Official Canadian Response to Fox

No it didn't come from Harper, or McKay - they are too concerned with cozying up to the states to issue the official response - the Official response to Fox comes from the true representatives of the Canadian people This Hour Has 22 Minutes (tonight at 8:30).

Recession Doesn't Really Describe It

There are two schools on the press coverage of the recession so far. The first school says that the media are being overly negative. The media, they claim, is scaring people away from spending money causing the economic downturn to be worse than it is. Personally I can't agree with this assessment. The economy is what it is and the 'if nobody says the ship is sinking, then it won't' philosophy doesn't appeal to me.

The second school says that the media has been overly optimistic from the start. The financial 'experts' and economists (right down to our own Prime Minister) tried to downplay the problems in the economy, claim that it would miss us, that it wouldn't be that bad. They've claimed repeatedly that the end is in sight. I said earlier this week that I'd tell you what I really thought and that's what I'm about to do.

I believe that what we are currently seeing is not a recession, or a depression but a radical realignment of global economic power. I said on Hugh McGuire's blog back in December of 2007:

"I think Chris is being overly optimistic.
The staggering personal debt of the average American is one part of it. Then you add in the the staggering Federal debt

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

which comes to more than 30k per person.

Medicare, medicaid and social security accounted for 39% of Federal Spending in 2000 (before the boomers started to retire). Combine that with the interest on that staggering debt and the military expenditures and soon the US Federal Government will be able to do no discretionary spending whatsoever. (don’t forget even if the US manages to get out of places like Iraq there is still the cost of caring for the thousands of wounded, many of whom are permanently disabled). At the same time the budget must be cut dramatically to avoid further escalation of debt and a larger percentage of the budget having to go to interest payments.

Now if you combine all of that with

- A country with a educational system that is basically not functioning, no health care system, collapsing national infrastructure and a wholly unhealthy environment

- A country designed around cars heading into an age where personal automobiles will be incredibly expensive to own and operate

- A country with an economy built on nothing (at least there are no major industries left that can’t easily be done anywhere).

- A country with rapidly diminishing natural resources in a world where (due to dwindling supplies and soaring demand) all natural resources, especially the non renewable variety are going to increase in price (that will unquestionably cause serious inflation). One point of special concern would be water - large parts of the US are now facing water shortages and there is no relief available for most of them without draining the great lakes.

- A country that (because of it’s debt) is under the diplomatic thumb of countries like China and Saudi Arabia (who hold vast amounts of that debt).

- A country that in 8 short years has spent most of it’s international good will and lost much of it’s diplomatic clout

- Lastly a country that will be hard hit by the effects of climate change because most of its major financial centers and most of its population are along the coasts.

On top of all of this you have a population that is largely in denial - that wants to get out of Iraq but beyond that doesn’t want serious change, and won’t consider electing anyone who even tells them there are serious problems - much less proposes solutions.

Put all of this together and I believe you have a recipe for collapse - not ‘the great depression’ but a more permanent and lasting collapse - essentially the same kind of collapse that the fall of the USSR brought to Russia."

I was wrong about one thing. The US did elect someone who promised change, but the promise was vague and given their current financial circumstances there will be severe restrictions on what he can accomplish.

The current mess is not the fault of George Bush, it is not the fault of 'the Democratic Congress' it is the fault of the average American, of 'Joe Six Pack' and it is the fault of unregulated free market capitalism.

It was the American voter who let the government run up massive deficits, who demanded more and more from government while at the same time demanding tax cuts. It was the American voter who let just about every industry be deregulated over the last 25 years or so and it was the average American who spent beyond their means, took mortgages they couldn't afford, racked up credit card debts and spent themselves into a hole that neither individuals, nor the government could dig themselves out of and ultimately the house of cards collapsed.

