 Canadians who donated online     through Leadnow.ca. Leadnow.ca supports cooperation for electoral reform.     Interviewing for this Environics National Telephone Survey was conducted     between March 18th – 24th, 2013, among a national random sample of 1,004     adults comprising 502 males and 502 females 18 years of age and older,     living in Canada. The margin of error for a sample of this size is +/-     3.10%, 19 times out of 20.

–30–

For comment:

Jamie Biggar, Executive Director of Leadnow.ca – 778-847-8205 – media@leadnow.ca

Leadnow.ca is an independent advocacy organization that brings generations     of Canadians together to achieve progress through democracy. Leadnow.ca’s     campaigning community is powered by over 220,000 Canadians.


www.leadnow.ca

Follow on     Twitter | Friend on Facebook | Add on     Google+ | View this email in your browser
Suivre sur     Twitter | Suivre sur Facebook | Suivre     sur Google+ | Visualiser ce courriel dans votre navigateur

(new) Government of New Zealand, bank deposits will shoulder the losses of bank failure.

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Economy / Political Economy  No Responses »
Apr 032013
 

I could not find a date on this Government posting:

http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/finstab/banking/4368385.html

What is an OBR?

The Open Bank Resolution policy is a tool for responding to a bank failure.  It allows the bank to be open for full-scale or limited business on the next business day after being placed under statutory management (as a result of, for example, an insolvency event).  This means that customers will be able to gain full or partial access to their accounts and other bank services, whilst an appropriate long-term solution to the bank’s failure is identified.

Why is the OBR policy required?

In the absence of the OBR policy, the options for responding to a bank failure are limited to liquidation, government bail-out or take-over by a competitor.  If a private sector solution is not available the government must therefore choose between allowing the bank to enter the liquidation process, or providing public support.  The liquidation process can be complex and time-consuming, during which time customers of the bank would not have any access to their funds or banking services.  This has potentially significant implications for the wider economy, and can create pressure on the government to provide support.   By providing a mechanism through which liquidity can be provided to customers whilst the resolution of the failed bank is being worked out, the OBR mitigates some of the risks that banking failures pose for the wider economy.

In reducing the pressure for government to provide a bail-out to a failed bank, the OBR might also help to strengthen incentives on bank management to operate in a more prudent manner, and on creditors to provide greater external scrutiny, helping to mitigate the moral hazard concerns that arise when an assumption of implicit government support prevails.

Furthermore, one of the key lessons emerging from the financial crisis is the potentially enormous fiscal costs associated with supporting troubled banks.  Some governments that chose to guarantee their banking system’s liabilities are now faced with a sizeable public debt burden.  By increasing the likelihood of bank shareholders and creditors shouldering the losses of a failing bank, the OBR can help to mitigate the risk of New Zealand being placed in such a position in the future.

Why should depositors bail-out banks?

The OBR policy is designed to ensure that first losses are borne by the bank’s existing shareholders.  In addition, a portion of depositors’and other unsecured creditors’ funds will be frozen to bear any remaining losses.  To the extent that these funds are not required to cover losses as more detailed assessment of the position of the bank is completed, these funds will be released to depositors.  At a high level, this outcome replicates the outcome that would apply in the event that a failed bank was liquidated.  The primary advantage of the OBR scheme, however, is that depositors would have access to a large proportion of their balances throughout the process.  This contrasts with what would happen under a normal liquidation, where depositors might not have access to any of their funds for a significant period.

Why aren’t deposits guaranteed?

During the recent global financial crisis the government took the decision to put in place a temporary guarantee on retail deposits.  On 11 March 2011 the Minister of Finance announced that further guarantees would not be provided following the expiry of the existing scheme.  Furthermore, the Minister ruled out the possibility of introducing a compulsory deposit insurance scheme.  In coming to this conclusion the Minister noted that deposit insurance is difficult to price and blunts incentives for both financial institutions and depositors to monitor and manage risks properly.  The full statement from the Minister can be accessed at http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/maintaining-confidence-financial-system

Which institutions will be covered by the OBR?

All locally incorporated banks with over $1 billion dollars of retail deposits are being required to participate in the scheme.  This means that these banks will have to put in place the necessary systems to allow the OBR to be carried out within the necessary timescales.  This is referred to as pre-positioning.  All other registered banks have the option to opt-in to the scheme voluntarily if they wish to do so.

Is the OBR the only option in the event of a bank failure?

The OBR is not intended to be the only option in the event that a registered bank gets into difficulty, rather it is designed to be an option that is available to the government if required.  There may, for example, be circumstances in which a private sector solution is available.

Who is responsible for deciding that the OBR should be used?

The Reserve Bank will undertake an initial assessment of the health of a troubled bank.  Following this initial assessment it may make a recommendation to the Minister of Finance that the bank be placed under statutory management.  The Minister of Finance is responsible for taking the decision to place the bank under statutory management, and whether to apply the OBR.  As part of any recommendation for statutory management, the Reserve Bank will be available to provide advice to the Minister on the appropriateness of activating the OBR policy.

What happens to depositors funds during the OBR process?

The first stage of the process is to freeze all access channels to the bank and establish the balance of each account at the point at which the bank was placed under statutory management.  A high-level assessment of the bank’s losses will then be undertaken, and  a conservative portion of account balances frozen.

The frozen funds are then set aside to cover any losses beyond what the bank’s capital position could absorb.   The frozen funds are not cancelled or written off, and the depositors and creditors continue to hold a legal claim to these funds.  To the extent that all or some of these funds remain available after all losses have been covered, they will be returned to depositors and creditors.

Who determines the size of the frozen portion?

Once the bank is placed under statutory management and all access channels have been temporarily closed, the Reserve Bank will make an initial assessment of the scale of losses incurred by the bank.  It is not necessary for this assessment to be precise.  What is initially required is a high-level calculation that is expected to ensure that a sufficient amount is frozen so that final losses do not exceed the frozen funds set aside.

It is expected that the size of the portion to be frozen will be issued to the statutory manager as a direction from the Reserve Bank, following consultation with the Minister of Finance.

