Posts from our progressive community

Something To Be Thankful For This Weekend

Politics and its Discontents - Sat, 10/11/2014 - 08:28


The National Energy Board inspires little confidence in many of us, often appearing less an independent regulator of the energy industry and more an extension of the Harper regime's tarsands' agenda.

It is therefore both a surprise and a delight to read that they are actually showing a bit of backbone when it comes to Enbridge's Plan 9 line reversal to bring tarsands crude to the East for refining:
The National Energy Board has slammed the brakes on Enbridge Inc.’s plan to start shipping western oil to Montreal this fall through its reversed Line 9 pipeline, saying the company failed to install shut-off valves around some major waterways.

In a sharply worded letter to Enbridge this week, NEB secretary Sheri Young said the board is not convinced the company has met the safety conditions which the regulator set when it approved the plan to reverse the pipeline’s direction of flow last March, and that Enbridge cannot begin shipping crude until it addresses those concerns.
Infamous for the Michigan spill four years ago that saw 3.3 million litres of diluted bitumen go into the Kalamazoo River, a spill whose repercussions are still being felt, Enbridge has proven itself less than a sterling protector of the public good, and appears to have learned little from the disaster, as evidenced by the Line 9 concerns:
At issue is the company’s approach to safety when the pipeline crosses “major water crossings.” Once it designated a river or stream as a major water crossing, Enbridge was required to install valves on both banks so the flow of crude could be quickly shut off in the event of a pipeline break.

The regulator said Enbridge had failed to provide clear justification for why it designated some streams as major water crossings but not others. It must now go back to identify which waterways involve major crossings, based on whether a spill would pose significant risk to the public or the environment.And here is a sobering statistic:
Currently, only six of the 104 major water crossings it has identified have valves within a kilometre of the banks on both sides, the regulator noted.
Adam Scott, project manager with Toronto-based Environmental Defence, appears to have taken an accurate measure of the company's integrity:
“They clearly just figured they could get this thing rubber-stamped, and push through without actually improving the safety of the pipeline. So we’re happy to see the NEB has said no.”

Mr. Scott said it appears from the NEB letter that Enbridge will be required to reopen construction on the line to install valves at all the major water crossings that it identifies.
A small victory in the overall scheme of things, perhaps, but one sufficiently sweet to savor.Recommend this Post

Gazette Calls Out Harper on Climate Change

The Disaffected Lib - Sat, 10/11/2014 - 08:19
It's one of the grand old English-language papers in Canada, the Montreal Gazette, and its editorial board has had enough of waiting for the Harper regime to act on the threats Canada faces from climate change.

Many of the arguments the government employed in favour of sending war planes to northern Iraq also apply to the necessity of acting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: climate change is a growing threat to global peace and security; only through international cooperation will the emergency be brought under control; Canada would be an freeloader if it failed to do its part in the global effort.
But since taking office, the Harper government has ignored these compelling reasons for fighting climate change. Time and again, it has buried its head in the sand.
This lack of action was underscored again this week when Canada’s Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development issued a report documenting the federal government’s lamentable record. Among the findings are that the government did in fact draft regulations for emissions in the oil and gas sector that were initially promised in 2006, but has never made them public or to implemented them. While Environment Canada has taken steps to monitor the impact of oilsands exploitation on air, water and biodiversity, plans for continuing this crucial work after 2015 are unclear. Rules for conducting environmental assessments are applied haphazardly. The ground rules for public input in environmental-assessment processes are onerous and viewed as a barrier by many participants.
An audit of Environment Canada found regulations to cut emissions have been delayed, best practices have not been followed, the department is not evaluating the effectiveness of regulations in place, there is a lack of coordination with the provinces and there is no plan for meeting reduction targets. As a result, Canada will miss its emissions reductions targets for 2020, agreed to at Copenhagen in 2009.
Add to this the Conservative government’s track record of villainizing environmental activists, cutting departments and agencies that safeguard Canada’s natural resources and curtailing the right of federal scientists to speak to journalists — the latter transgression decried in a separate study this week by Simon Fraser University and Evidence for Democracy.
It is noteworthy that the federal environment commissioner is not an environmental group or think tank ideologically opposed to the Conservatives and their drive to exploit Canada’s oil riches. Julie Gelfand is a federally appointed watchdog who has a background in the mining industry, conservation and government. This is criticism from an insider — a knowledgeable one.
...The Harper government has shown it views environmental regulation as a threat to its ambitions to transform Canada into a global energy superpower. 
...Harper spoke in the House of Commons this week about Canada losing credibility on the international stage if it failed to contribute to the mission against IS. If only he would apply his own logic to the fight against climate change, Canada and Canadians would be much better off.