The current US national debt is nearly 11 Trillion dollars and growing by the day. That means that if the US Government cut all other spending to zero it would still take more than a decade to pay off the debt. To make matters worse they have accumulated all of this debt without making any serious investment in the environment, health care, education, arts and culture, or infrastructure (the things that ultimately fuel a strong economy.) Of course the US is not about to cut all other spending to zero, in fact their expenses are going up. Between social security for the retiring boomers, bailouts, the military (and their perpetual wars) etc., etc., they have no choice in the foreseeable future except to go even deeper into debt. All of this debt means that an increasing percentage of the US federal budget goes into interst on the debt. For fiscal year 2009 the US will pay almost 150 billion dollars in interest. To make matters worse, with the baby boomers about to retire there is no extra money in the 'Social Security Trust Fund'. Any surpluses in the fund, from the years when the baby boomers where all working full time was loaned to the US government. So it's just another part of the massive pile of debt. It is unclear what they US Federal Government will do when all the money 'loaned' to it by the Social Security Trust Fund comes due.

Beyond federal debt there is individual debt which is also going through the roof and was actually the fuse that exploded the economy in the first place. This is where things get really scary. If you watch US television most of the ads seem to be for either protection from creditors or ways that you can acquire more credit or get quick cash - from reverse mortgages to selling your gold by mail to places that will finance you even if you have bad credit the whole US economy seems to depend on people who are already broke going even further into debt. To the extent that this works it will not get the US out of its decline, only speed up and deepen the economic decent.

The reality is that China and India are on the rise, Russia is bouncing back (to a degree) from the shockwaves caused by the fall of communism and in a world of finite resources the 6 billion people who do not live in North America or Europe are demanding more.

So, to an extent both of the camps I mentioned in the beginning have a point. This is not the end of the world, and it is much much worse than economists and business experts are saying.

Canada has to plan for a future where the US is not the dominant global player; Where US imports may never reach previous levels again. We have to figure out what kind of country we want to live in, what kind of international ties are important, and what we can reasonably expect and afford from our economy in a post US world.

If I'm wrong about this and the US does bounce back, Canada will be remarkably well off but we cannot, given its current financial state, plan on the US recovering to previous levels for a very long time (if ever.)

My Platform: Sovereignty

Sovereignty has always been a hot button issue in Canada. Confederation happened largely as a response to threatened US aggression and it has frequently been said that the only thing Canadians can tell you about what being Canadian means is 'not American'. One of Stephen Harper's big issues has been Arctic sovereignty and fears have emerged among many about what pacts like Nafta and the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) will mean for Canadian Sovereignty.

These are all large and complex issues and none of them will be solved quickly or easily. The arctic, for example, is under claim by a number of issues and still others are calling it 'international water'. No one is going to get everything they want on this. It is going to take more than military shows and the planting of flags. The issue will not be settled with weapons. It will take a United Nations settlement and we can only hope that whatever happens that the indigenous people of the North are treated fairly and that irreparable environmental harm isn't done in the rush for resources. Whatever is decided about the division of the Arctic it will never be 'home' to anyone but those who have called it that for a thousand years or more.

On issues such as NAFTA and the SPP it is not that anything terrible or threatening to sovereignty has happened to date. It is more the possibilities left open by some of the language that is scary. Equally scary are some of the opponents of globalization, NAFTA and the SPP. I had conversations with some of them during the last election that made the most right wing of Harper's conservatives seem calm and reasonable. Many of them were quick to judgement, name calling and threats at the merest hint that you weren't 100% behind their platform which relies heavily on a complex web of conspiracy theories involving hundreds of people in dozens of countries.