How soon will depositors be able to access their funds?

The bank will re-open for ordinary transaction business on the next business day after it is placed under statutory management.  At this point, depositors will have full access to the unfrozen portion of their accounts.  These funds will be subject to a government guarantee.

The full assessment of the condition of the bank and the identification of the appropriate long-term solution to the failure are likely to take a number of days or even months to work through.  Additional frozen funds may be periodically released to depositors during this time, to the extent that it becomes clear that they will not be required to cover the losses that have been incurred.

Could more money from accounts be frozen later in this process?

No.  A key element of the policy is that no additional funds will be frozen once the bank re-opens.  The initial amount frozen is expected to be sufficiently conservative to ensure that the losses of the bank do not exceed the level of funds available in the frozen portion of account balances.  All funds that are not frozen will be subject to a government guarantee to ensure that all participants in the financial system are able to engage with the re-opened bank with confidence that any transactions will be honoured.

Who runs the bank whilst the OBR process is carried out?

The first stage of the OBR process will see the failing bank placed under statutory management.  From that point on the statutory manager is empowered under the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989 to carry on the business of the registered bank.  In doing so, the statutory manager is required to comply with any directions given in writing by the Reserve Bank.  Once the bank is placed under statutory management, it is unlawful for any of the bank’s previous management to conduct the business of the registered bank except with the permission of the statutory manager.

What happens to the bank after the OBR has been carried out?

One of the key features of the OBR policy is that creditors are able to access the majority of their funds immediately after the bank fails and is placed in statutory management.  This means that depositors and small businesses have on-going access to banking facilities, mitigating the risk that urgent liquidity concerns dictate how losses are allocated between shareholders, creditors and perhaps government.

The OBR is therefore not designed to determine how the bank failure should be resolved in the long term, but to create time for a full analysis of the appropriate course of action to be determined.  In practice, the OBR is consistent with a range of long-term solutions, including sale to new owners, restructuring to become a stand-alone bank, repurchase by a parent group, government recapitalisation or liquidation.

How likely is it that the OBR will be used?

Banking failures are infrequent, reflecting the low risk nature of the business that New Zealand banks undertake relative to many other financial institutions.  This is reflected in the high credit ratings held by the major banks in New Zealand.  The Reserve Bank does not expect the risk profile of banks to change significantly in the future, and as such would not anticipate an increase in the likelihood of a registered bank failing.  However, banking failures can and do happen.  One of the key objectives of the OBR scheme is to reduce the costs of allowing a bank to fail, and minimise access to taxpayer funds or bailouts.

©Copyright Reserve Bank of New Zealand

 

Subjective wellbeing, Social Capital Blog, Bhutan

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Economic Indicators, Sustainability  No Responses »
Apr 032013
 

Many thanks to John Helliwell.   Excellent material:    http://socialcapital.wordpress.com/tag/subjective-wellbeing/

 

(Part of the “why” of my interest in economic indicators is at:  2012-12-07    I am just back from Bhutan (Gross Happiness Index)!  (economic indicators) )

 

– – – – – –  – – – – – – –

A copy of part of the Social Capital Blog, just in case it goes down sometime, but please go to the blog – – there’s lots more excellent material!:

Wisdom on social capital, human interaction, civic engagement and community through research, news stories and life.

Gross National Happiness?

Flickr/smysnbrgThe United Nations held a historic UN Conference on Happiness on April 2 to discuss wide discrepancies in levels of happiness worldwide and whether countries should track happiness in addition to other more standard economic measures. The meeting drew 600 delegates, including leaders and scholars from around the world.  The main consequence of the meeting, in addition to exploring what is known about happiness research was to focus on happiness and wellbeing at the Sustainable Development Rio+20 conference in June.   It is also likely that when the new new Sustainable Development Goals come out in 2015 (a re-working of the Millennium Goals) happiness will be on the list of priorities, joining the stalwarts like anti-poverty  and educational goals.

The UN meeting follows on the visible efforts of Nicholas Sarkozy (the so called Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission) in 2009 and the decision in 2010 of the UK government to begin measuring happiness regularly.

Attending the conference were, among others, my colleague Robert Putnam, Richard Layard, Jeffrey Sachs, Costa Rican president Laura Chincill, Bhutan’s Prime Minister Jigmi Thinley.

“The US has had a three time increase of GNP per capita since 1960, but the happiness needle hasn’t budged” [Jeffrey Sachs]

Sachs suggested that there were much more efficient strategies, as shown by other countries, for how to achieve higher levels of average wellbeing than to focus on boosting the size of the economy, as the US has done.

P.M. Thinley (whose country Bhutan has endorsed Gross National Happiness) suggested that focusing on happiness worldwide was essential if the world was to get on a sustainable trajectory.  Last summer, led by Bhutan, the UN unanimously adopted a measure “Happiness: towards a holistic approach to development.”

Sachs, John Helliwell (a friend and colleague) and Richard Layard, helped produce the interesting background World Happiness Report for the conference which both discusses worldwide variation in happiness and scientific evidence that happiness can be reliably measured and is meaningful.

The Guardian article by Mark Williamson also describes a conference the day before the UN Conference: “[G]lobal experts debated the cutting edge of wellbeing research. Richard Davidson, a neuroscientist, had explained how happiness is a skill that can be learned; public policy expert Robert Putnam showed us the vital importance of social connections; economist Joseph Stiglitz highlighted the flaws with GDP; Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard explained the reciprocal benefits of altruism; and Martin Seligman, founder of positive psychology, reminded us that there’s much more to a flourishing life than just the absence of misery.”

Excerpt from World Happiness Report:

We live in an age of stark contradictions. The world enjoys technologies of unimaginable sophistication; yet has at least one billion people without enough to eat each day. The world economy is propelled to soaring new heights of productivity through ongoing technological and organizational advance; yet is relentlessly destroying the natural environment in the process. Countries achieve great progress in economic development as conventionally measured; yet along the way succumb to new crises of obesity, smoking, diabetes, depression, and other ills of modern life.