When Journalism Fails

Northern Reflections - Sat, 10/11/2014 - 06:57

                                                        http://www.today.com/

 Apparently, many journalists -- including Andrew Coyne -- believe that Stephen Harper's decision to join the bombing brigades in Iraq is justified. Michael Harris believes that Harper's decision is folly and that the reaction to it illustrates "the slow collapse" of Canadian journalism. After all, when it comes to war in the Middle East, Harper has a record. That record includes not only his full throated campaign to join George Bush's invasion of Iraq, but also his support for military action in Libya:

Harper helped bomb Moammar Gadhafi out of power, even though regime change was expressly excluded from the UN mandate. The prime minister had his million dollar fly-over of the Parliament buildings to celebrate his ‘mission accomplished’ moment. It was all downhill from there. The dictator was not replaced by nation-building democrats, but by the armed thugs of the Misrata militias. Since 2013, their accomplishments have included ethnic cleansing and torture.

Libya is now so dangerous that not even the United Nations nor the U.S. maintain a presence there. Harper never talks about Libya anymore — a place he proudly bombed — except to say we’re not responsible for the current chaos. But with the dust of the Libyan fiasco not yet settled, Harper buys into a mission that is eerily like it. Canada will help bomb another evildoer into the dust and save the day. Like we did in Libya — for a cool $100 million.
You would think that, when journalists looked at the record, they would smell a rat. But Canadian journalists have endured the same fate as journalists everywhere  -- and the ignorance which is a consequence of their fate:

Writing in The Guardian, reporter Anjan Sundaram offers a theory to explain our shrinking knowledge, explaining along the way how genocide in the Congo never quite got on the radar of Western editors:

“The Western news media are in crisis and are turning their back on their world. We hardly ever notice. Where correspondents were once assigned to a place for years or months, reporters now handle 20 countries each … As the news has receded, so have our minds.”
Harper thrives because, in his world, Ignorance is Strength. But in the real world, Harris writes, Harper is "a thundering bozo." When journalism fails, that's what we get for leaders -- thundering bozos.

Lipstick and Lies

Fat and Not Afraid - Sat, 10/11/2014 - 06:30

Have you ever had a reaction to something someone did or said that was so strong it surprised you? Not a trigger, that's not what I'm talking about, but a gut reaction of NOPE that blindsided you? That happened to me Friday morning while trying to get the four of us out the door to our various destinations. Kat was playing with her crayons, picked one up, rubbed it across her lips and said "Look mom! Wipstick! I beautiful." Wait, what? In that moment between thinking and speaking there was room for a lot because the human brain is a marvelous computer. I know my jaw dropped, then clenched. Thinking back on it now I get tense across the shoulders and my hands want to make fists. What am I angry at?  Whoever it was who said "Here, try this!" instead of "Not for babies" when she was showing interest in make-up. Y'know, 'cause she's TWO.

I didn't waste my breath with "Oh Katherine, you're far too young to begin buying into the beauty myths and garbage societal expecations for your gender! You have been and will always be beautiful without any help at all from any make-up! It's just a collection of toxic colours that will poison your body and weaken your confidence. You don't need it. Noone needs it. "

What I said was "Kat, you are beautiful without lipstick. It's not for babies." She tried again, making a kissing sound this time, and I said no, it wasn't for her, and why didn't she draw with the crayon instead? Distracted, I won for a time. For now. A few minutes or maybe months more of breathing room in the ongoing battle to keep my daughter from becoming...something.

I wasn't expecting to have to worry about this so soon. I wasn't expecting people close to me to tell me to calm down and that I was being ridiculous for being upset about it. I'm sorry (I'm not) but she's my daughter, and she's TWO, and I feel that I'd be doing her a disservice if I blindly allowed her to just fall into current gender roles and expectations. Make-up's purpose is to a) make money for companies off of women's (commercially created) low self-confidence/esteem and b) uphold the dangerous notion that women are sexually available at all times. We can tell ourselves all we want that 'I do it for me, because *I* like it" or "It's just a part of my daily routine" or whatever, but unless you've actually taken the time to sit yourself down and analyze why exactly you wear the stuff, and for who and be honest with yourself, I'm going to say no, it's very likely you're not wearing it for  yourself, you're wearing it for the people around you; your boss and/or coworkers because it's expected of you in order to be seen as professional, for your partner because you want to look 'nice' for them, like you 'tried', and just because hey, women wear make-up, even for something as simple as a trip to the store for a loaf of bread. Our bodies are seen as public property, to be commented on and critiqued by complete strangers, on a daily basis. Women have a very fine line to walk between wearing enough make-up, and not enough, and for heaven's sake it had better look natural, like we didn't even try, or the illusion is ruined.