My politics may not be status quo, I may be independent minded by I am neither a radical nor a revolutionary. It should also be noted that Canada is not a country of radicals or revolutionaries. This, I think, is what the Canadian Action Party and at times the NDP fail to understand. Most Canadians, on a day to day basis, don't pay much attention to politics. Even most of those who vote do not delve deeply into issues. In general I would say that most are good people, who believe in slow progress and swift action only in an obvious crisis. They are not, by any means, on the verge of taking up arms to overthrow (as Phillyist puts it) "the Knights Templar, the Illuminati, the Masons, or the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo,"

Having vented adequately on that, what I would do on the issue of international agreements is this:

1) Pass a law that essentially says that Canadian law trumps international agreements. So if Canada signs, for example, the international treaty on land mines and simultaneously bans land mines - excellent! But if an international court says that Canada must change it's environmental laws because of a subsection of a trade agreement the Canadian government of the day should refuse and possibly, if necessary, withdraw from that agreement.

2) Pass a law that says that foreign soldiers or police may not pass onto Canadian land under arms. That means that if police or soldiers cross Canada's borders they must do so without weapons. If an American ship refuels in Halifax that's fine, but it's soldiers cannot disembark with weapons.

I think having these things in place would ease most reasonable people's fears about the international agreements that Canada takes part in. I said this was a complicated topic and I'll touch on it again when I post on gun control, the First Nations and Quebec.

---

Previous:
My Platform: Introduction
My Platform: Arts and Culture
My Platform: Poverty
My Platform: Business and Industry
My Platform: Crime
My Platform: Carbon Tax
My Platform: Labour and Workplace Reform
My Platform: Electoral and Ethics Reform
My Platform: Education

Back Into Politics: Personally I'll Wait and See

I will be glad when Barack Obama is inaugurated tomorrow. Perhaps we can soon get down to substance. Out of the options Obama was clearly the best choice. Hillary Clinton is very smart but her tactics are similar to those of Bush. She takes more of a do what I say or I'll make you sorry approach to both campaigning and policy. John McCain would have been a disaster. Out of the three Obama seems the wisest, the most realistic, and the most persuasive.

I do not buy into Omamamania though. I'm hopeful that he will extract the U.S. from Iraq. I think it's possible that some of the huge bailout coming will go to the people rather than large corporations. He may make some strides in improving health care, the environment and poverty in the US. Ultimately I fully believe that he will return the US to the international bargaining table to try to resolve issues rather than simply saying 'you're with us or against us.'

The Change though that Obama represents is limited. On the same day the first black President was elected one of the most liberal of US states declared that hate, bigotry and intolerance are still ok in the United States. By choosing Rick Warren to give the invocation Obama indicated that he agrees.

So I won't watch much of the inauguration tomorrow, perhaps edited hi-lights. I want to get down to substance and see what he'll actually do. I am glad to see Bush on his way out and will certainly celebrate the Obama Presidency but only after he ears it through policy and results. Even if Obama attempts real change I still have doubts that Americans will go along, especially if they themselves are asked to sacrifice for that change.

Since the Canadian parliament was pirogued I haven't said much about politics but now that the holidays are fully over that is about to change. Back in October I mentioned the Un-Party idea. Over the next several days I'm going to make some suggestions for policies I would like to see the government pursue and then will present those ideas to the Facebook group a few of these ideas I have presented before. Others are new but broadly I'll cover the topics of arts and culture, poverty and homelessness, industry and public investment, crime, the environment, labour/workplace reform, electoral and political reform, education, Canadian sovereignty and aboriginal affairs.

49 Songs North of 49

CBC Radio 2 is having a competition. The idea is to come up with 49 songs from north of the 49th parallel to present as a welcome gift to incoming US president Barrack Obama.

This is your official heads up: you have a week to consider which song you think best represents and defines our country to the incoming president. On January 5th, we'll invite you to start making your suggestions to us online at our special website, by email or by phone (details to come).

On January 12th we'll unveil the top 100 candidates. You'll have 5 days to vote for your favourite entries online (until January 16th), and finally on January 20th - Inauguration Day in the USA - we'll announce the winning songs and play as many of the 49 as we can fit into our daytime shows: Radio 2 Morning, Tempo, Drive and Tonic.

