Sandra Finley

Nov 062012
 

This is quite a woman!!  &  this is quite an essay……

***********************************

Wake Up! Our World Is Dying and We’re All in Denial

“George Orwell argued that pessimism is reactionary because it makes the very idea of improving the world impossible. I found that whether or not we believe we can change the world, even in a small way, acting as if we can is the healthiest emotional stance to take in the face of injustice and destruction.

“He who fights the future has a dangerous enemy,” said Soren Kierkegaard. Life is stressful. We think something is wrong with us, but the problems are endemic and systemic. As a people, we’ve lost our grounding in deep time and in our place. At root, our problems are relationship problems. We have a disordered relationship with the web of life.”

http://www.alternet.org/visions/wake-our-world-dying-and-were-all-denial?akid=9567.294733.puBAMh&rd=1&src=newsletter730596&t=3

Wake
Up! Our World Is Dying and We’re All in Denial

October 20, 2012 | By Mary Pipher

We live in a culture of denial, especially about the grim reality of
climate change. Sure, we want to savor the occasional shrimp cocktail without
having to brood about ruined mangroves, but we can’t solve a problem we can’t
face.

I don’t like to think about global environmental problems, and neither do
you. Yet we can’t deal with problems we can’t face. Isak Dinesen wrote,
“All sorrows can be borne if put into a story.” Here’s my story. In
the cataclysmic summer of 2010, I experienced what environmentalists call the
“‘Oh shit!’ moment.” At that time, the earth was experiencing its
warmest decade, its warmest year, and the warmest April, May, and June on
record. In 2010, Pakistan hit its record high (129 degrees), as did Russia (111
degrees). For the first time in memory, lightning ignited fires in the peat
bogs of Russia, and these fires spread to the wheat fields further south. As
doctors from Moscow rode to the rescue of heat and smoke victims, they fainted
in their non-air-conditioned ambulances. In July, the heat index in my town,
Lincoln, Nebraska, reached 115 degrees for several days in a row. Our planet
and all living beings seemed to be gasping for breath.

That same month, I read Bill McKibben’s Eaarth,
in which he argues that our familiar Earth has vanished and that we now live on
a new planet, Eaarth, with a rapidly changing ecology. He writes that without
immediate action, our accustomed ways of life will disappear, not in our
grandchildren’s adulthoods, but in the lifetimes of middle-aged people alive
today. We don’t have 50 years to save our environment; we have the next decade.

Nothing I’d previously read about the environment could quite prepare me for
the bleakness of Eaarth.
I couldn’t stop reading, and, when I finished it, I felt shell-shocked. For a
few days, all I could experience was despair. Everything felt so hopeless and
so finite.

During this time, my grandchildren came to visit. As we picked raspberries,
I thought about all the care we lavished on the children in our family. We made
sure they ate healthy foods and brushed their teeth with safe toothpastes. We
examined and treated every little bug bite or scratch. And yet, we–and I mean
all the grandparents in the world, including myself–hadn’t worked to secure
them a future with clean air and water and diverse, healthy ecosystems.

Had we been in a trance? That summer, when I listened to friends talking
about mundane details of life, I wanted to shout at them, “Wake up! Please
wake up! Our old future is gone. Matters are urgent. We have to do something now.”

After years of being a therapist and a mother, I’ve learned that shouting
“wake up” doesn’t work. One of my most dispiriting realizations was
that while I wanted desperately to preserve the world I loved, I didn’t even
know how to share this fact with my closest friends.

One night, my daughter and her family came for dinner during a
record-breaking rainfall. After the baby went to sleep, we watched the wind
whip through the pines and listened to the torrents of rain hammer our windows.
Sara asked if my husband and I thought the rain was related to global climate
change. Jim and I stared at each other, too confused to speak.

My wonderful daughter had the dreams all mothers have for their children.
She was already doing her best. I couldn’t bear to inflict any pain on her.
However, Sara was persistent in her curiosity. In the most positive, calm way
that I could, I told her what I’d recently learned.

Sara was devastated. She and John quickly bundled up the baby and said good
night. I could see her weeping as she tucked Coltrane into his car seat. I felt
anguished, and I wasn’t sure I’d done the right thing. Yet Sara was 33 years
old. Could I really shield her from what scientific experts were telling us?
Would I want to be “protected” from the truth? Wasn’t it better if we
faced these things together?

That next week, I couldn’t enjoy anything. My conversations with my husband
quickly fell into what we call “the dumper.” I was afraid to be
around friends for fear I’d infect them with my gloominess.

I knew I had to find a way out of my state of mind. I couldn’t survive with
all that awareness every minute of my day. I wanted to be happy again, to be
able to laugh, and to snuggle with my grandchildren without worrying about
their futures. But I couldn’t forget what I now understood.

What pulled me out of my despair was the desire to get to work. I didn’t
know what I was going to do. I felt unqualified for virtually everything
involving the environment, but I knew I had to do something to help. It was
unclear how much my action would benefit the world, but I knew it would help
me. I’ve never been able to tolerate stewing in my own anxiety. Action has
always been my healing tonic.

I invited a group of people to my house to discuss what we could do to stop
TransCanada from shipping tar-sand sludge through our state via the Keystone XL
pipeline. We called ourselves The Coalition. For more than a year now, we’ve
met for potluck dinners and planning sessions. We’ve made sure the meetings
have been parties. We’ve had wine, good food, and lots of laughter and hugs.
We’ve tried to end our meetings on a positive note, so everyone would want to
return. None of us has time for extra tedium or suffering, but we like working
together for a common cause.

If you want to discover how the world works, try to change it–especially if
the changes involve confronting the fossil-fuel industry. Our campaign has been
a complicated story about money, power, international corporations, and
politics. But it’s also a simple story, about my friends and me, working to
save our state from what we nicknamed the Xtra Leaky Pipeline.

Through the year, we held rallies, educational forums, and music benefits,
and set up booths at farmers’ markets and county fairs. In other words, we
“massified”–a term we used to signify momentum and getting
increasing numbers of people on board.