These contradictions would not come as a shock to the greatest sages of humanity, including Aristotle and the Buddha. The sages taught humanity, time and again, that material gain alone will not fulfill our deepest needs. Material life must be harnessed to meet these human needs, most importantly to promote the end of suffering, social justice, and the attainment of happiness. The challenge is real for all parts of the world.

As one key example, the world’s economic superpower, the United States, has achieved striking economic and technological progress over the past half century without gains in the self-reported happiness of the citizenry.  Instead, uncertainties and anxieties are high, social and economic inequalities have widened considerably, social trust is in decline, and confidence in government is at an all-time low. Perhaps for these reasons, life satisfaction has remained nearly constant during decades of rising Gross National Product (GNP) per capita.

The realities of poverty, anxiety, environmental degradation, and unhappiness in the midst of great plenty should not be regarded as mere curiosities. They require our urgent attention, and especially so at this juncture in human history. If we continue mindlessly along the current  economic trajectory, we risk undermining the Earth’s life support systems – food supplies, clean water, and stable climate – necessary for human health and even survival in some places. On the other hand, if we act wisely, we can protect the Earth while raising quality of life broadly around the world. We can do this by adopting lifestyles and technologies that improve happiness (or life satisfaction) while reducing human damage to the environment. “Sustainable Development” is the term given to the combination of human well-being, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability. We can say that the quest for happiness is intimately linked to the quest for sustainable development.”

Prince Charles, who attended and gave a talk, said: “The grim reality is that our planet has reached a point of crisis. The time for us to act is rapidly running out. We are facing what could be described as a ‘perfect storm’: the combination of pollution and over-consumption of finite natural resources; the very real risk of catastrophic climate change; unprecedented levels of financial indebtedness, and a population of seven billion that is rising fast.”

For prior reports on happiness, read here and here is a summary of recent happiness research.

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in his introductory remarks commented: ““Gross National Product (GNP) has long been the yardstick by which economies and politicians have been measured. Yet it fails to take into account the social and environmental costs of so-called progress. We need a new economic paradigm that recognises the parity between the three pillars of sustainable development. Social, economic and environmental wellbeing are indivisible. Together they define gross global happiness.” Read his introductory remarks here.

[BBC report on the conference here.]  NYT pre-Conference story here by Timothy Ryback.

For more on the link between social capital and wellbeing, read “Social Capital, The Economy, and Wellbeing” (John Helliwell).

2 Responses to Gross National Happiness?

  1. akismet-d86ff268f86765ce0c295543a5a81580 | April 14, 2012 at 2:12 pm | Reply

    Interesting concept. I like the idea of focusing on indicators beyond GDP, but wondering if happiness would be tough to come up with common measures for, across different cultures.

    • David –

      For sure there is a cultural dimension to happiness — some cultures are consistently happier than one would expect given their national  statistics and others much unhappier, but change over time is real.  Read the World Happiness Report [] for some of the thinks to the relevant psychometric research on consistency and reliability.

2013-04-01 One year and $5 million later, Harper’s charity crackdown nets just one bad egg – – Guess Who?

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Peace or Violence, Sustainability  No Responses »
Apr 012013
 

Laugh or cry?

. . .  the scare of nuclear weapons – enough of them on the planet to blow us all to oblivion a few times over

. . .  the people around the world who have worked decade after decade toward “nuclear nonproliferation”?

THEN CHECK THIS OUT:

One year and $5 million later, Harper’s charity crackdown nets just one bad egg    (The text of the article is below, and I copied some of the Comments from readers).

WHO IS ‘THE BAD EGG’ that the charity crackdown caught?   . . .  PGS.   (Physicians for Global Survival, it’s been in the business of nuclear nonproliferation for 30+ years now.)

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

Dale wrote:

This article (BELOW) from the Metronews is too funny – especially with a photo of Warren!  So PGS was a “bad egg”!

Dale Dewar, MD, FCFP
Executive Director
Physicians for Global Survival

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Warren writes:

And here is my response (since my photo was used!):

One Bad Egg….

The federal government has just spent $5 million dollars on a totally terrific cause. They’ve caught a gang of Evil-Doers, a shadowy organization lurking around the edge of decent society, aiming to pounce on innocent politicians and corporations, eager to disrupt law and order and good governance.

One year ago, the government of Stephen Harper promised to spend $8 million to root out bad charitable organizations who were being “political” – that is, lobbying for changes in government behaviour that the government itself wasn’t ready to support.

Now Metronews-Vancouver reporter Katie Gibbs has found out what happened this year past.

After closely auditing 880 organizations, our Prime Minister and his trusty lieutenants Natural Resources Minister Joe “Tough Guy” Oliver and Environment Minister Peter “Sniff-‘em-Out” Kent have found a pretty bad criminal organization that was “getting political”.

What they found was a bunch of doctors, banded together in an organization brazenly called “Physicians for Global Survival” (I mean, who gives a fig about global survival when we’ve got the Oil (Tar) Sands on our side).

And the unspeakable actions this hardy band of rogue physicians were promoting were… well, nothing small potatoes like bombing the Parliament Buildings, or lying down on the train tracks, or naked protest marches.

Physicians for Global Survival were pushing to abolish nuclear bombs, and the uranium industry consortium that supports them.

No wonder they had to go.

And Physicians for Global Survival didn’t stop there. They were advocating for “the prevention of war, non-violent conflict resolution, social justice and a sustainable world.”

They didn’t even bother to hide it. They spelled it out, right in the open – on their website. If you don’t believe me, then go have a look.

You’ll see how really bad these guys are.

What’s more, it turns out that Physicians for Global Survival have been getting away with this kind of evil-doing for over 3 decades – flying under the radar, quietly undermining the work of the beloved military-industrial complex and corporate weapons manufacturers and the uranium industry for (gasp) 32 years – and all these years, previous weak-kneed, lily-livered governments had turned a blind eye.

But no more.

Stevie and Joe and Pete are on the job.

This is a good news story. Physicians for Global Survival have been caught and punished. They’ve been forced to give up their charitable status, and create a whole new organization that promises to never go rogue political again.

Now if they behave, then maybe their new organization can have charitable status and grant tax receipts to donors – as long as they behave.