If McCain had been elected down south this would have been an easy one, with a clear #1:

Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie



But since it's Obama I think this would be a good place to start: It kinda goes well with 'Yes We Can':

You Have A Choice



CREDITS:
K-OS, Ed Robertson of the Barenaked Ladies, Ben Kowalewicz of Billy Talent,
Adam Gontier of Three Days Grace, Sarah Harmer, Hawksley Workman, Jason
Collett of Broken Social Scene, Darren Dumas of The Salads and the Arts
Offstage Choir under the direction of David Reed.

SONG WRITTEN & PRODUCED BY
Ian Lefeuvre (The Hundreds and Thousands) and K-OS

Lyrics all contributed by the artists. Additional keyboards are performed by Todor Kobakov from Major Maker. The track was mastered by Joao Carvalho

The Day After: What Really Happened

Congradulations to Barack Obama and the U.S. I like everyone, am glad to see that the United States has overcome race as a barrier to the White House. I'm glad that they have elected a leader who is capable of rational thought. Mr. Obama seems like a reasonable person and that alone is a great step forward for the United States and the world.

Still now that the cheering has died down, we have to be realistic about what has happened. While the US took a big step forward on human rights by electing an African-American President they took a big step backward on human rights by passing ballot initiatives against same sex marriage in California, Arizona and Florida. It must almost be remembered that while this was a landslide in terms of the electoral college, in terms of the popular vote 46.3% of Americans voted for McCain.

While I would like to 'Welcome the U.S. Back' it is unclear to me that they are, in fact, back. It still strikes me that it was the economic cost, not the cost in civilian lives or human rights that turned the U.S. against the War in Iraq. Obama has said that he will pull the U.S. out of Iraq (and I don't think Iraqis will care why), but he wants to ramp up the war in Afghanistan.

It also remains to be seen exactly what the U.S. will allow Obama to do? I remember in 1992 everyone thought that Bill Clinton would make the U.S. a more progressive country, but when he started to test policies the U.S. public turned against him.

So will Obama really get out of Iraq? Will he find a way to peace and rebuilding in Afghanistan? Will he bring in health care reform in the states? Will Americans let him when they realize it will cost money? Will he move the U.S. in a more environmentally sustainable direction? I'm hopeful that Obama will govern well, make rational decisions and move the U.S. in a more progressive direction, but I'm not convinced that he will be able to do that or that the US public will let him. Already the airwaves are full of pundits urging Obama to "govern from the center" - and the 'center' in the US is pretty far to the right.

Harper's Platform is Naive and Accomplishes Nothing: Nice Sweater Though

Harper has finally released his platform, a little too late for it to be properly scrutinized by the voting public. He has thrown the Arts community a bone in it by promising to let Bill C-10 (the film censorship bill) die. But little else. Harper continues his economic refrain, that Canada is somehow insulated from the current global economic crisis. He still insists that no dramatic action is needed - that a band aid and an aspirin will fix it and that Canadians must simply weather the storm.

The reality of the current economic situation is that we've never been here before. Canadian economists are currently saying that Canada is headed toward an "Unprecedented Economic Struggle. What we are very likely seeing is a permanent downgrading of the United States as an economic, political and ultimately military power.

Given this we have to begin to think about how we are going to rebuild Canada's economy so that it is not as reliant on our neighbors to the south. We must make our economy both more self reliant and more internationally competitive and strengthen ties with Asia, Europe and Latin America.

The Great Depression of the 1930s is the only real point of reference we have for this. Although the current situation does not exactly match the great depression and hopefully will not be as severe, it is the only real point of reference we have. No recession since that time has been as deep, severe or widespread as the current one is shaping up to be.

During the great Depression the political situation was different. It was the Liberals at the time (under MacKenzie King) who were urging Canadians to ride it out and claiming that little needed to be done. From Wikipedia:

"When the Depression began William Lyon Mackenzie King was Prime Minister in 1930. He believed that the crisis would pass, refused to provide federal aid to the provinces, and only introduced moderate relief efforts."