By the summer of 2011, our entire state had united around the idea of
stopping the XL Pipeline’s route through our Sandhills and over the Ogallala
Aquifer. Our campaign was the best thing to happen to our state since Big Red
football. Progressives and Western ranchers worked together, and Sierra Club
attorneys were given standing ovations in VFW halls in little towns with no
registered Democrats. We staged tractor brigades and poetry readings against
the pipeline. What all of us had in common was a desire to protect the place we
loved.

As Randy Thompson, a conservative farmer who fought the pipeline, said,
“This isn’t a political issue. There’s no red water or blue water; there’s
clean water or dirty water.”

I wanted to keep Nebraska healthy for my grandchildren. When my grandson
Aidan was 6, he had a growth spurt in his point of view. Our family had gone to
a lake to watch the Perseid meteor showers. Afterward, driving back home, we
crested a hill and Aidan saw the lights of his small town on the horizon. He
said, “Look at my beautiful city.” I responded, “It’s a pretty
town at night with all the twinkling lights.” Aidan was quiet for a moment
and then said, “Nonna, my town is big to me, but small to the rest of the
world.” I sighed. That’s a lesson we all have to learn sooner or later.

In a speech at a rally, I recalled that night. I told the crowd, “Aidan
may be small to TransCanada. He may be small to our governor and legislators,
but he’s big to me, and I’m going to take care of him.”

In January 2012, President Obama denied a permit to TransCanada because of
concerns about Nebraska. But the outcome is uncertain, and we may yet lose our
fight. We’re still working. John Hansen, head of the Nebraska Farmer’s Union,
said, “Working for a cause isn’t like planting corn. You don’t throw in
some seeds and walk away. It’s like milking cows, something you do over and
over, and can never ignore.”

Our coalition isn’t about odds. When we started, we didn’t think we had a
chance. We did it because it was the right thing to do, and we couldn’t let our
state be destroyed without a protest. Our reward for this work has been a sense
of empowerment and membership in what Martin Luther King, Jr., called a beloved
community.

From this work, I’ve learned that saving the world and savoring it aren’t
polarities, but turn out to be deeply related. As Thich Nhat Hanh writes,
“The best way to save the environment is to save the environmentalist.”

George Orwell argued that pessimism is reactionary because it makes the very
idea of improving the world impossible. I found that whether or not we believe
we can change the world, even in a small way, acting as if we can is the
healthiest emotional stance to take in the face of injustice and destruction.

——

“He who fights the future has a dangerous enemy,” said Søren
Kierkegaard. Life is stressful. We think something is wrong with us, but the
problems are endemic and systemic. As a people, we’ve lost our grounding in
deep time and in our place. At root, our problems are relationship problems. We
have a disordered relationship with the web of life.

Right now, the more we connect the dots between events, the more frightened
we become. This reminds me of a night I slept in a tent with three of my
grandchildren. Kate was 6, Aidan was 4, and Claire was 2. Claire and Aidan were
blissfully happy. They snuggled and listened to the sounds of the cicadas and
night birds. Meanwhile, Kate kept telling me she was scared and that she wanted
to sleep in the house. Stupidly, I chided her for her fears. I asked,
“Kate, you are the big sister and the oldest. Why can’t you be as brave as
your sister and brother?” She wailed, “Nonna, they’re little. They
don’t know enough to be scared!”

These days, I often feel like Kate did that night. I know too much about
deforestation, nuclear power plants, our tainted food supply, and our
collapsing fisheries. Sometimes I wish I didn’t know all these things. But if
we adults don’t face and come to grips with our current reality, who will?

Neither individuals nor cultures can keep up with the pace of change.
Recently I was telling my grandchildren about all the things that didn’t exist
when I was a girl. I mentioned televisions (in my rural area), cell phones, the
Internet, cruise control, texting, computerized toys, laptops, video recorders,
headphones for music, and microwaves. The list was so long that my grandson
Aidan asked me, “Nonna, did they have apples when you were a girl?”

We’re bombarded by too much information, too many choices, and too much
complexity. Our problem-solving abilities and our communication and coping
skills haven’t evolved quickly enough to sustain us. We find ourselves rushed,
stressed, fatigued, and upset.

On all levels–international, national, and personal–many situations now
seem too complicated to be workable. A friend of mine put it this way:
“There are no simple problems anymore.”

In addition to the problems that we can describe and label, we have new
problems that we can barely name. Writers are coining words to try to describe
a new set of emotions. For example, Glenn Albrecht coined the term solastalgia to describe “homesickness or
melancholia when your environment is changing all around you in ways that you
feel are profoundly negative.”

We experience our own pain, but also the pain of the earth and of people and
animals suffering all over the world. Environmentalist Joanna Macy calls this
pain “planetary anguish.” We want to help, but we all feel that we
have enough on our plates without taking on the melting polar ice caps or the
dying oceans.

One night before dinner, Jim asked me to sit and have glass of wine with
him. That day, he’d overseen the installation of a heating and air-conditioning
system after a tree had crushed our old one. That same week, our refrigerator
had needed replacing. And suddenly our dishwasher wasn’t working properly
either. I’d been writing about global climate change and working with the
Coalition to Stop the XL Pipeline. I said, “I’ll sit down with you as long
as we don’t have to discuss the fate of the earth.” Jim agreed readily and
added, “I don’t even want to discuss the fate of our appliances.”

The climate crisis is so enormous in its implications that it’s difficult
for us to grasp its reality. Its scope exceeds our human and cultural
resilience systems. Thinking about global climate collapse is like trying to
count two billion pinto beans. Oftentimes, because we don’t know how to
respond, we don’t respond. We develop “learned helplessness” and our
sense that we’re powerless becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In States of Denial, Stanley Cohen writes about Germany and
the denial of the Holocaust. He talked about a state of knowing and not knowing
that arises in ongoing traumatic situations. This “willful ignorance”
occurs when information can’t be totally denied, but can’t be processed either.
That’s the state I think we’re in now when we try to deal with global climate
change.