Katherine is two. She is, IMO, far too young to be thinking about playing around with make-up of any kind. Ryan agrees with me and will be helping me to discourage her from this particular imaginary play for a while. We understand that it's likely inevitable and that prohibiting it will only make it seem even more desirable, so an outright ban isn't feasible. We are hoping that friends and family will help us out and also not play along, and continue to compliment and encourage both our kids on things that have nothing to do with their physical appearance. If Kat grows up to be the most feminine of women, that's fine by me as long it's a conscious choice and not how she feels she *has* to be. The same goes for Gabe; there's more to being a man than big muscles. To quote another mommy-blogger, "I really have no desire to add to the messages she will be inundated with her entire female life, that makeup makes you look better, prettier, sexier, and that is what women do."

 

 

Some Critical Thinking About The War Against ISIS

Politics and its Discontents - Sat, 10/11/2014 - 06:12


Contrary to what governments want their citizens to do, that is precisely what the following Star letter-writers are engaging in as they ask the right questions and point out what should be obvious about the war on ISIS terrorism:

Chantal Hébert overlooked the sanest voice in Parliament when she analyzed the stands of the three main parties on the war against Islamic State. She accused Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau of electioneering rather than clear thinking. Too bad she didn’t mention Elizabeth May’s brilliant speech on the issue. While agreeing with Harper that Canadians support the need to address the evils of terrorism, she reminds us that recent history has shown that wars have only made matters worse; that we need to sign the arms trade treaty in order to keep the weapons out of the hands of terrorists; and we need to figure out what leads these young men to such acts of extremism. She also points out that a decision about going to war needs much more than a single day of debate in the House of Commons.

Katy Austin, Elmvale

The Conservatives’ fundamental argument to justify the use of CF-18 war planes against the Islamic State in Iraq is a moral argument. ‎Their claim is that Canada will demonstrate and build national character through air attacks against the militants. They argue we have a duty to ourselves above all others to strike Islamic State since our action will be morally right.

But is national character ‎really the main test to use when making a decision about bombing Iraq? Is it not better to test the decision against strategic security questions such as: Is it really our fight and not the fight of regional powers? Why did previous massive military interventions in Iraq and other places fail to end the threat? Why expect a different outcome this time? Why aren’t the militaries of Saudi Arabia or Egypt deployed instead since both these regional states are amply supplied with American war planes by the U.S.?

Brad Butler, Etobicoke

In view of the beheading of innocent American and British nationals and the many brutal atrocities committed by Islamic State, it is difficult to remain passive and uninvolved. There is a natural and visceral desire to punish or destroy — as an act of revenge or to teach them a lesson. So bombs away!

But is this the best and most logical reaction? The answer is clearly No!

History has many examples to show that bombing will not provide a beneficial long-term result. While bombing will slow or momentarily halt an Islamic State advance in Iraq, it will not provide a victory over that foe. Nor will it have a beneficial result in Syria. Well-trained and motivated boots-on-the-ground (primarily Iraqi and Kurdish boots) are needed to thwart the Islamic State’s advances in Iraq. Reaching out to moderate Sunnis is also needed. Syria is another complicated matter and a no-win situation.

Harper has committed our soldiers to this battle for three reasons: in order to satisfy a U.S. request, to appease his political base and to inflate his image as a decisive leader. None of those reasons is sufficient to get involved in a combat role with CF-18s and support personnel. Iraq has requested support with training, weapons and humanitarian assistance. That should have been Canada’s response.

Bombing will have a strategic impact for the Islamic State similar to the Sept. 11 attacks for the U.S. — namely to motivate, recruit and engage a sleeping element. Perhaps that was the underlying reason for the beheadings. If so, Islamic State has won this stage. Is this a sign of its future success?

Dennis Choptiany, MarkhamRecommend this Post

Harper's War and the Song of the Chicken Media

Montreal Simon - Sat, 10/11/2014 - 05:16


Well it's the Thanksgiving Day weekend in Harperland, and we all have so many reasons to give thanks.

Especially Great Leader.

He finally got some good job numbers.  

As short-lived and as dubious as they may be.

"As a stand-alone report, this is no doubt highly impressive, but given the rising turmoil in the rest of the world, not to mention growing questions over the reliability of the jobs data, these results may not have much lasting impact," BMO economist Doug Porter said in a note to clients.

And his war numbers are so good, the MSM is singing his praises, and suggesting that while he may lose the war, he WILL win the next election.
Read more »

Pages

Subscribe to canadianprogressives.ca aggregator - Posts from our progressive community