It was the Conservative party of the day, headed by Richard Bedford Bennett who proposed "New Deal" type programs to deal with the crisis. Sadly, although Bedford tried, many of his proposals were blocked by the (then British Controlled) Privy Council and it took World War II to finally pull Canada completely out of the depression.

Hopefully a world war will not be required to pull out of our current slump. One thing is certain though that "urging Canadians to ride it out and claiming that little needed to be done" will not be any more successful now than it was in the 1930s. Our economy must be re-organized, and we know now that for the 21st century that the economy and the environment are inseparable. As we begin to re-adjust and rebuild the Canadian economy for the 21st century leadership on the federal level is crucial. Simply sitting on our hands and letting industries, provinces and cities engage in trial and error in attempting to rebuild will result in a deep and prolonged economic downturn and a downturn in which recovery will happen unequally.

The Conservatives minor tax cuts will accomplish little or nothing. Tax cuts are only beneficial in an economy where incomes are stable or rising and companies are turning profits. If companies are losing money and Canadian workers are losing jobs cutting their taxes will have no impact on them whatsoever. All of the other parties are promising green jobs, infrastructure rebuilding (which is long past due and will create jobs) and other programs that will stimulate the economy and make it more attractive to international investment and trade. Stephen Harper's agenda does none of this.

So, ultimately, the platform that the Conservatives hurried to get written at the last minute out of embarrassment more than anything is a platform written for the Canada of 2000 or perhaps the Canada of 2006 but has no bearing on the Canada of 2008.

The Border tackles Stop Loss and US Soldiers in Canada

Last year while Stephen Harper was brown nosing and pretending the US does not practice torture the people at the Border did an episode about US rendition flights (and one that crash landed in Northern Quebec). So, given that Canada's treatment of US war resisters has become a hotly contested issue this election season I am greatly looking forward to seeing how the Border handles the issue in their season premier tomorrow night.

Although I don't have a clear idea of how the issue will be treated there are clues at a Canadian Army Forum:

"For the episode (entitled Stoploss) the synopsis is: Three American soldiers plunge into the Niagara River and swim to Canada.   Deserters, refusing to return to Iraq under the U.S.’s “stop loss” policy, they  seek refugee status in Canada.   Major Mike Kessler and his Immigration and Customs Security (ICS) Squad are forced to deal with the fallout -- from Canadian anti-war protestors to an incensed American four-star general.  One of the soldiers has a psychotic breakdown forcing Major Kessler to face his worst nightmare."

The show can be seen tomorrow night (monday, Sept. 29) at 9 p.m. on CBC. If it's something you're into you can also follow the border via their Facebook Group and/or on Twitter as well as their CBC Web Site.

the Border - Stop Loss behind the Scenes

The Western Wall Falls Too: The Day Capitalism Failed

To modern western conservatives the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 marked the failure of communism. The Soviet Union had failed to make communism work as a system of government. (communism for those of you who don't know is different from socialism - look it up.) Although it actually began under Ronald Reagan in 1980 this marked the true dawn of the conservative era. The neo-cons (as they are now known) marshaled in a new era of deregulation, laissez-fair economics, social Darwinism (poor Darwin - this had nothing to do with his theory), and an Adam Smith like belief in the power of the markets to make everything good.

Adam Smith (1723-1790) believed that if every person acted in their own self interest under a system of competition and free markets that everyone would prosper. This, along with a conservative Christian morality adopted to secure more votes, has been the driving philosophy of Western Conservatives and the one that they matched up against the communism of the soviets. The problem we are now left with is that both have failed.

In order to save off another great depression the U.S. Bush administration (the home seat of modern neo-con philosophy) has been forced to use a socialist solution - a 700 billion dollar bailout of the banking industry. Again, this is from a government and an ideological philosophy that preached non-intervention and small government but is already (before the bailout) more than 9.5 trillion dollars in debt, even before the bailout and while accumulation all of this debt the standard of living of US citizens has actually declined. This is, as the saying goes, socialism for the rich and capitalism for everyone else. The people who lost their homes as a result of this fiasco will get nothing. It must be remembered though that it was socialist and semi-socialist solutions (combined with a World War) that pulled the west out of the first Great Depression.