We live in a culture of denial. A Pew Research Center poll in September 2011
revealed that, in spite of increasing evidence, belief in climate change was at
its lowest level since 1997. In fact, belief had decreased from 71 percent to
57 percent in the previous 18 months. Even the manner in which we discuss
climate change is odd. We don’t talk about “believing in” the laws of
aerodynamics, the DNA code, or faraway galaxies. By now the evidence for global
climate change is solid and the scientific community is united. So why do we
speak of believing in it as if we were speaking of belief in extraterrestrials?

Partly these poll numbers reflect a well-funded and orchestrated
misinformation campaign by the fossil-fuel industry. Robert Proctor at Stanford
University coined another new word, agnotology, for the study of ignorance or doubt
that’s deliberately manufactured or politically generated.

The poll results also can be explained by what Renee Lertzman called
“The Myth of Apathy.” She interviewed people about global climate
change and found that they actually care intensely about the environment, but
that their emotions are so tangled up and they’re so beset by internal
conflicts that they can’t act adaptively. They aren’t apathetic, but rather
shut down psychologically.

All cultures have rules about what can and can’t be acknowledged. This
reminds me of an old joke about the Soviet Union. Two KGB men were walking
together down the street. One of them said to the other, “What do you
think of this system?” “I don’t know,” said the other one.
“I probably think about the same as you do.” “In that
case,” said the first, “I’m going to have to arrest you.”

Social and environmental studies professor Kari Norgaard writes, “The
denial of global warming is socially constructed. In America it is almost as if
relevant information about our climate crisis is classified. Our national
policy towards the devastation we face is, ‘Don’t ask. Don’t tell.'”

We all have a healthy and understandable desire to avoid feeling pain. We
want to savor the occasional shrimp cocktail without thinking about the ruined
mangroves or read a book about lions to children without wondering how many are
left in the wild. Yet we cannot solve a problem we will not face.

Once we face the hard truths about our environmental collapse, we can begin
a process of transformation that I call the “alchemy of healing.”
Despair is often a crucible for growth. As we expand ourselves to deal with our
new normal, we can feel more vibrant and engaged with the world as it is.

We can be intentional when we’re shopping, planning a trip, or working in
our communities. We can be citizens of the world, rather than consumers, and we
can vote every time we hand over our debit card.

We’re all community educators whether we know it or not. Everything we say
and do is potentially a teachable moment for someone. So appoint yourself a
change agent, engage in participatory democracy, and help yourself, your
country, and your world. Belief often follows action. The harder we work, the
likelier we are to experience hope and to improve our situation.

Amazement is another antidote to despair. Author Hannah Tennant-Moore wrote,
“It took me a long time to learn that being miserable does not alleviate
the world’s misery.”

After a rough week, I felt compelled to drive to Spring Creek Prairie, about
30 minutes from my home. I joined a group of birders doing a winter bird count.
It was a grand experience, with long lines of snow geese overhead, woodpeckers
in the burr oaks, and a mink ice-skating in the little pond. However, at some point,
I wanted to be away from people, even the birders I normally enjoy.

I walked alone to a sunny patch of prairie, lay on the ground, and looked at
the sky through the waving big bluestem. I imbibed the prairie. I felt the warm
earth beneath me. I smelled the moisture, the dirt, and the cereal-like aroma
of the tall grasses. I looked up through the golden seed heads at the blue sky
and the geese. I heard their calls and the wind rustling in the grasses. As I
lay there, I thought, “I’m getting what I most needed today.”

I’m lucky to have a prairie nearby, but we all have green space available to
us. We all can look at the sky. As my friend Sherri said, “I’ve never seen
an ugly sky.”

Another day, Margie brought her dog over for a walk around the lake. When we
returned to my house, Leo began rolling around in the grass. First, he rolled
on his back; then he lolled about on his stomach, trying to have every possible
inch of skin touching the grass. Margie said, “If you want to know the
time, ask a dog. They always know, and they’ll tell you the correct time, which
is now, now, now.”

Transcendence can come from work, bliss, or an expanding moral imagination.
I define the moral imagination as the ability to understand how the world looks
and feels to another person. It involves motivation, heart, and imagination. My
respect for the moral imagination leads to a simple value system–good is that
which increases it and evil is that which decreases it.

I believe that the purpose of life is to expand our own moral imagination
and to help others expand theirs, so that our circle of caring, which begins
with our families, eventually includes all living beings.

One day, I played my grandchildren a song called “Hey Little Ant”
by Phillip and Hannah Hoose. This song is a conversation between an ant and a
boy on a playground with his friends watching. He wants to squish the ant just
for fun. But the ant sings that he has a home and a family, too. He sings to
show the boy that his life is as precious to his ant family as the boy’s life
is to his human family. The song ends with a question for the listener to
ponder: “Should the ant get squished? Should the ant go free? / It’s up to
the kid, not up to me. / We’ll leave that kid with the raised-up shoe. / Now
what do you think that boy should do?”

When 9-year-old Kate heard it, she said, “Nonna, I’ll never squish an
ant again.” Aidan, who was 7, also promised to let all ants run free. But
5-year-old Claire said, “Nonna, I still like to squish ants, but I won’t
kill any talking ants.” Sigh. She’ll have a growth spurt soon enough.

Poet Pablo Neruda wrote, “We are each one leaf on the great human
tree.” I hope we can extend that to include all living beings.

Dealing with our global crisis is essentially an ethics problem. If we don’t
expand our moral imaginations, we’ll destroy ourselves. Healing will involve
reweaving the most primal of connections to this sacred web.

Interconnection can be seen as a spiritual belief, especially in Buddhism.
As Thich Nhat Hanh says, “we inter-are.” But it’s also a scientific
fact. Economist Jeremy Rifkin writes, “We are learning that the earth
functions like an invisible organism. We are the various cells of one living
being. Those who work to save the earth are its antibodies.” At its core,
interconnection is a survival strategy. Gregory Bateson said it best, “The
unit of survival is the organism and his environment.”