But there’s more good news.

At the top I mentioned the government had set aside $8 million to catch more bad guys. It’s true. But they’ve only spent $5 million of it. So now Stevie and Joe and Pete can get more bad guys next year – or maybe they’ll just get the old ones all over again. Whatever.

And here’s one further piece of good news. The Fraser Institute, full of good guys who just love to tell it like it is, and appreciate nice donations from good old guys like the Exxon gang, and those Koch brothers who love to have Tea Parties – the Fraser Institute will never be shut down.

Because, you see, it isn’t political at all – it says so in Section C5 of its Charitable Intormation Return. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/t3010form22-eng.action?b=119233823RR0001&e=2010-12-31&n=THE+FRASER+INSTITUTE&r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cra-arc.gc.ca%3A80%2Febci%2Fhaip%2Fsrch%2Fadvancedsearchresult-eng.action%3Fn%3DFraser%2BInstitute%26amp%3Bb%3D%26amp%3Bq%3D%26amp%3Bs%3Dregistered%26amp%3Bd%3D%26amp%3Be%3D%2B%26amp%3Bc%3D%26amp%3Bv%3D%2B%26amp%3Bo%3D%26amp%3Bz%3D%26amp%3Bg%3D%2B%26amp%3Bt%3D%2B%26amp%3By%3D%2B%26amp%3Bp%3D1#section_c

All the Fraser Institute does is explain why the government has to do what it does – things like catching evil-doers.

But now, I have to make a confession. I have a big fat conflict of interest.

I was once president of Physicians for Global Survival.

And I’m still a member.

And a supporter.

Sigh…..I’d better go down to the jail-house and turn myself in.

Or maybe…maybe….I’ll just let Stevie and Joe and Pete come and get me.

With those Three Amigos on the trail, it’s only a matter of time.

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

www.pgs.ca

“It is time to abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue nuclear weapons, but morally acceptable for others to rely on them. Our aim must be clear:  a secure structure that is based on our shared humanity and not on the ability of some to destroy us all.”     Tariq Rauf, IAEA

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

One year and $5 million later, Harper’s charity crackdown nets just one bad egg, MetroNews, March 30

By Kate Webb

http://metronews.ca/news/vancouver/613999/one-year-and-5-million-later-harpers-charity-crackdown-nets-just-one-bad-egg/

PGSOttawa/Flickr                 Salmon Arm, B.C. physician and former president of Physicians for Global Survival Dr. Warren Bell speaks at a 2009 conference in Montreal.

An $8-million pot of money included in last year’s federal budget to crack down on charities suspected of engaging in “excessive” political activities has so far resulted in only one having its charitable status revoked, out of nearly 900 that were audited.

Under the Canadian tax code, registered charities are permitted to devote a maximum of 10 per cent of their total resources to non-partisan political activities, defined as any type of call to political action.

The agency has already spent $5 million to educate charities and increase transparency and compliance around those limitations, and expects to spend the remaining $3 million in the coming year.

Environmental charities were widely reported to be the primary target of ramped up compliance measures after Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said environmental and other “radical groups” were trying to undermine the national economy by blocking pipeline and other fossil fuel projects.

But Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) spokesman Philippe Brideau said after roughly 880 audits in the last year, the only charity whose status was revoked for exceeding limits on political activity was Physicians for Global Survival, a group dedicated to the promotion of nuclear disarmament.

A CRA audit found the organization was using 26 per cent of its resources for political activities, including a letter-writing campaign urging Prime Minister Stephen Harper, party leaders and MPs to support an international treaty banning nuclear weapons.

Several high-profile B.C.-based charities, including the David Suzuki Foundation and ForestEthics, told Metro the CRA’s attention actually inspired them to become more politically active, because they realized they were not spending anywhere near the 10 per cent threshold.

ForestEthics split into two organizations after the March 2012 budget announcement, with a non-charitable branch dedicated solely to advocacy, while David Suzuki stepped down from the board of his own foundation so that he could publically denounce Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s policies.

“It wasn’t because there was any feeling like we were over that 10 per cent, I think it was actually that we wanted to do more than 10 per cent,” said Ben West, tar sands campaign director for the now one-year-old non-profit, ForestEthics Advocacy.

“I think a lot of groups there was this desire to not get bullied and instead to stand up and fight… but it wasn’t a defensive move, it was an offensive move.”

The CRA declined an interview request from Metro, and refused to divulge how many charities had received less serious reprimands for political activity, such as warning letters, compliance agreements, fines or suspension of tax receipting privileges.

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

SOME COMMENTS BY READERS

CuJo YYC

And what of the Fraser Institute? Their entire raison d’etre is “political action”. They’re known to accept large donations from “foreign radicals” ( ExxonMobil and the US-based Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation as well as the Claude R. Lambe Foundation, both under the control of billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch two name but three groups) who do not work in the “interests of Canadians” and yet, under this petty and destructive government under Dear Leader™, the Fraser Institute gets a free pass from CRA. While calling for annual audits and accurate reporting and transparency of funding for organizations that are deemed to be opponents of Dear Leader™ and his acolytes, TRULY political so-called charities like the Fraser Institute are completely off the hook. Hypocrisy is the only kind of transparency we’ve actually seen from the so-called Conservatives since 2006.

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

Jean Chard

I didn’t realize that the Fraser Institute was a charitable org? Friends of Canadian Broadcasting and Council of Canadians are not.

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

Jean Chard

Indeed it is…check the CRA web-site. Pathetic, eh?

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

Stewart Vriesinga

Pathetic is right. And if we{re not outraged we’re apathetic. Channel that rage!

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

MyPetGloat

Harper is the King of Waste.

In addition to the $10 million rent-2-pandas monstrosity….

– He took $50 million from the Treasury to essentially fund Tony Gazebo Fake Lake Clement’s election campaign.

– $56 million spent advertising his Economic Action Plan.

Nearly half of that he spent during the 2012 Super Bowl, Grammys & Oscars

– $5 million (initially) for an Office of Religious Freedom. Redundant since the Charter protects religious freedoms. Contradictory since he pulled non Christian pastors from Corrections.