So am I espousing socialism? No, not really. What I am saying is that unless someone comes up with another, entirely new, economic philosophy that we are left with a hybrid. The markets and competition obviously have a place. Most Canadians don't want to live in a world with one kind of iced cream, one kind of shirt, one kind of coffee. In Canada Bell and Rogers, for example, have shown us that large companies without competition become complacent and charge ever higher prices while service declines. On the other hand, socialist solutions along with industry regulation, government intervention and taxes also have their place. Adam Smith was wrong. Everyone acting in their own self interest will eventually lead to catastrophe. People's self interest is all too often short sighted, what is in your personal self interest today is frequently not good for you, your country, or the environment (and the planet that sustains our lives) over the long haul. Now we must struggle to find that balance knowing that the economic schools of thought that have guided the last 200+ years do not, in a pure form, work.

I bring this up at this time for two reasons. First to mark the occasion of the fall of the West's Berlin Wall. Second because we are in an election and Stephen Harper is running on a belief that deregulation, laissez-fair economics, social Darwinism, and an Adam Smith like belief in the power of the markets to make everything good. All we have to do is look south to see where that road ends.

Would Stephen Harper Follow the US into Iran?

We never know, for sure, going into an election what challenges and issues might face the government we are about to elect. We know what some of them will be because they carry over, because they are unresolved issues not fully dealt with by the last parliament. It doesn't hurt to look down the road and see what may come up in the near future. This time it is especially important. Because of what is currently unfolding in the US the Canadian election on October 14 could turn out to be a referendum on war with Iran.

Exactly three weeks after our election in Canada the US will elect a new President. At the time of this writing polls in the United States are showing John McCain with a lead over his Democratic challenger (source). It might seem that having Harper as a Prime Minister would be safe, since he is more ideologically aligned with McCain and his Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

However there is a significant problem with this idea. John McCain has indicated a willingness to go to war with Iran and has even been rattling US sabers in the direction of Russia.

John McCain says more wars coming (YouTube video)

John McCain: Iran Crisis Most Serious Since Cold War

Unplugged McCain sings 'bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran'

John McCain's War on Russia

Mythmaking for the Next War: John McCain's reckless foreign policy proposals

John McCain’s long war on Russia

Palin talks tough on Iran, Russia in ABC interview

Will Iran Be Next?

A US War with Iran (we won't even get into Russia for the moment) would be far more dangerous, costly and bloody than the war with Iraq. Iran is larger, has a bigger population and is better armed. It would also send a signal to the rest of the Middle East that the United States has designs on the entire region, pulling aid to Iran (and Iraq and Afghanistan) from quarters still unknown. The US will push much harder for allies to join them in Iran than they did in Iraq and many of their Iraq allies (Spain, the UK, Australia etc) will be far more reluctant to join them this time.

Although he denies it now, there can be little doubt that had Stephen Harper been prime minister in 2003 that Canada would have joined the Iraq invasion force.

“We should have been there shoulder to shoulder with our allies. Our concern is the instability of our government as an ally. We are playing again with national and global security matters.” - Stephen Harper (source)

“I don't know all the facts on Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans.”
- Stephen Harper (source)

“Canada remains alienated from its allies, shut out of the reconstruction process to some degree, unable to influence events. There is no upside to the position Canada took.”
http://www.quotesdaddy.com/author/Stephen+Harper/2(source)

But, so far Stephen Harper has made no real statements on the prospect of a US attack on Iran even though the possibility of such an attack has existed for some time and has been discussed by US politicians and media at every level.