The next great rights battle will be a fight to rescue our beleaguered
planet. It’ll be about air, plants, animals, water, energy, and dirt. We have a
right to a sustainable planet and a future for our grandchildren. And the
meadowlark, the fox, the bull snake, the mosquito, and the cottonwood also have
this right.

We’re in a race between human consciousness and the physics and chemistry of
the earth. We can equivocate, but the earth will brook no compromises.

In our great hominid journey, no one really knows what time it is. We could
be at its end, or we could be at the beginning of a great and glorious turning
toward reconnection and wholeness.

We who are alive today share what Martin Luther King, Jr., called “the
inescapable network of mutuality.” We aren’t without resources. We have
our intelligence, humor, and compassion, our families and friends, and our
ancestry of resilient hominid survivors. We can be restored.

Since the beginning of human time, how many people have loved and cared for
each other in order for us to be alive today? How many fathers have hunted and
fished, fought off predators, and planted grain so that we could breathe at
this moment? How many mothers have nursed babies and carried water so that we
could savor our small slice of time?

We can never know the significance of our individual actions, but we can act
as if our actions are significant. That will create only good on earth.
Besides, what’s our alternative?

As U.S. Poet Laureate W. S. Merwin said, “On my last day on Earth, I’dlike to plant a tree.”

So let’s save and savor the world together.

I wish you well on your journey

Nov 042012
 

1.     CONTINUATION OF MY TRIAL

I expect the hearing in the Appeal Court to be fairly short (Regina, 10:00am tomorrow).  My lawyer will present argument.  He is concise.   I don’t know how long the Court will take to write its decision.

The last update on the Trial was:  2012-02-01 Judgment. Court of Queen’s Bench, Sandra Finley v The Queen. Appeal dismissed.

Larger background information:  Lockheed Martin, War Economy (also info on Census, Trial)

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

2.     PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

You may recall that I filed a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner (the blog and emails give me an idea of what is going on).

Recently a gentleman from Kitchener phoned with another disturbing report of unwarranted bullying by StatsCan, over “surveys” that are voluntary under the Statistics Act.

Initially Zladimir was inclined to answer the questions but they became too invasive and he declined to answer more.  StatsCan then phoned him two and sometimes three times a week.  At one point a supervisor came to his home, he was threatened.

In the end he advised StatsCan that he got out of his homeland, a communist country.  He has been 15 years in Canada.  He will be leaving Canada before he submits to the police-state tactics of StatsCan.

I phoned the Privacy Investigator assigned to my complaint and told of this most recent case.

Others continue to post their experience to the blog.  And to express appreciation for the information on the blog.

From the evidence, StatsCan is in a constant state of collecting more information on citizens.  By re-naming the “census (long form)” to become a “survey” (National Household Survey) they are no longer confined to “once every 5 years” data collection on citizens.

Follow-up, complaint submitted to Privacy Commissioner

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

3.     LOCKHEED MARTIN AT THE UNIVERSITY

This is a continuing serious matter.   University Senate met on October 20th.   We went through the hoops we now expect, trying to get a motion regarding Lockheed Martin onto the agenda and failed.  The minutes of the last Senate meeting recorded that Lockheed Martin’s business is “renewables”.   . . .   I will write this up later.  Right now I have to catch the bus for Regina, for tomorrow’s hearing in the Court of Appeal.

Nov 042012
 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2012/11/03/global-domination-whoa-canada/gJ37RiRzIg3zqe8T4ZibTO/story.html

Could we handle a muscular new version of our quiet northern neighbors? For that matter, could they?

By Leon Neyfakh |  Globe Staff

There is a place on earth that most Americans never think about—a vast, strange land where the days can be cold, but the people are friendly and the health care is free. We remember this place exists only occasionally: when we find out our favorite comedian was born there, or when someone we know decides to move there for college. For the most part, though, it hardly enters into our conception of the world. Canada is there, and it isn’t.

But there is a new and unfamiliar wind blowing in the North—one of national ambition and passionate, even aggressive, patriotism. Its proponents seek to transform Canada from the polite and accommodating country it’s been for most of its history into a major, muscular force on the world stage. The Canada they envision will be powerful, rich, and influential. It will never again be ignored, or dismissed sneeringly as “America’s hat.”

Adherents of the new Canadian nationalism point to their country’s range of advantages, starting with its massive size and abundance of natural resources like timber, water, gold, and oil. They note the stability of their government and the strength of the Canadian economy—the Canadian loonie is currently worth more than the American dollar, and according to the International Monetary Fund, its gross domestic product outpaced that of the United States by more than $2,000 per capita in 2011. Then there’s global warming, which promises, strangely enough, to benefit Canada by melting the ice in the Arctic Circle, thus opening it up for drilling and lucrative new trade routes to Asia.

“There is a growing consensus in a certain part of the Canadian population that we have been underachievers and boy scouts, internationally, for far too long,” said Matthew Fisher, an international affairs columnist for Postmedia, a Canadian publishing company based in Toronto. When Fisher started his column last January, he argued that Canada, for the first time, “intends to live up to what has until recently been largely a fantasy—that it is an important world player,” and pledged to use his position to trace “Canada’s growing reach and rising stature.”

Led by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the Canadian government has fully embraced this vision, emphasizing the country’s military history and spending millions to promote its image as a nation of uncompromising fighters. Earlier this fall, the country’s foreign affairs minister, John Baird, delivered an unmistakably belligerent speech at theUnited Nations accusing the organization of “endless, fruitless inward-looking exercises.” And last spring, amid a national debate over the government’s plan to spend billions of dollars on a fleet of F-35 jets, an elaborate ceremony was staged on the Canadian equivalent of Capitol Hill to celebrate the country’s military and its contribution to unseating Libyan dictator Moammar Khadafy.

‘Every day brings a new development in what seems to be a very consistent and well thought out, almost ideological reeducation program. Once [Americans] wake up to this, they’ll be startled.’