– $1 billion for a G8 weekend (2 days!)

– $1 million to airlift two armoured limos to India which has the exact same

armoured limos for heads of state.

– $20 million a year for the PMs security budget, which is double what any other previous PM spent. Between 2009 and 2011 he spent $46 million, 70 times the amount spent on the entire cabinet and other VIPs

– Increasing the number of seats in the HOC.

– Appointing senators who breach ethics and take money that is not rightfully

theirs.

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

Ralph Torrie

It seems to me that a group like Physicians for Global Survival is exactly the type of group that should enjoy charitable status. There is no self-interest there, only concern for the future of mankind.

– – – – – – – – – –

GLessard

One wonders how many millions of charitable donations were spent by the organizations under investigation to defend themselves…

– – – – – – – –

purplelibraryguy

I think that was the real point, actually. If there’s one thing the Cons don’t want them doing, it’s spending their charitable donation money on, you know, helping or advocating for the environment. So they found a way to make them waste some of it.

– – – – – – – –

Bill Curry

PGS a ‘bad egg’?!! That’s blaming the victim.

In fact, the work of Physicians for Global Survival has been thoroughly educational, diagnostic and prescriptive – about the dangerous hair-trigger-alert status of nuclear weapons, about proliferation realities, about the accumulating evidence and modern medical understanding of radiation risks, and the absolute necessity of prevention.

Peace is a threat to pronuclear militarists, so PGS was deliberately attacked by the arms dealers’ political minions – source of that horrible rotten egg stench.

2013-03 Excellent! TED Talk, Ron Finley, A guerilla gardener in south central L.A.

 Economic Indicators, Empowerment, Food, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Genetically Modified, Health, Occupy Movement, Sustainability  2 Responses »
Mar 312013
 

I want to make sure this TED Talk  by Ron Finley is widely known.

Maybe you’ll experience the same high as I did, watching it?!

http://www.ted.com/talks/ron_finley_a_guerilla_gardener_in_south_central_la.html 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –  –

  • Ron Finley’s work is very positive and creative.  It is CONSTRUCTION;  this is what “the new” will look like.
  • Then I have to send you some DE-CONSTRUCTION of the old that has to be done simultaneously.  The battles against corporate takeover of the food supply have been waging for decades.   

Ron Finley:  “Just like 26.5 million other Americans, I live in a food desert, South Central Los Angeles, home of the drive-thru and the drive-by.  Funny thing is, the drive-thrus are killing more people than the drive-bys.  People are dying from curable diseases  . . .   Plus I got tired of driving 45 minutes round trip to get an apple that wasn’t impregnated with pesticides.  . . . “

If you know even a small fraction of the de-construction that good people are doing today, your heart will soar.   It pales in comparison to what we were doing a decade ago to stop GMO “Terminator Technology” in seeds, Herbicide-Resistant (GMO) Wheat,  GM alfalfa, etc.

 

Now back to  “A guerilla gardener in south central L.A.”:

The TED talk was posted in March 2013. By April 8: 728,389 Views. (The real number of views is typically double because of “other platforms” that pick it up).   A day later, April 9:  another 3,000 people have watched the video.

– – – – – – – – –

I  provided input to the TED conversation and received a reply from Ron Finley.

An important aspect I will draw out when I have time:  there is a very good lesson on economic indicators in what Ron Finley is doing.

CONTENTS

  1. TED Talk, RON FINLEY, A GUERILLA GARDENER IN SOUTH CENTRAL L.A.  http://www.ted.com/talks/ron_finley_a_guerilla_gardener_in_south_central_la.html 
  2. MY NOTE TO RON FINLEY (INDUSTRIALIZED AGRICULTURE), see below.
  3. REPLY FROM RON FINLEY  (below)
  4. TRANSCRIPT:   2013-03-07  Transcript,  Guerrila gardener  (Ron Finley, TED Talk)
  5. EARLIER NOTE SENT TO PEOPLE IN BHUTAN, CROPLIFE’S EFFORTS TO UNDERMINE THEIR DETERMINATION TO BE A TOTALLY ORGANIC COUNTRY.   Please see  2012-12-16  Genetically Modified Crops with flavour  

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

2.  MY NOTE TO RON FINLEY (INDUSTRIALIZED AGRICULTURE)

(May 14, 2013 – updated)

Sandra Finley

2 days ago:

I cannot thank you, Ron Finley, enough. (Coincidentally, I too am a Finley!) 

I am from the agricultural province of Saskatchewan, Canada.  We produce bioteched food crops soaked in chemicals.

The consequences are very high disease rates and developmental problems locally, an environment into which we just keep pumping more and more poisons, compliments of the chemical-biotech corps.

The University of Sask. College of Agriculture was taken over by them decades ago, beginning by Monsanto.  Bayer CropScience and others now inhabit the University, too. The usurped University has become a “conditioning centre” for credentialing the agricultural specialists advising farmers.

The Govt has just given $15 million plus $35 million in corporate money to the University designated for the high-sounding “Global Institute for Food Security” (GIFS).  The Institute is to be headed up by Roger Beachy on interim basis (he’s be here one week a month for a year). 

“His research at Washington University in St. Louis,  in collaboration with Monsanto Company,…” (note, too, that the head offices of Monsanto are in St Louis).

Seems to me that the Govt is using the University as the conduit for sending public money to Monsanto and others (corporate welfare paid for by citizens), in an endeavour that is clearly NOT in the public interest.  Not to mention that the University loses its autonomy when the Govt sends DESIGNATED funding (money is supposed to come with no strings attached.  This is a public university.)

All is not bleak – bless you. 

Also, I am an elected member of the University Senate. With more info and help, maybe we can reclaim “Our soil” as you are doing in L.A.  If your inspired revolution fertilizes our efforts here, maybe we will be providing food grains that are developed by the criterion of their contribution to healthfulness, not by whether they can withstand chemical applications, and be “owned” (patented) by these very corrupt corporations.

My sincere best wishes to you & your group in L.A.   Perhaps you will come and visit us one day in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.   Vive le revolution!