"Certainly Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said virtually nothing about the subject. He has not revealed whether he agrees with the U.S. analysis of the alleged Iranian threats, he hasn't commented on the revelation that the U.S. is considering using nuclear weapons, he has said nothing regarding what he or the foreign affairs department think the consequences would be." - from the Tyee

Many Canadians seem happy, for the moment, that Harper has said that he will remove Canadian forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2011, but he has not said where else he might send those forces.

The right will, no doubt, call this conspiracy theory. It is not really a conspiracy theory though, call it a 'preemptive strike' if you like. It is largely hypothetical, but not hypothesis based on nothing. I'm sure that Harper has not been asked at this point to send Canadian soldiers anywhere and McCain has not been elected yet. All I'm saying really is that a promise should be extracted from Harper, and from all party leaders in this election that they will not send Canadian forces into any combat zones that we are not already in without first calling an election on the matter.

Go Here for More

Stephen Page Arrested on Drug Charges

Barenaked Ladies frontman Stephen Page has been arrested on drug charges according to the CBC.

Steven Page, along with two women, were arrested after police found cocaine and marijuana in a Fayetteville, N.Y., apartment, according to a Syracuse-area radio station's website, 9WSYR.com.

Page and one of the women were apparently arrested Friday after police discovered a car with an open door in the driveway of a home. While they were investigating the vehicle, officers observed a man and a woman sitting at a kitchen table with a white capsule inside an apartment.

Police said the man and woman had a substance that tested positive for cocaine. Page, 38, was charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree. He was reportedly arraigned in Manlius, N.Y., Town Court and released after posting $10,000 US bail.

It is not apparently clear who the drugs belonged to or what the outcome of any court proceedings might be. Page's manager Terry McBride is promising business as usual until the case is decided however, according to US law, this could result in Page being unable to re-enter the United States. Remember folks, if you want to stay out of trouble (whether you've done anything wrong or not) is don't go to the U.S..

Barenaked Ladies - Pollywog in a Bog



We can only hope that Page will receive a fair trial and won't wind up in Guantanamo or Syria.

Feist Does Sesame Street

Sure, there have been the late night talk show appearances, the Emmy Nominations and the sweep of the Juno Awards but nothing quite says "you've made it" like a guest appearance on Sesame Street.

So, although I normally ignore what goes on Stateside on this blog, even when it involves Canadians I have to tip my cap to Feist on her "Golden Muppet Award" (Ok I just made that up but it would be a cool award!)

War Resisters May Be Welcome in Canada After All

The CBC is reporting tonight that war resister Joshua Key may qualify as a refugee after all. A Canadian Federal court ruled today that Canada's refugee board was wrong when it decided that the legality of the war or war crimes were not grounds for refugee status.

Barnes said the board erred “by concluding that refugee protection for military deserters and evaders is only available where the conduct objected to amounts to a war crime, a crime against peace or a crime against humanity."

Citing a case from the U.S. Federal Court of Appeal, Barnes said officially condoned military misconduct could still support a refugee claim, even if it falls short of a war crime.

"The authorities indicate that military action which systematically degrades, abuses or humiliates either combatants or non-combatants is capable of supporting a refugee claim where that is the proven reason for refusing to serve," Barnes wrote.

This ruling could affect dozens of similar refugee claimants. The US led war in Iraq was obviously an illegal innovation to begin with, was no doubt waged under false pretenses and war crimes have doubtlessly been committed. If Canada is to retain it's reputation as a peace loving country these soldiers cannot be returned to the United States.

Kudos To the Border for Being More Realistic than Harper

Congradulations to the Border for being brave where Ottawa chickened out. The day after Harper's so called government took the US off the torture list the Border airs an episode about US Diversion Flights. Sympathizers of Bush's neo-cons will say that 'the Border' and the story line are a work of fiction - which is true. But US diversion flights certainly do not seem to be fictional. That the US tortures is also not fictional.

Work of fiction or not, the Border is more grounded in reality than Stephen Harper's Government.