This growly and pugnacious Canada bears little resemblance to the nation of unobtrusive peacekeepers that Americans have known. The change in tone has been nothing if not deliberate, and according to Canadian experts, it’s one that Americans ought to be paying attention to. “Every day brings a new development in what seems to be a very consistent and well thought out, almost ideological reeducation program,” said Ian McKay, a historian at Queen’s University and coauthor of the recent book “Warrior Nation: Rebranding Canada in an Age of Anxiety.” He added: “Once [Americans] wake up to this, they’ll be startled.”

Meanwhile, many Canadians are bristling at the top-down campaign to change their national identity. “I think we’re so embarrassed by it, to be honest,” said Adrienne Silnicki of The Council of Canadians, a progressive organization. “We’re watching this happen and it’s so out of touch with the Canadian reality….Who our government promotes us to be is not who we are.”  The question, then, is not just whether Canada can rebrand itself in the eyes of the world. It is whether the nationalists can successfully rile up a reluctant populace to aim for global domination—even if, to most, that goal is fundamentally at odds with what being Canadian is all about.

***

Almost uniquely, for a country its size, Canada has long defined itself in terms of what it isn’t, rather than what it is. It’s not part of Europe, though French is one of its official languages. It’s also not part of the British Empire, though it is still part of the Commonwealth and bows before the same queen. Most profoundly, Canada is not the United States, its swaggering neighbor to the south—and the country which, but for a few accidents of history, it most closely resembles.

For Irvin Studin, a public policy professor at the University of Toronto who penned a widely circulated article titled “Why Do Canadians Shun Greatness?” the modesty at the heart of Canada’s national identity is a direct result of its history. For one thing, Studin argues, the country’s independence did not involve an “emancipatory moment” like the one that gave the United States its origin story. But perhaps more importantly, he says, Canada has been done in by its own good luck: Because North America is so isolated, it has never really had to protect itself. “You defeated an empire, and so you became an empire,” he said in an interview. “But Canada never had that. We never had to fight for our existence or prove ourselves.”

During the second half of the 20th century, as the United States emerged as a superpower, Canada slipped into a very different role. Instead of building up a massive army, the country developed its foreign service and treated international peacekeeping as its central calling abroad. After World War II, Canadian peacekeepers were deployed to places like Cyprus, Lebanon, West New Guinea, and Yemen, where they stood guard over simmering conflicts and worked to prevent them from flaring up; in 1957, Canadian diplomat Lester Pearson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for helping to resolve the Suez Crisis. “The term in the postwar era that was used for Canada was ‘middle power,’ and we were very proud of this,” said Andrew Cohen, a professor of journalism and international affairs at Carleton University and author of the book, “While Canada Slept: How We Lost Our Place in the World.” “It was so us, to be a middle power. It reflected…the instinct to mediate, the idea of being the helpful fixer and the honest broker.”

It was a peculiar sort of pride, a moral authority derived from not being the kind of country that would start a war in Vietnam or face off with the Soviet Union. “It was kind of like a phantom nationalism—a negative nationalism,” said McGill University historian Gil Troy. “It was defined…by saying ‘We’re not patriotic; we’re not aggressive like the United States.’ But that in itself was a form of nationalism—they just didn’t name it nationalism because of some post-’60s, post-colonial assumption that nationalism is somehow bad.”

Troy doesn’t see it that way: In an essay published last spring in the Canadian magazine Policy Options, he argued that it’s no longer enough for Canada to be “the nice nation”—that to fulfill its potential, it must rise up and become a “leading player in the Western democratic West.” For Troy, that means passionately supporting Israel, denouncing Iran, and being willing to stand up, militarily, for its ideals. The emphasis on peacekeeping, Troy said in an interview, “curdled at a certain point—it turned, and became too concerned with appeasing others. And in a world filled with some seriously bad people and some seriously evil forces, that kind of approach has its limits, and it has to be paired with what people consider a more in-your-face confrontational style.”

Family members wave as the HMCS Iroquois heads out of Halifax to the Persian Gulf.

Associated Press

Family members wave as the HMCS Iroquois heads out of Halifax to the Persian Gulf.

This call to arms has been embraced and passionately promoted by the Harper government, whose approach to foreign policy has been marked by militaristic rhetoric and an emphasis on Canada’s martial history. Perhaps the most overt manifestation of this effort has been the $28 million promotional campaign to recast the War of 1812, when British forces in Canada fought off an invasion attempt by the United States, as a defining moment in Canadian history. “This kind of talk is just everywhere,” said Ian McKay. “They’re [also] redesigning the Canadian passport, and they’re going to put on the back…all kinds of ennobling, exciting things about Canadian history, one of which is a long salute to Canada’s role in war. There won’t be any word in these passport history lessons on peace. Not one. Not a peep.”

The new Canadian nationalism does not end with militaristic bluster. A 2010 report by former Globe and Mail editor Edward Greenspon, intended as a blueprint for making Canada “the centre of the networked world that is emerging in the 21st century,” focused on ways to make the country more economically powerful, and to avoid being left to “sit on the sidelines as the world moves on.” Among other things, the report called on policy makers to help expand Canadian trade with India and China, so that Vancouver might become “the Asian business capital of North America.” The report also called for the construction of a pipeline that would connect the Alberta oil sands to the country’s west coast, so that its oil can be exported more easily to countries other than the US.

Then there’s the matter of the rapidly melting Arctic ice, which stands to expand Canada’s already vast stores of natural resources.  The shrinking ice would also open up a new sea route from Asia to Europe, allowing ships to bypass the Panama Canal and cut some 4,300 miles off the trip from Tokyo and London. Suddenly Canada would go from the world’s quiet, tree-covered back forty to a crossroads of international trade.

Who will control the Arctic waters is in dispute—it will be somehow divided between Canada, the United States, Russia, Denmark, and others—and there’s reason to believe it will be the site of intense competition. “There has not been a major strait that has opened itself to maritime traffic and geopolitical competition that has not been the cause of…war,” said Studin. Even if outright conflict is avoided, he added, the mere threat of it will compel Canada to protect its interests in a way it has never had to before.