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

 

3.  REPLY FROM RON FINLEY

thumb

Ron Finley      TED Speaker

Thank you cousin!  Wow you get to see both sides live & in color!  This has gotten so criminal.  It has to change!

Vive Le Revolution!! or Evolution. . .

AllgoodThings!

~r0N

 

2013-03-07 Transcript, Guerrila gardener (Ron Finley, TED Talk)

 Culture and Ethics, Economic Indicators, Empowerment, Food, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Genetically Modified, Health, Sustainability  No Responses »
Mar 302013
 

NOTE:  it is better to watch the video of this talk.   Please see  2013-04-08  Excellent!  TED Talk, Ron Finley, A guerilla gardener in south central L.A.

– – – – – – – – –

TRANSCRIPT

Showing Revision 3, created 03/07/2013 by Morton Bast.

Title:   Ron Finley: A guerilla gardener in South Central LA

Description:     Ron Finley plants vegetable gardens in South Central LA — in abandoned lots, traffic medians, along the curbs. Why? For fun, for defiance, for beauty and to offer some alternative to fast food in a community where “the drive-thrus are killing more people than the drive-bys.”

I live in South Central.

This is South Central:  liquor stores, fast food, vacant lots.

So the city planners, they get together and they figure

they’re going to change the name South Central to make it represent something else,

so they change it to South Los Angeles,

like this is going to fix what’s really going wrong in the city.

This is South Los Angeles. (Laughter)

Liquor stores, fast food, vacant lots.

Just like 26.5 million other Americans,

I live in a food desert,

South Central Los Angeles,

home of the drive-thru and the drive-by.

Funny thing is, the drive-thrus are killing more people than the drive-bys.

People are dying from curable diseases

in South Central Los Angeles.

For instance, the obesity rate in my neighborhood

is five times higher than, say, Beverly Hills,

which is probably eight, 10 miles away.

I got tired of seeing this happening.

And I was wondering, how would you feel

if you had no access to healthy food,

if every time you walk out your door you see the ill effects

that the present food system has on your neighborhood?

I see wheelchairs bought and sold

like used cars.

I see dialysis centers popping up like Starbucks.

And I figured, this has to stop.

So I figured that the problem is the solution.

Food is the problem and food is the solution.

Plus I got tired of driving 45 minutes round trip

to get an apple that wasn’t impregnated with pesticides.

So what I did, I planted a food forest in front of my house.

It was on a strip of land that we call a parkway.

It’s 150 feet by 10 feet.

Thing is, it’s owned by the city.

But you have to maintain it.

So I’m like, “Cool. I can do whatever the hell I ant,

since it’s my responsibility and I gotta maintain it.”

And this is how I decided to maintain it.

So me and my group, L.A. Green Grounds, we got together

and we started planting my food forest, fruit trees,

you know, the whole nine, vegetables.

What we do, we’re a pay-it-forward kind of group,

where it’s composed of gardeners from all walks of life,

from all over the city, and it’s completely volunteer,

and everything we do is free.

And the garden, it was beautiful.

And then somebody complained.

The city came down on me,

and basically gave me a citation saying that I had to remove my garden,

which this citation was turning into a warrant.

And I’m like, “Come on, really?

A warrant for planting food on a piece of land

that you could care less about?” (Laughter)

And I was like, “Cool. Bring it.”

Because this time it wasn’t coming up.

So L.A. Times got ahold of it. Steve Lopez did a story on it

and talked to the councilman,

and one of the Green Grounds members,

they put up a petition on Change.org,

and with 900 signatures, we were a success.

We had a victory on our hands.

My councilman even called in and said how they endorse

and love what we’re doing.

I mean, come on, why wouldn’t they?

L.A. leads the United States in vacant lots that the city actually owns.

They own 26 square miles of vacant lots.

That’s 20 Central Parks.

That’s enough space to plant 725 million tomato plants.

Why in the hell would they not okay this?

Growing one plant will give you 1,000, 10,000 seeds.

When one dollar’s worth of green beans

will give you 75 dollars’ worth of produce.

It’s my gospel, when I’m telling people, grow your own food.

Growing your own food is like printing your own money.

(Applause)

See, I have a legacy in South Central.

I grew up there. I raised my sons there.

And I refuse to be a part of this manufactured reality

that was manufactured for me by some other people,

and I’m manufacturing my own reality.

See, I’m an artist.

Gardening is my graffiti. I grow my art.

Just like a graffiti artist, where they beautify walls,

me, I beautiful lawns, parkways.

I use the garden, the soil, like it’s a piece of cloth,

and the plants and the trees,

that’s my embellishment for that cloth.

You’d be surprised what the soil could do

if you let it be your canvas.

You just couldn’t imagine how amazing a sunflower is

and how it affects people.

So what happened?

I have witnessed my garden become a tool for the education,

a tool for the transformation of my neighborhood.

To change the community, you have to change the composition of the soil.

We are the soil.

You’d be surprised how kids are affected by this.

Gardening is the most therapeutic

and defiant act you can do,

especially in the inner city.

Plus you get strawberries.

(Laughter)

I remember this time,

there was this mother and a daughter came,

it was, like, 10:30 at night, and they were in my yard,

and I came out and they looked so ashamed.

So I’m like, man, it made me feel bad that they were there,

and I told them, you know, you don’t have to do this like this.

This is on the street for a reason.

It made me feel ashamed to see people

that were this close to me that were hungry,

and this only reinforced why I do this,

and people asked me, “Fin, aren’t you afraid

people are going to steal your food?”

And I’m like, “Hell no, I ain’t afraid they’re gonna steal it.

That’s why it’s on the street.

That’s the whole idea.

I want them to take it, but at the same time,

I want them to take back their health.”

There’s another time when I put

a garden in this homeless shelter in downtown Los Angeles.

These are the guys, they helped me unload the truck.

It was cool, and they just shared the stories

about how this affected them and how

they used to plant with their mother and their grandmother,

and it was just cool to see how this changed them,

if it was only for that one moment.

So Green Grounds has gone on to plant

maybe 20 gardens.

We’ve had, like, 50 people come to our dig-ins

and participate, and it’s all volunteers.

If kids grow kale, kids eat kale.

(Laughter)

If they grow tomatoes, they eat tomatoes. (Applause)

But when none of this is presented to them,

if they’re not shown how food affects the mind and the body,

they blindly eat whatever the hell you put in front of them.

I see young people

and they want to work,

but they’re in this thing where they’re caught up —

I see kids of color and they’re just on this track

that’s designed for them,

that leads them to nowhere.

So with gardening, I see an opportunity

where we can train these kids

to take over their communities,

to have a sustainable life.

And when we do this, who knows?

We might produce the next George Washington Carver.

but if we don’t change the composition of the soil,

we will never do this.

Now this is one of my plans. This is what I want to do.

I want to plant a whole block of gardens

where people can share in the food in the same block.

I want to take shipping containers

and turn them into healthy cafes.

Now don’t get me wrong.

I’m not talking about no free shit,

because free is not sustainable.

The funny thing about sustainability,

you have to sustain it.

(Laughter) (Applause)

What I’m talking about is putting people to work,

and getting kids off the street, and letting them know

the joy, the pride and the honor in growing your own food,

opening farmer’s markets.

So what I want to do here,

we gotta make this sexy.

So I want us all to become ecolutionary renegades,

gangstas, gangsta gardeners.

We gotta flip the script on what a gangsta is.

If you ain’t a gardener, you ain’t gangsta.

Get gangsta with your shovel, okay?

And let that be your weapon of choice.

So basically, if you want to meet with me, you know, if you want to meet, don’t call me if you want to sit around in cushy chairs and have meetings where you talk about doing some shit

If you want to meet with me, come to the garden with your shovel so we can plant some shit.

Peace. Thank you.

Thank you.

 

2013-03-19 10th Anniversary of the Invasion of Iraq, March 20

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), George Bush war criminal  No Responses »
Mar 192013
 

RECOMMEND:   Canada’s No To Iraq War: What Leaders Said In 2003 (PHOTOS)

Click on   http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/03/19/canada-iraq-war-2003-what-leaders-said_n_2901483.html 

– – – – – – – – – – – –

Kerry writes:  I hope Canadians will pause for a moment and take notice of the tenth anniversary of a moment that made Canada into “Canada”. This moment was due to Prime Minister Jean Chretien. If we had been under the present repressive regime there is no doubt that we would be in different straits today and much Canadian blood and money would have been spilled in this illegal and useless war. Stephen Harper and Lyin Brian would have led us into the thick of it.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

TORONTO — Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien’s decision to break with U.S. President George W. Bush on the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a very public and rare expression of Canadian sovereignty that many critics here feared would jeopardize U.S.-Canada relations for years.

Privately for Chrétien, it was also one of the defining moments of his 40-year political career, including a decade as prime minister –- a bold declaration of independence and one that many Canadians supported despite this country’s record of joining previous U.S. military efforts, including the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War, Afghanistan War and Korean War.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

LOOKING FURTHER ON THE HUFF POST PAGE:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/03/19/canada-iraq-war-2003-what-leaders-said_n_2901483.html   

  • There is a video below the photos,  “Iraq 10 years later:  Who got it wrong?”.   It is a valuable look at the propaganda machine, and at “the wisdom” of a relatively small group of people who do not tolerate diversity and independence of thought in decision-making.
  • From further down the page:

Arianna Huffington: 10 Years Later: Looking Back on the Iraq War So We Can Clearly Look Forward

“The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.” It’s one of Milan Kundera’s most famous lines, from his novel The Book of Laughter and Forgetting. It’s one worth keeping in mind as we approach March 20, the 10th anniversary of one of the biggest disasters in the history of the United States. That was the day George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and a team of others — along with much of Washington and a very complicit mainstream media — took the nation to war against Iraq. The devastating consequences of that war will continue for decades, but a full accounting has still yet to happen. Allowing the toxic mixture of lies, deception and rationalizations that led to that war to go unchallenged makes it more likely that we will make similar tragic mistakes in the future. So I hope we can use this moment to assess what really happened, to look back in order to look forward.

 

– – – – – – – – – – – –

 

I am reminded, regarding

–        lack of diversity and independence of thought in decision-making, and

–        “The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.”:

Please see  Who is smarter – a group of people or one smart person?  The Wisdom of Crowds by James Surowiecki

 

= = = = = = = = =

 

TEXT FROM Canada’s No To Iraq War: What Leaders Said In 2003   (In case it goes missing later!)

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/03/19/canada-iraq-war-2003-what-leaders-said_n_2901483.html 

 

Let’s go back.

Let’s go back to March of 2003, when two men who will be studied in history books stood — like so many Canadians — at opposite ends of a spectacularly divisive issue.

One on side: Jean Chrétien. A lion in winter, he was less than a year away from retirement.

On the other: Stephen Harper. At just 43, he lead the coalition of Reform MPs and former Progressive Conservatives known as the Canadian Alliance.

Just 18 months earlier, the attacks of 9/11 prompted Canada to join the war on terror in Afghanistan. By 2003, U.S. President George W. Bush was pushing a preemptive strike in Iraq without the approval of the United Nations.

A “coalition of the willing” was being forged. Canadians from coast to coast wondered if we would be a part of it.

On March 17, Chrétien finally gave an answer.

The Iraq decision was a defining moment for Chrétien and arguably what he will be most remembered for.

As for the man who stood across from him that fateful day? Of course, he would eventually win a majority with a united Conservative Party.

But not before admitting in the 2008 federal election that the war in Iraq was “absolutely an error.”

2013-03-06 The peasants are revolting across Europe. … Ignore bankers’ howls of protest. If they leave the country, it would be no loss.

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Empowerment, Peace or Violence  No Responses »
Mar 162013
 

Look at this!  Europe in revolt.  Changes in legislation mean:

“  . . .  EU bankers cannot get bonuses bigger than their salaries… This applies wherever EU bankers work, and to any overseas banker working in the EU. 

Meanwhile, a Swiss referendum now requires top executives to seek explicit shareholder approval for their pay, with a ban on golden hellos and goodbyes. The Netherlands is talking of a tighter 20% cap on bonuses. Even laissez-faire Britain has seen the National Association of Pension Funds demand that boards keep executive pay rises down to inflation.”

The author (below) thinks “the EU curbs could possibly see the start of the high-rollers moving out of over-regulated Europe towards the Americas and Asia.”

– – – – – –

 

Which makes me think I need to get an update out:

  • this same European battle, but, as it is being fought in the U.S.A. (Occupy is only one component of it.  There are many more.)

Maybe!  It’s not

  • The peasants are revolting across Europe.
  • But rather:  “The peasants, including ourselves, are revolting around the world”!

– – – – – –

 

TEN-YEAR OLD GIRLS IN AFRICA ARE REVOLTING!   (Sally Armstrong tells their story – – it’s remarkable.)

Sally Armstrong, “The Ascent of Women“, EXCELLENT interview with Anna-Maria Tremonti.  Plus quotes from Audre Lorde.

 

– – – – – –

 

HOW ABOUT THIS, RIGHT HERE IN CANADA?  An important challenge.

(Just one of hundreds of examples)

U Vic Enviro Law Clinic asks for investigation of government ‘muzzling’ of scientists 

 

 

= = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = = =

THE PEASANTS ARE REVOLTING

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/06/if-bankers-leave-it-would-be-no-loss

 

Ignore their howls of protest. If bankers leave the country, it would be no loss

They took home unheard of sums. Only in Britain do ministers dance to their tune. But public fury cannot be defied for ever

Simon Jenkins, The Guardian, Wednesday 6 March 2013

The peasants are revolting across Europe. They want bankers’ blood and mean to get it. Until now, public response to the credit crunch has been one of general bafflement and wrist-slapping. The banks persuaded the world it was all an act of fate. As it was, they were too big to fail and their leaders too saintly to atone for it. For four years, British banks were showered with nearly half a trillion pounds of public and printed money. They duly recovered and stayed rich, while everyone else went poor.

The worm has turned. The banks and government alike have failed to deliver recovery. The people want revenge, and have found it – of all places – in the European parliament. It has declared that EU bankers cannot get bonuses bigger than their salaries, or twice as big if shareholders approve. This applies wherever EU bankers work, and to any overseas banker working in the EU.

Meanwhile, a Swiss referendum now requires top executives to seek explicit shareholder approval for their pay, with a ban on golden hellos and goodbyes. The Netherlands is talking of a tighter 20% cap on bonuses. Even laissez-faire Britain has seen the National Association of Pension Funds demand that boards keep executive pay rises down to inflation.

Europe’s once omnipotent banking lobby has been all but neutered by the scale of scandal. The German government caved in to the EU parliament under pressure from the opposition Social Democrats. This was after the Libor scandal revealed Deutsche Bank cutting one trader’s bonus by £34m, thus implying a staggering original sum. The Swiss campaign was kicked into life by the drugs firm Novartis giving its departing chairman a $76m gift. Some 68% of Swiss voted for the new curb.

Only in Britain do ministers still dance to the bankers’ tune. Last month RBS executives brushed aside their state shareholder and paid themselves £600m in bonuses after posting a £5bn loss. Loss-making Lloyds dipped into its till and gave senior staff an extra £365m. Money-laundering HSBC announced 78 of its London executives would take home more than £1m each. They all say bonuses were unrelated to fines or losses, but they always say that. George Osborne was humiliated in Brussels on Tuesday by having to plead their fruitless cause.

Last year the City of London’s much-heralded “shareholder spring” got nowhere. Revolts against executive pay at WPP, Barclays, Trinity Mirror and elsewhere had little noticeable impact. While overall pay stagnated, that of top executives rose 12%. Opinion polls showed the public overwhelmingly hostile to top pay. Only the government and the London mayor stand between the very rich and a furious public. The peasants’ revolt means that even British ministers cannot defy opinion for ever.

The reality is that the banking community has allowed this thirst for revenge to build up for over four years, and it just did not care. Ever since the 1980s and financial deregulation, the profession took home sums of money unheard of in any other line of work.

This had nothing to do with free markets, except within a tight group of high-rolling traders. Modern bankers derive “economic rent” from exploiting oligopolistic cartels in financial services, with shareholders kept at one remove. The astronomical traders’ bonuses are asymmetric returns on cash that properly belongs to depositors and shareholders whose money bears the risk. In any other business such bonuses would be regarded as theft from the firm.

For four years the British government – Labour and the coalition – huffed and puffed but was too terrified of the banks to act. Regulators were suborned by lobbyists and ministers, their offices packed with seconded bankers, and did as they were told. They gave huge sums to the banks in the belief that this was benefiting the demand economy. In Britain, some £400bn of cash was “pumped into the economy” via the banks. They merely traded or hoarded it, to their ever greater enrichment. The money vanished. A thousand pounds handed to every British citizen would have had more impact on the economy.

Last year, as if learning nothing, the Treasury gave the banks another £80bn to boost business and mortgage lending. This week it was predictably revealed that lending to small businesses actually fell as result. It was like giving money to a drunk and telling him to support his children. Never in the history of money can policy have been so glaringly inept. The banks laughed.

No trade unions are fiercer in defending their interests than the rich professions. As we saw this week with lawyers, cut their largesse and they threaten to take it out on the poor, the economy, the government, everyone. The banks howl that the bonus cap means their greed will go “offshore”. This seems exaggerated. But the EU curbs could possibly see the start of the high-rollers moving out of over-regulated Europe towards the Americas and Asia.

This would not be wholly good news for Britain: finance has been the boom industry of the past quarter-century. But more likely is that the more toxic activities will go, and that is no loss. Either way, the banks have themselves to blame. They flew their golden wings too near the sun, and rage has melted them. They have only one plea on their side. The culture of greed in the City was nothing to the culture of ineptitude at the Bank of England and the Treasury. They pumped out the money. Never in British economic history can so much have been so wasted on so fruitless a cause. And still no hint of remorse.

 Older Entries  Newer Entries