Underfunding of the Arts and Cultural Assimilation

Via TV Eh?, an excellent article from the Halifax Daily News on underfunding in the Canadian arts and cultural assimilation:

Because there is an element of the preservation of the culture which does not exist in the rest of the country. Quebec sees its culture as being under threat - all the time - from the rest of English Canada and consequently gives a lot of time and attention and spends a lot of money to preserving that culture. A culture it sees as under threat.

The sad fact is that we are under as much threat from America, because 90 per cent of what we see on our television sets and in our movie theatres here in Canada is American product.

Breaking Links: Sunday, January 20

Sadly in yet another act of spineless cowardice (not to mention ass kissing) Canada is removing the US from the torture list. This is not because the US doesn't torture, it is because the US doesn't want to be on the list.

"OTTAWA, Jan 19 (Reuters) - Canada's foreign ministry, responding to pressure from close allies, said on Saturday it would remove the United States and Israel from a watch list of countries where prisoners risk being tortured."

Via Quillblog: Congrats to Marjorie Celona who has picked up this years Bronwen Wallace Award for Emerging Writers.

"Last night, the winner of the RBC Bronwen Wallace Award for Emerging Writers was announced. This being the first year the award is sponsored by the RBC Foundation, the ceremony was held, appropriately enough, in the 40th floor reception suite of the RBC building on Toronto’s Bay Street. Below are some photos from the event."

CBC's Fortune Hunters profiled on Digital Journal

"Digital Journal — The Web is changing how people do business, but it’s also injecting new life into how TV covers business. Case in point is Fortune Hunters, a new show on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s Newsworld channel. It analyzes adventurous entrepreneurs, their ideas and their potential to profit from their ventures. The upcoming show airing on Jan. 19 profiles a social-networking upstart in Toronto, for instance. "

The Toronto Star reports that in Toronto You're safer than you think.

"Q: For the average Torontonian, what are the odds of getting killed in a random crime, like, say, a stray bullet?
A: In Toronto, about 12 people per year are killed by a stranger. There are 2.6 million people in the city, so your chances of getting killed by a stranger are about one in 220,000."

Fifth Estate - the Lies that Led to War

I've no idea how long this will be up for, these things tend to disappear but the entire Fifth Estate episode the Lies that Led to War has been posted on YouTube. Of course this episode and many others are available on the Fifth Estate Website at cbc.ca/fifth in Windows Media Format. That means that if you have flip4mac and a Mac you can save them as quicktime movies (likely how it ended up on Youtube.)

Conservatives Backpedal From Moment of Honesty

Via the CBC: After correctly, if rather boldly, listing the United States and Israel as countries where prisoners might face torture and abuse. Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier is now rushing to backpedal calling the whole thing a mistake.

"I regret the embarrassment caused by the public disclosure of the manual used in the department's torture awareness training," he said in a statement released Saturday.

"The manual is neither a policy document nor a statement of policy," he said. "As such, it does not convey the government's views or positions.

Does Canada Have Evidence of Torture at Guantanamo?

A CTV report this morning states that the Canadian Government does believe that the United States is torturing prisoners, including Canadian Omar Khadr, and that Canada has put the United States on the "torture watch list" despite all of Stephen Harper's statements to the contrary.

"Omar has been there for five-and-a-half years, and at some point in the course of Omar Khadr's detention the Canadian government developed the suspicion he was being tortured and abused," William Kuebler told Canada AM.

"And yet it has not acted to obtain his release from Guantanamo Bay and protect his rights, unlike every other Western country that has had its nationals detained in Guantanamo Bay."

File Under D for Duh?

According to the CBC, the US Fish and Wildlife service has stated that it needs another month to decide if global warming is a threat to Polar Bears.

Listing polar bears as threatened would require U.S. federal agencies to make sure anything they authorize would not jeopardize the bears or the sea ice where they live. That could include oil and gas exploration, commercial shipping or even releases of pollution that might affect climate.