“This will be a much more difficult century for Canada,” said Studin. “And it will test our mettle and make us more relevant, if we’re up for the game.”

***
So far, the new Canadian nationalists have not been met with great affection by their countrymen: Matthew Fisher, the Postmedia columnist, said his first piece on Canada’s future as a big, strong power provoked an outpouring of condemnation. “Ninety percent of the respondents ridiculed me,” Fisher said, “and asked why I was trying to turn Canada, the most righteous country in the world, into America.”

Therein lies the rub: For many Canadians, being powerful on the world stage is associated with the arrogant, tub-thumping United States they’ve spent their lives trying not to resemble. Perhaps this is why the Harper government has so insistently invoked Canada’s historical alliance with the British Empire and ties with the British monarchy. On the surface, there’s something paradoxical about this—as McKay put it, “It’s risky to hitch your nationalism to something that so emphatically isn’t made in Canada”—but as a strategy for differentiating Canada from the United States, it makes a certain amount of sense.

Which isn’t to say Americans should worry that a “South Park”-style war with Canada is on the horizon. Though Harper and his team have made disparaging comments about the American economy—and bluntly told countries that are struggling economically to take the “Canadian approach” to fiscal policy—we are still each other’s largest trading partners, and our longstanding alliance is unlikely to falter. Besides, the patriotic fervor that the new nationalists are trying to whip up is still just a proposition—one that most Canadians have yet to buy into.

“It doesn’t seem like a grass-roots type of nationalism,” said Michel Bouchard, an anthropologist at the University of Northern British Columbia. “It seems like the Canadian state is promoting a certain type of nationalism and seeing if the rest of the populace will actually follow them.” He added: “It’ll be interesting to see 20 years from now how it will play itself out. It may end up being a complete flop.”

Nov 022012
 

In follow-up to: 2012-07-13  StatsCan Surveys, Complaint to the Privacy Commissioner

– Mr. Prosper Beral,  Senior Privacy Investigator, took on my complaint.   I spoke with him, providing background details and answering questions.

– August 22, 2012 I received  Reply 1 from Privacy CommissionerIMG

– On October 31, a phone call from Zladimir (Kitchener) prompted me to get back in touch with Prosper to pass along this another story of attempted intimidation and bullying by StatsCan employees.  Zladimir has been in Canada for fifteen years; he came from Slovakia.   In the end he told the StatsCan supervisor who came to his property that he has lived in a communist regime and will leave Canada before he submits to a communist regime here.

–  Among other things, I said to Prosper that the abuses of power and acting outside the law are a basis for, and sufficiently disturbing that citizens should maybe come together and lay charges against StatsCan.  (There is too much to do when the Government operates outside the rule of law.)

–  The role of the Privacy Commissioner is to work with the offending agency of the Government to uphold the privacy rights of Canadians.  Prosper is dealing with StatsCan.  I will let you know when I hear back.

Nov 022012
 

I follow some of the undermining of democracy in the U.S. because the same strategies are sometimes used in Canada.  Hopefully this one is not possible under Canadian law.

The NY Times article is followed by an excerpt from a good commentary, (Nation of Change)  “Super PAC Shell Games Highlight Need for New Disclosure Rules”.

Note:  in the following article  PAC = Political Action Committee

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/us/politics/new-super-pacs-add-to-last-minute-rush-of-spending.html?_r=4&

By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and DEREK WILLIS

In mid-October, a Republican lawyer in Washington sent paperwork overnight to the Federal Election Commission forming a new “super PAC” called Freedom Fund North America. The group did nothing for more than a week, until the last deadline passed for publicly disclosing donors before Election Day. Then it spent nearly $1 million on advertising against Democratic candidates for the Senate in North Dakota and Montana, races that could determine control of the chamber next year.

A last-minute burst of below-the-radar cash has begun flooding into the national elections, most of it financing advertising against Democrats, often in markets where television time is still cheap. But unlike the well-known outside groups that have dominated the airwaves until now, many of the new spenders did not formally exist a few weeks ago. They have generic-sounding names, rarely have Web sites and are exploiting a loophole that will keep their donors anonymous until long after the last votes are counted.

“You get used to the same old crew,” said Heidi Heitkamp, the Democratic candidate for Senate in North Dakota, referring to outside groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that have already poured millions of dollars into the race on behalf of both candidates. “But then you see a group place an ad, and don’t know what their interest is, you wonder who they are. And when you do some research, you find nothing.”

One new super PAC, called the Hardworking Americans Committee, has spent a little more than $1 million since Oct. 23 on ads attacking Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, a Democrat, accusing her of failing to pay property taxes. But the group reported raising no money at all through Oct. 17, the last date before Election Day by which super PACs were required to disclose contributors. Because all the group’s cash was provided afterward, none of the donors will be revealed until the next disclosure deadline — in December.

“None of our donors are ashamed about being part of the project,” said Stuart Sandler, the group’s treasurer, who served as executive director of the state Republican Party last year. It was just the way the calendar worked.”

On Wednesday, a new super PAC called Republicans for a Prosperous America purchased $1.7 million worth of advertising against President Obama. The group was formed in early September and did not file a disclosure report in October.

But on the same day it reported purchasing the ad time, the super PAC revealed that it was affiliated with an existing group called the Republican Jewish Coalition, a tax-exempt advocacy organization that has already run millions of dollars in “issue ads” against Mr. Obama. The change was reported on Wednesday by the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan watchdog group that works for more transparency in campaign spending.

Matt Brooks, the Republican Jewish Coalition’s executive director, said the group — which has been heavily financed by the casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson — wanted to run more explicit campaign ads using a super PAC but set it up under a different name to avoid tipping off opponents.

“We just didn’t want to telegraph in advance our strategy and tactics,” Mr. Brooks said. The timing had nothing to do with disguising donors, he said, but was determined by the subject of the group’s new ads: Bryna Franklin, a former organizer for Democrats living in Israel, who announced in an op-ed this week that she planned to vote for a Republican presidential candidate for the first time in her life.

Mr. Brooks said of the op-ed, “We were presented with an opportunity.

“We hustled to film her in Israel and get this turned around,” he said. “The timing didn’t have anything to do with donor disclosure.”

The lawyer representing Freedom Fund North America, Michael G. Adams, also serves as treasurer to seven other super PACs that have run ads in recent weeks against Democrats running for the Senate.

Mr. Adams, who did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment, is a former deputy counsel for the Republican politician Ernie Fletcher, the former governor of Kentucky and an ally of Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the party’s leader in the Senate.

One of them, the Fund for Freedom, reported having $89,433 on hand in its final pre-election disclosure. Since then, the group has spent $670,000 on advertising to assist Linda Lingle, the Republican candidate for Senate in Hawaii.

Other super PACs are also using last-minute contributions to finance attack ads in states where they had not been active before.

A group called Patriot Majority reported having $20,045 in cash on hand on Oct. 17. Since then, it has spent more than $400,000 on ads attacking Mitt Romney. It is one of the few major late spenders to focus on Republicans.

Now or Never PAC, a group based in Missouri, reported it had $79,494 in cash when it filed its final pre-election disclosure with the F.E.C. in mid-October. In the two weeks since, the group has spent more than $5 million in five Senate races and one House race, all to benefit Republicans.

“Especially late in the game, it’s possible to game the timing of disclosures to drop a whole lot of money without having to disclose anything about its sources,” said Bill Allison, the editorial director of the Sunlight Foundation. “We’re seeing all kinds of groups popping out of the woodwork that we haven’t ever seen before, spending a lot of money, and voters have no opportunity to see who is behind those messages.”

All the super PACs will eventually be required to disclose their donors. But additional advertising has been purchased in recent weeks by tax-exempt groups making their first foray into campaign-season advertising. Such organizations are not required to disclose their donors even after the election because they claim to be engaged primarily in educational, not political, activities.

At least 37 such groups, known as 501(c) 4s after a section of the tax code that regulates them, reported political expenditures of close to $3 million since Oct. 17.
Jo Craven McGinty contributed reporting.

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

http://www.nationofchange.org/super-pac-shell-games-highlight-need-new-disclosure-rules-1355398763

Super PAC Shell Games Highlight Need for New Disclosure Rules

By Stan Oklobdzija

2012-12-13

EXCERPT

. . .   Disclosure rules seek not to stifle political speech, but serve a crucial purpose in providing voters with information about candidates. As the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in its per curiam opinion during the seminal 1976 campaign finance case ofBuckley v. Valeo:

“…disclosure requirements deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of corruption by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of publicity. This exposure may discourage those who would use money for improper purposes either before or after the election. A public armed with information about a candidate’s most generous supporters is better able to detect any post-election special favors that may be given in return.”

The American Anti-Corruption Act, launched by United Republic’s Represent.us campaign, seeks to end the shell games played by special interest groups by mandating that anyone that spends $10,000 or more to campaign for or against any candidate file a disclosure report with the Federal Elections Commission within 24 hours. Free speech would be protected and encouraged, but the political sleight-of-hand that allows wealthy interest groups to obviate the law and subvert the democratic process would come to an end upon passage of the act. When ordinary citizens are required to sign their name and affix their address to donations of a few hundred dollars, it’s absurd to allow multi-million dollar donors to hide behind dummy corporations and innocuously named non-profits.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant for what ails our democracy. It’s time for ordinary citizens to reach out and pull back the curtains.

Nov 012012
 

Note: at the end of November 2011, I put a counter on the blog  www.sandrafinley.ca.   Today it sits at 18,500.

It does not count the number of times I (administrator) have clicked (“hit”) on different pages.  It does not count “spam” hits on the blog.  If it did, the counter would be at 118,500!

There are ways to grow the number of hits on the blog.  I have not used them – – lack of time and priority, with some stupidity thrown in!

Do you see the power you have helped to create?  Thank-you all, for your participation in the network.  I hate to call it “my” blog because it would not exist without the input from and forwarding of emails by you.

All of our voices, including mine, become stronger when others know that in less than a year there have been 18,500 searches for information on The Battles (name of the blog).  It is very gratifying for me to be working with you.

/Sandra

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

Growing mobilization across Canada

I am just back from B.C.:

  • A week ago Sunday, in Victoria, there were more than 300 people of all ages and stripes training in resistance and civil disobedience.
  • On the Monday, we all joined well over 4,000 (maybe 5,000) Canadians in Victoria at the B.C. Legislature to help stop the tar sands pipelines and tankers.
  • This past weekend in Nanaimo it was the Council of Canadians Annual Meeting which included a long parade of citizens walking through the downtown streets chanting “Stephen Harper has to go!  Hey hey!  Ho ho!  Stephen Harper has to go!”.   Clever signs, some to make us laugh, waved in the air.

Last evening, back home, some of us met to hear

  • What happened simultaneously, on the weekend in Ottawa at the Power Shift demonstrations?

OBSERVATIONS?

  • Last week two streams of people moved across Canada, crossing each other, largely in opposite directions.  People from Newfoundland, N.S., N.B. flowed west,  swelling the numbers going from central Canada and the Prairies for action and meetings on Vancouver Island.

Simultaneously, there was a crossing from the west, east and the north that coalesced in Ottawa.

  • I have attended similar events in the past.  They were nothing like what I saw on the West Coast this week past.

The ORGANIZING CAPACITY, the DETERMINATION to “sink the Harper agenda”, the NEW VOICES, the CREATIVITY and the FUN brought to bear on the issues, the JOINING OF HANDS across many, many organizations, groups and individuals, the EXCITEMENT in the air, the GOOD PEOPLE, the LEADERSHIP, the THOUGHTFULNESS, the INTELLIGENCE . . . it is all inspiring and moving.

Details will become apparent as the pushback against the Corporatocracy continues to develop. A tsunami is in the making. This past week was an adrenalin booster in Canada!

AND, there is so much happening on the local scene – – tonight Dr. Helen Caldicott (international anti-nuclear activist paediatrician from Australia) will be speaking at Third Avenue United Church, 7:00 pm.

AND On Monday (Nov 5)  the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal will hear my case ( Census-Lockheed Martin).   I have to get an update out on that!~

Oct 202012
 

Madame Chair,

I would like to offer a POINT OF INFORMATION

Regarding Page 14 of the Minutes.  Item #12  Question Period

From Page 14 of the Minutes,  First Paragraph under Question Period:

“Lockheed Martin is . . . interested in areas of common interest, including the area of renewable energy and information technologies.”

Acting Dean of Engineering, Ernie Barber is the quoted source.

This is very misleading information for anyone who doesn’t know Lockheed Martin Corporation.

I refer Members of Senate to the “Collaboration Topics” provided by Lockheed Martin Corporation to the U of S, also on my blog.  I will not read them all.  The very first one is

  • Advanced Active & Passive Sensing: . .
    .  to turn the sensed environment into information about the target (e.g., target recognition, speed, intent, etc. via Ladar, Radar, EO, and acoustic methods).

Then there is

  • Autonomous and Robotic Systems  . . air or space capabilities.

Translated, this is  drones used for dropping bombs on other countries, by remote control from, for example, the Creech Airforce Base in Nevada. The drones have a history of killing civilians.  And are used for surveillance of civilian populations.  They are now deployed along the Canada-U.S. border.

  • Another Collaboration Topic includes  methods to facilitate timely response . .  (e.g., explosive vapor, biological agents)

Is there anything about renewable energy, the area of interest supplied by Acting Dean of Engineering Ernie Barber and quoted in the Minutes?  Yes – – in the Collaboration Topics, Energy and Climate Change follows Distributed ISR & Attack:

I searched the Lockheed Martin website for renewables and found this:

Lockheed Martin Jumps on the Clean Energy Bandwagon,  September 2011

http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/09/military-contractors-jumping-clean-energy-bandwagon/

Chris Myers, Vice President of International Business Development and Energy Markets says:

Lockheed’s positioning as a military contractor allows it to tap into the Department of Defense, which is the largest single purchaser of fuel in the world. The DoD can help drive the market there, said Myers.

Members of the Senate will be familiar with the term “green washing”.

There is an entire book about Lockheed Martin titled “Prophets of War” by William Hartung, published last year.

I submit that the highly selective statement quoted in the Minutes is misleading information and needs to be corrected.  The Collaboration Topics supplied by Lockheed Martin itself, and the book “Prophets of War” do not support this description.

As most people know, Lockheed Martin is a so-called  “defence contractor”.  It profits mightily from the waging of war, has close relationships with the U.S. military and was influential in the decision by the Americans to drop bombs on Iraq.   They have a long string of court convictions and out-of-court settlements.  In Canada they are perhaps best known for the untendered multi-billion dollar contract for F-35 stealth bombers.

 

The information supplied by Acting Dean of Engineering, Ernie Barber,  to University Senate is highly misleading, AND

is inconsistent with the terms of the  “Collaboration Topics“ provided by Lockheed Martin Corporation itself,  to the U of S.

From Page 14 of the Minutes,  First Paragraph under Question Period:

“Lockheed Martin is . . . interested in areas of common interest, including the area of renewable energy and information technologies.”

Ha!

 

Oct 182012
 

I usually include “action”.

But don’t have time for creating any today.  Oh woe!

The bulleted points below indicate heightened engagement.  Frustrated people, working together in service to community.  Bodes well for us!

It seems impossible to get the Ministers Responsible (Health and Environment) to take action in the face of the evidence.   They extend the invitation for us to undermine faith in them.  That is done simply, by sharing the information.

One possible targeted action related to the first point:  forward this to families who are struggling with alzheimers.

  • Personal experience motivates people to do something so others may be spared from disease:   Mercury fillings: “You Put What In My Mouth?” – Film is up and running!
  • It’s an international movement:   (Denmark/Germany) “NoBody needs mercury!” campaign.
  • Dental professionals are working hard to stop the use.  Dr. David Warwick prepared this information for, and attended the 4th Round of Intergovernmental Negotiations in Uruguay.  Valuable information for all of us:   Amalgam Alert, comprehensive document
  • The fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to prepare a global legally binding instrument on mercury (INC5) will be held in Geneva, from 13 to 18 January 2013. This is the final round of negotiations.  More information: http://www.unep.org/hazardoussubstances/Mercury/Negotiations/INC5/tabid/3471/Default.aspx

BACKGROUND:

2012-04-16 Mercury: UN Environmental Program, INC, the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to prepare a global legally binding instrument on mercury

2012-03-20 D’Arcy Hande’s letter to Ministers re Peter Cooney & UN Environmental Treaty on mercury.

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

Oct 182012
 
Henrik Eddau Kock
About Us
My name is Henrik. I’m 46 (M) and living in Denmark/Germany (EU). I’m the man behind the “NoBody needs mercury!” health info program and product range. I was diagnosed with heavy metal toxicity in 2008 and had to fight hard to detox and get back. My goal is .. together with other NGO’s as well as the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), etc. to fight for a global ban on all mercury containing products.
Here is the relating Facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/groups/nobodyneedsmercury

 

 

(INSERT:  Sandra speaking.  De-toxification is complex and requires a “go slow”, do-your-research, approach.  Step one is safe removal of mercury fillings (stop the source).  Step two is de-toxification.  There is danger if you mobilize too much stored mercury all at once.  Your body won’t be able to handle it;  you can cause permanent damage (the personal experience of Dr Mercola), or impede recovery.  It is important to supplement with an ingredient that will bind to the dislodged mercury (and other heavy metals)  to carry it out of your body.  Doctors are typically not versed in safe removal of mercury from the body.  You will see conflicting information because very often people have to figure it out for themselves.)

Other relating info sites: