We are bloggers who advocate for social, economic and labour justice, for human rights, sexual freedom and reproductive choice, for non-violence, the protection of the commons, including universal healthcare, public broadcasting and Canadian culture in an independent Canada dedicated to true representative democracy, the well-being of our environment and the betterment of all in the world.
Posts from our progressive community
Thursday Morning Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- George Monbiot writes about the absurdity of the right-wing choice to promote inequality in the name of competition among the wealthy when the ultimate results are worse for everybody:
The capture by the executive class of so much wealth performs no useful function. What the very rich appear to value is relative income. If executives were all paid 5% of current levels, the competition between them (a questionable virtue anyway) would be no less fierce. As the immensely rich HL Hunt commented several decades ago: "Money is just a way of keeping score."
The desire for advancement along this scale appears to be insatiable. In March Forbes magazine published an article about Prince Alwaleed, who, like other Saudi princes, doubtless owes his fortune to nothing more than hard work and enterprise. According to one of the prince's former employees, the Forbes magazine global rich list "is how he wants the world to judge his success or his stature".
The result is "a quarter-century of intermittent lobbying, cajoling and threatening when it comes to his net worth listing". In 2006, the researcher responsible for calculating his wealth writes, "when Forbes estimated that the prince was actually worth $7 billion less than he said he was, he called me at home the day after the list was released, sounding nearly in tears. 'What do you want?' he pleaded, offering up his private banker in Switzerland. 'Tell me what you need.'"
Never mind that he has his own 747, in which he sits on a throne during flights. Never mind that his "main palace" has 420 rooms. Never mind that he possesses his own private amusement park and zoo – and, he claims, $700m worth of jewels. Never mind that he's the richest man in the Arab world, valued by Forbes at $20bn, and has watched his wealth increase by $2bn in the past year. None of this is enough. There is no place of arrival, no happy landing, even in a private jumbo jet. The politics of envy are never keener than among the very rich.
...
In order to grant the rich these pleasures, the social contract is reconfigured. The welfare state is dismantled. Essential public services are cut so that the rich may pay less tax. The public realm is privatised, the regulations restraining the ultra-wealthy and the companies they control are abandoned, and Edwardian levels of inequality are almost fetishised.
...
Can we not rise above this? To seek satisfactions that don't cost the earth and might be achievable? The principal aim of any wealthy nation should now be to say: "Enough already".- Meanwhile, Andrew O'Hagan writes about Margaret Thatcher ultimate legacy in leaving the U.K. a "greedier and seedier place". And Frances Russell points out the futility of a race to the bottom on taxes.
- Haroon Siddiqui and Stephen Gordon discuss the damage the Harper Cons have done to Canada's census. And Jennifer Ditchburn writes that rural Canada will be particularly hard hit by a lack of reportable data to allow for evidence-based policy.
- But then, Jonathon Gatehouse reminds us that Harper is generally eager to make sure that facts don't find their way into public debate - as evidence by his muzzling of federal scientists. And Andrew Coyne notes that the Cons' abhorrence of pure research makes little sense even from the most restrictive of libertarian viewpoints.
- George Monbiot writes about the absurdity of the right-wing choice to promote inequality in the name of competition among the wealthy when the ultimate results are worse for everybody:
The capture by the executive class of so much wealth performs no useful function. What the very rich appear to value is relative income. If executives were all paid 5% of current levels, the competition between them (a questionable virtue anyway) would be no less fierce. As the immensely rich HL Hunt commented several decades ago: "Money is just a way of keeping score."
The desire for advancement along this scale appears to be insatiable. In March Forbes magazine published an article about Prince Alwaleed, who, like other Saudi princes, doubtless owes his fortune to nothing more than hard work and enterprise. According to one of the prince's former employees, the Forbes magazine global rich list "is how he wants the world to judge his success or his stature".
The result is "a quarter-century of intermittent lobbying, cajoling and threatening when it comes to his net worth listing". In 2006, the researcher responsible for calculating his wealth writes, "when Forbes estimated that the prince was actually worth $7 billion less than he said he was, he called me at home the day after the list was released, sounding nearly in tears. 'What do you want?' he pleaded, offering up his private banker in Switzerland. 'Tell me what you need.'"
Never mind that he has his own 747, in which he sits on a throne during flights. Never mind that his "main palace" has 420 rooms. Never mind that he possesses his own private amusement park and zoo – and, he claims, $700m worth of jewels. Never mind that he's the richest man in the Arab world, valued by Forbes at $20bn, and has watched his wealth increase by $2bn in the past year. None of this is enough. There is no place of arrival, no happy landing, even in a private jumbo jet. The politics of envy are never keener than among the very rich.
...
In order to grant the rich these pleasures, the social contract is reconfigured. The welfare state is dismantled. Essential public services are cut so that the rich may pay less tax. The public realm is privatised, the regulations restraining the ultra-wealthy and the companies they control are abandoned, and Edwardian levels of inequality are almost fetishised.
...
Can we not rise above this? To seek satisfactions that don't cost the earth and might be achievable? The principal aim of any wealthy nation should now be to say: "Enough already".- Meanwhile, Andrew O'Hagan writes about Margaret Thatcher ultimate legacy in leaving the U.K. a "greedier and seedier place". And Frances Russell points out the futility of a race to the bottom on taxes.
- Haroon Siddiqui and Stephen Gordon discuss the damage the Harper Cons have done to Canada's census. And Jennifer Ditchburn writes that rural Canada will be particularly hard hit by a lack of reportable data to allow for evidence-based policy.
- But then, Jonathon Gatehouse reminds us that Harper is generally eager to make sure that facts don't find their way into public debate - as evidence by his muzzling of federal scientists. And Andrew Coyne notes that the Cons' abhorrence of pure research makes little sense even from the most restrictive of libertarian viewpoints.
Categories: Posts from our progressive community
Expanded, NOT Restricted, Abortion Options
Canada's lawless abortion regime rightfully stands as a beacon to progressive countries struggling to escape patriarchal attitudes to women's health and reproductive freedom.
But as we've noted recently (here and here), Australia has grabbed the patriarchal bull by the RU486 (aka 'home abortion pill') horns.
Pioneered by Dr Caroline de Costa, the medication is set to be added to Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory list, which would lower the cost from $300-400 to $36 for woman who can pay and $12 for women on benefits.
(For those interested, there is -- of course -- a political angle. When Tony Abbott, former seminarian nicknamed the Mad Monk, was Minister of Health in a previous government, he fought tooth and nail to keep RU486 out of the country. Now that he is Liberal leader of the opposition, feminists and pro-choicers are dredging up that unsavory past to paint him in a light unfriendly to women.)
Meanwhile, in Canada, RU486, or mifepristone, remains unapproved by Health Canada.
In fact, the most recent reference I can find to it in medical literature is a paper from 2005 by Jennifer LaLiberté.
Mifepristone has been around for more than 20 years. It is considered to be very safe and is the preferred method of medical abortion in many countries, most notably France.
Use of mifepristone (Mifeprex®) has been associated with fewer deaths than Tylenol or Viagra, and is safer than full term pregnancy.Antis love to cite the rare instances of complications and really really love to cite the ickyness of the process. In fact, some like Big Nursie Stanek, absolutely revel in descriptions of cramps, bleeding, and pain.
But, frankly, only people who believe women's reproductive organs mirror Barbie's smooth plastic parts, think that being female is all sugar and spice.
Who among us hasn't has a narsty bloody crampy period and wondered just what was happening? Is this a miscarriage, we wonder? We don't know, do we? We just deal with it.
Today, on March of the Feti Day, as hundreds (of bussed-in Catholic schoolchildren) gather on Parliament Hill to shriek abuse and hatred at women, it seems appropriate to ask: just what the hell is going on with RU486 in Canada?
It has many benefits: safety, lower complication rates than other medical abortions, privacy, and -- in particular -- cost. In a universal healthcare system, it is the duty of policy makers to satisfy patients while minimizing cost.
A recent news story about Health Canada may shed some light on our federal health regulatory body.
In mid-April this year, there was a badly bungled recall of birth control pills.
Apotex, the maker, discovered that some lots of pills contained not one week of sugar-pills (included to insure that women take a pill every day) but TWO weeks, significantly raising the chances of unintended pregnancy in women who thought they had that covered.
Apotex informed Health Canada of the problem last Thursday. However, Health Canada and Apotex failed to inform the general public of the problem until last Monday, nearly a week after the problem was first identified. A Health Canada spokeswoman explained that an urgent recall was not issued immediately because the problem with the pill was not considered life-or-death. Instead, the department and Apotex issued a “Class II” recall, reserved for products that may cause temporary health issues, or where the probability of a serious health impact is low.
In other words, risk of accidental pregnancy was not deemed serious enough to trigger an urgent product recall.
The department upgraded the recall on Monday to a Class I recall after realizing some women who shouldn’t become pregnant for medical reasons could be affected.
Health Canada spokeswoman Blossom Leung said in an e-mail the recall assessment takes health impacts into account, not “lifestyle impacts” such as unplanned pregnancy, which is why the urgent product recall was only issued Monday.A department that considers an unplanned pregnancy a 'lifestyle impact' and not, for some women, a devastating health risk, is -- one might say -- a tad tone-deaf to the reproductive needs of Canadian women.
And we're not the only ones wondering what's up. Here, pharmacist and lawyer, John Griess, writing about OxyContin compares the US FDA's approach to Health Canada's. The FDA would not approve a generic form of OxyContin, considered to be hella more dangerous to addicts than the reformulated version, while Health Canada saw no problemo with it.
Health Canada’s focus on bioequivalence with no mention of its duty to “protect the public by minimizing risks” highlights the difference between the two organizations, and indicates why clinicians and Canadians should be concerned about what’s going on at Health Canada.So, as fetus fetishists stomp their widdle feet on Parliament Hill today, we ask: What is Health Canada doing to provide Canadian women and families with the widest possible choice of legal, safe, preferred, and cost-effective medications to terminate pregnancy?
After all, isn't that the most rational (i.e. non-religious) argument fetus fetishists have? That they don't want to pay for 'lifestyle issues' of slutty women?
Seems Health Canada doesn't want to either, even at a greatly reduced cost to taxpayers.
We at DJ! suggest that women raise the issue with their doctors and OB/GYNs. Also, we should inform ourselves about the safety and efficacy of mifepristone. We will need to counter the lies of the antis if/when this issue ever comes up in Canada.
ADDED: Gail of ROAR in PEI has some trenchant thoughts.
But as we've noted recently (here and here), Australia has grabbed the patriarchal bull by the RU486 (aka 'home abortion pill') horns.
Pioneered by Dr Caroline de Costa, the medication is set to be added to Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory list, which would lower the cost from $300-400 to $36 for woman who can pay and $12 for women on benefits.
(For those interested, there is -- of course -- a political angle. When Tony Abbott, former seminarian nicknamed the Mad Monk, was Minister of Health in a previous government, he fought tooth and nail to keep RU486 out of the country. Now that he is Liberal leader of the opposition, feminists and pro-choicers are dredging up that unsavory past to paint him in a light unfriendly to women.)
Meanwhile, in Canada, RU486, or mifepristone, remains unapproved by Health Canada.
In fact, the most recent reference I can find to it in medical literature is a paper from 2005 by Jennifer LaLiberté.
Mifepristone has been around for more than 20 years. It is considered to be very safe and is the preferred method of medical abortion in many countries, most notably France.
Use of mifepristone (Mifeprex®) has been associated with fewer deaths than Tylenol or Viagra, and is safer than full term pregnancy.Antis love to cite the rare instances of complications and really really love to cite the ickyness of the process. In fact, some like Big Nursie Stanek, absolutely revel in descriptions of cramps, bleeding, and pain.
But, frankly, only people who believe women's reproductive organs mirror Barbie's smooth plastic parts, think that being female is all sugar and spice.
Who among us hasn't has a narsty bloody crampy period and wondered just what was happening? Is this a miscarriage, we wonder? We don't know, do we? We just deal with it.
Today, on March of the Feti Day, as hundreds (of bussed-in Catholic schoolchildren) gather on Parliament Hill to shriek abuse and hatred at women, it seems appropriate to ask: just what the hell is going on with RU486 in Canada?
It has many benefits: safety, lower complication rates than other medical abortions, privacy, and -- in particular -- cost. In a universal healthcare system, it is the duty of policy makers to satisfy patients while minimizing cost.
A recent news story about Health Canada may shed some light on our federal health regulatory body.
In mid-April this year, there was a badly bungled recall of birth control pills.
Apotex, the maker, discovered that some lots of pills contained not one week of sugar-pills (included to insure that women take a pill every day) but TWO weeks, significantly raising the chances of unintended pregnancy in women who thought they had that covered.
Apotex informed Health Canada of the problem last Thursday. However, Health Canada and Apotex failed to inform the general public of the problem until last Monday, nearly a week after the problem was first identified. A Health Canada spokeswoman explained that an urgent recall was not issued immediately because the problem with the pill was not considered life-or-death. Instead, the department and Apotex issued a “Class II” recall, reserved for products that may cause temporary health issues, or where the probability of a serious health impact is low.
In other words, risk of accidental pregnancy was not deemed serious enough to trigger an urgent product recall.
The department upgraded the recall on Monday to a Class I recall after realizing some women who shouldn’t become pregnant for medical reasons could be affected.
Health Canada spokeswoman Blossom Leung said in an e-mail the recall assessment takes health impacts into account, not “lifestyle impacts” such as unplanned pregnancy, which is why the urgent product recall was only issued Monday.A department that considers an unplanned pregnancy a 'lifestyle impact' and not, for some women, a devastating health risk, is -- one might say -- a tad tone-deaf to the reproductive needs of Canadian women.
And we're not the only ones wondering what's up. Here, pharmacist and lawyer, John Griess, writing about OxyContin compares the US FDA's approach to Health Canada's. The FDA would not approve a generic form of OxyContin, considered to be hella more dangerous to addicts than the reformulated version, while Health Canada saw no problemo with it.
Health Canada’s focus on bioequivalence with no mention of its duty to “protect the public by minimizing risks” highlights the difference between the two organizations, and indicates why clinicians and Canadians should be concerned about what’s going on at Health Canada.So, as fetus fetishists stomp their widdle feet on Parliament Hill today, we ask: What is Health Canada doing to provide Canadian women and families with the widest possible choice of legal, safe, preferred, and cost-effective medications to terminate pregnancy?
After all, isn't that the most rational (i.e. non-religious) argument fetus fetishists have? That they don't want to pay for 'lifestyle issues' of slutty women?
Seems Health Canada doesn't want to either, even at a greatly reduced cost to taxpayers.
We at DJ! suggest that women raise the issue with their doctors and OB/GYNs. Also, we should inform ourselves about the safety and efficacy of mifepristone. We will need to counter the lies of the antis if/when this issue ever comes up in Canada.
ADDED: Gail of ROAR in PEI has some trenchant thoughts.
Categories: Posts from our progressive community
You Can't Believe A Word
Andrew Coyne has an interesting take on the National Research Council's new mandate. The NRC was originally established to do the kind of research which business could not and should not do:
Hence it is well-established economic principle that basic research is the sort of thing governments should fund. By the same token, however, government should not be in the business of funding applied research, that is research directed to commercial uses. Not only is this unnecessary — business can perfectly well fund this sort of thing on its own — but it inevitably tilts the pitch in favour of certain activities over others: some technologies, innovations, products, firms and industries will be funded, at the expense of the rest.
The Harper government likes to claim that it is devoted to "free markets." But, Coyne writes, that claim is patently false:
After so many previous episodes — the auto industry bailouts; the proliferation of subsidies and tax breaks to other favoured industries, even including the venture capital industry; the extension of regional development subsidies to every part of the country; to say nothing of its highly discretionary foreign investment policy, jawboning of banks, etc. etc. etc. — it should by now be clear to everyone: This can no longer be described as mere political posturing. It accurately reflects the government’s current thinking on the economy. We have to stop talking about the Harper government having “abandoned its principles”. Whatever might once have been the case, these are its principles.
This is a government which believes in market intervention -- not in favour of ordinary citizens, but in favour of business:
It is simply wrong to refer to the Harper government as “free market” in orientation. Its economic policy is, and has been for some time, heavily interventionist — perhaps the most interventionist of any government since Trudeau’s.
Stephen Harper claimed he was in favour of accountability -- then shut down all avenues to it. He claimed he was fiscally responsible then ran up the biggest deficit in Canadian history. He claims that markets should be allowed to function freely, but insists that they function according to his rules.
Coyne's point is simple: You can't believe a word he tells you. He's a fraud.
Categories: Posts from our progressive community
RU486 Ready Canada - Abortion in PEI
Saw this the other day over Twitter ... Abortion pill now a reality. Australia sits poised to list RU486 as part of their Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which will make the once very expensive drug, available to all Australian women at a hugely lower price.
Medical abortion.
Safe, effective and ACCESSIBLE.
So I google RU486 and I see that the World Health Organization added RU486 to it's Model List of Essential Medicines, an inventory of 312 drugs that are considered benchmarks in meeting worldwide "priority health care needs". (article, 2006) It is apparently, the preferred choice for medical abortion. Available in Australia, WHO thinks it's important, it must be available in Canada.
Then I quickly see that it is not approved for use in Canada. (sigh) "RU486 is available in all countries of the European Union except Portugal, Italy and Ireland. It is also available in the United States, China, India, Russia, Australia and South Africa, amoung others." What the frack? What is currently being used in Canada is Methotrexate , not as effective as RU 486. Why would one version of medical abortion, the less effective version be the only one available?
The discussion of medical abortion is particularly relevant to PEI, since we have the lovely distinction of being the only province in Canada that discriminates against women by denying access to abortion services within the province. Remember that old public service commercial (ran in the Maritimes anyway) showing a man and a kid in a boat, and the man throws some garbage overboard: 'where does the garbage go dad' says the kid, and the dad replies 'away'. Out of sight, out of mind, it becomes someone else's problem. Well, that's the abortion services situation on PEI, held in place by our Premier, Robert Ghiz and our Health Minister, Doug Currie.
Recently we found out that some medical abortions ARE being provided on PEI (Who knew! Not me, but then how would I since it's none of my business what a woman and her physician decide to do about her primary health care. I trust women. And I trust the physicians that advise them). Our Health Minister would like us to believe that access in another province is acceptable and that lumping this primary care service in with other tertiary (or specialty) health care services that need to be accessed outside the province is appropriate. COMPLETE crap. Primary care services belong in community hospitals and the hospitals are already equiped to provide these services. What this policy does is create a class system where the 'haves' have access and the 'have nots' are shit out of luck. Now haves vs havenots is a new dynamic, but when we're talking about women being able to say when and if they will have a child, women being able to control their most basic bodily functions, the ramifications of such a policy, something akin to forced childbirth ... is an evil I just didn't think our country or our 'gentle island' was capable of perpetrating. In any case, on to medical abortion:
CBC.ca/pei 'Health PEI not tracking Medical Abortions'.
CBC Radio, Island Morning Medical Abortion.
The Guardian - Medical abortions available in PEI.
I have to really wonder why RU486 is not available in Canada especially considering our current Prime Minister has said he has no agenda that would see the abortion discussion reopened, in otherwords, he would not see abortion restricted. Certainly not offering what is the preferred drug for medical abortions would be seen as a definite restriction! On top of that he has seen motions put forward by Conservative MPs regarding abortion and met them with clear and concise opposition (Hon. Gordon O'Connor, CPC on M312 - scroll down! It's an epic smack-down, it's worth reading several times in fact). Unless of course his agenda is to just 'leave that discussion entirely alone and neither move back nor forward'. Which may be the case. Like my dog when I find him on the sofa, and he doesn't move, doesn't so much as blink, I assume he's hoping I don't see him and that things can just carry on without any big hassle. No one make any sudden movements and we'll all go about our business as usual. Well, maybe that's not the best analogy, but I'm fresh out of humor about abortion agendas.
Some background. What is Medical Abortion?
Canadians for Choice
Women's Health Matters
What is RU486 - this article is a bit dated I think ... so some facts/info may have changed, but it'll get you started.
Why is RU486 not approved in Canada? "The drug of Choice" appeared in a Halifax publication, 'The Coast' in 2006 and goes into some of the barriers that has prevented the drug from being available to women here.
If Stephen Harper and the Conservatives wanted to really convince Canadians that they don't have an agenda to restrict abortion, why not see RU486 approved in Canada? Why not allow women access to the most effective drug? Why not increase the power and the privacy that resides in the physicians' office: between the physician and their patient?
Harper's complacency and apparent unwillingness to be proactive on the topic, especially considering the rate at which his Conservative MPs continue to expell all manner of 'let's raise the abortion issue while pretending not to raise the abortion issue because too many citizens are ignorant to our crafty ways and too few reporters investigate our motives' would beg action on his part ... IF that is ... he really did not have an agenda or secretly support an agenda that would see abortion services slowly restricted in Canada. So I say again, why isn't RU486 approved in Canada?
Oh, here is the latest Conservative stinky egg to fall out of the hayloft: 'Equality Motion' - try not to giggle at Woodworth wanting us to believe that he's actually surprised the Abortion Rights Coalition didn't support his motion.
The downside to RU486? Access to a safer, more effective private abortion. You heard me, that's the downside. If that sounds like it doesn't make sense - welcome to the anti-choice position.
Of course ... change could be right around the corner ... we say that on PEI all the time ... we say it with a bit of a chuckle as we are often wrong, but it's good to stay positive. Change could be happening very very quietly, it could be happening right now in fact. You see, many politicians do want to bring about change, but they need their hands held and they need constant support and they need reassuring and they need everyone to 'maintain low tones' otherwise they git scared and run off. That's why they get paid the big bucks and retire with a juicy pension. Nevermind that women who access services and those who provide services are often put at risk ... politicians need a safe, effective and private way to bring about change ... well ain't that ironic. 'Cause women need a safe, effective and private way to bring about change too ... change in their pregnancy status.
Nothing to do with abortion is every going to be secret, and why should it be. Canada is a pro-choice country and although we are not without our glitches in the system
-PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-
we should be ensuring that part of an extensive sexual health education includes knowledge of and access to Plan B (the morning after pill) and RU486 (medical abortion) so that many early unwanted pregnancies can be dealt with safely, effectively and privately. I read somewhere that as many as 30% of unwanted pregnancies, in countries where RU486 is used, are ended with medical abortion. Between that and Plan B it would seem that surgical abortion would be on the decline even. Isn't THAT a nifty thing. That must scare the pants off the anti-choice crowd, that women would be able to deal with such a high percentage of unwanted pregnancies so privately ... ssssshhhhhhh!
(a booming and sophisticated voice now bellows)
Will Canada be next to approve RU486?
Will the women of Prince Edward Island find medical abortion to be a helpful step in addressing the lack of leadership and integrity amoung their elected officials in bringing abortion access to PEI?
Will decision-makers on PEI recognize the need for a mandatory and comprehensive education program at the highschool level on PEI that teaches our youth about Plan B and Medical Abortion along with all the other fun birth control, sex and sexual health 'stuff'? (I know, that one is hilarious).
Will women on PEI see primary care surgical abortion services finally established in PEI? Because the hypocrisy of offering medical abortions and not surgical abortions is ridiculous on so many levels.
Like a good old fashioned cliff hanger! I'd love to say that's entertaining but really it's a tad tedious waiting for PEI to move into the current century and for our Premier, Robert Ghiz and our Health Minister Doug Currie to grow a pair of ovaries and bring about the policy change that Island women deserve. To see that women on PEI have access to what is an essential part of their primary health care. But then, we'll get this done with our without them, and increased access medical abortion, with RU486 would be a good start.
Expanded, Not RESTRICTED Abortion Options - From 'Dammit Janet'
Stay tuned, this discussion is far from over:
A bit of light for abortion on PEI
Way of the Future: Medical abortion, private, safe, cheap
Medical abortion.
Safe, effective and ACCESSIBLE.
So I google RU486 and I see that the World Health Organization added RU486 to it's Model List of Essential Medicines, an inventory of 312 drugs that are considered benchmarks in meeting worldwide "priority health care needs". (article, 2006) It is apparently, the preferred choice for medical abortion. Available in Australia, WHO thinks it's important, it must be available in Canada.
Then I quickly see that it is not approved for use in Canada. (sigh) "RU486 is available in all countries of the European Union except Portugal, Italy and Ireland. It is also available in the United States, China, India, Russia, Australia and South Africa, amoung others." What the frack? What is currently being used in Canada is Methotrexate , not as effective as RU 486. Why would one version of medical abortion, the less effective version be the only one available?
The discussion of medical abortion is particularly relevant to PEI, since we have the lovely distinction of being the only province in Canada that discriminates against women by denying access to abortion services within the province. Remember that old public service commercial (ran in the Maritimes anyway) showing a man and a kid in a boat, and the man throws some garbage overboard: 'where does the garbage go dad' says the kid, and the dad replies 'away'. Out of sight, out of mind, it becomes someone else's problem. Well, that's the abortion services situation on PEI, held in place by our Premier, Robert Ghiz and our Health Minister, Doug Currie.
Recently we found out that some medical abortions ARE being provided on PEI (Who knew! Not me, but then how would I since it's none of my business what a woman and her physician decide to do about her primary health care. I trust women. And I trust the physicians that advise them). Our Health Minister would like us to believe that access in another province is acceptable and that lumping this primary care service in with other tertiary (or specialty) health care services that need to be accessed outside the province is appropriate. COMPLETE crap. Primary care services belong in community hospitals and the hospitals are already equiped to provide these services. What this policy does is create a class system where the 'haves' have access and the 'have nots' are shit out of luck. Now haves vs havenots is a new dynamic, but when we're talking about women being able to say when and if they will have a child, women being able to control their most basic bodily functions, the ramifications of such a policy, something akin to forced childbirth ... is an evil I just didn't think our country or our 'gentle island' was capable of perpetrating. In any case, on to medical abortion:
CBC.ca/pei 'Health PEI not tracking Medical Abortions'.
CBC Radio, Island Morning Medical Abortion.
The Guardian - Medical abortions available in PEI.
I have to really wonder why RU486 is not available in Canada especially considering our current Prime Minister has said he has no agenda that would see the abortion discussion reopened, in otherwords, he would not see abortion restricted. Certainly not offering what is the preferred drug for medical abortions would be seen as a definite restriction! On top of that he has seen motions put forward by Conservative MPs regarding abortion and met them with clear and concise opposition (Hon. Gordon O'Connor, CPC on M312 - scroll down! It's an epic smack-down, it's worth reading several times in fact). Unless of course his agenda is to just 'leave that discussion entirely alone and neither move back nor forward'. Which may be the case. Like my dog when I find him on the sofa, and he doesn't move, doesn't so much as blink, I assume he's hoping I don't see him and that things can just carry on without any big hassle. No one make any sudden movements and we'll all go about our business as usual. Well, maybe that's not the best analogy, but I'm fresh out of humor about abortion agendas.
Some background. What is Medical Abortion?
Canadians for Choice
Women's Health Matters
What is RU486 - this article is a bit dated I think ... so some facts/info may have changed, but it'll get you started.
Why is RU486 not approved in Canada? "The drug of Choice" appeared in a Halifax publication, 'The Coast' in 2006 and goes into some of the barriers that has prevented the drug from being available to women here.
If Stephen Harper and the Conservatives wanted to really convince Canadians that they don't have an agenda to restrict abortion, why not see RU486 approved in Canada? Why not allow women access to the most effective drug? Why not increase the power and the privacy that resides in the physicians' office: between the physician and their patient?
Harper's complacency and apparent unwillingness to be proactive on the topic, especially considering the rate at which his Conservative MPs continue to expell all manner of 'let's raise the abortion issue while pretending not to raise the abortion issue because too many citizens are ignorant to our crafty ways and too few reporters investigate our motives' would beg action on his part ... IF that is ... he really did not have an agenda or secretly support an agenda that would see abortion services slowly restricted in Canada. So I say again, why isn't RU486 approved in Canada?
Oh, here is the latest Conservative stinky egg to fall out of the hayloft: 'Equality Motion' - try not to giggle at Woodworth wanting us to believe that he's actually surprised the Abortion Rights Coalition didn't support his motion.
The downside to RU486? Access to a safer, more effective private abortion. You heard me, that's the downside. If that sounds like it doesn't make sense - welcome to the anti-choice position.
Of course ... change could be right around the corner ... we say that on PEI all the time ... we say it with a bit of a chuckle as we are often wrong, but it's good to stay positive. Change could be happening very very quietly, it could be happening right now in fact. You see, many politicians do want to bring about change, but they need their hands held and they need constant support and they need reassuring and they need everyone to 'maintain low tones' otherwise they git scared and run off. That's why they get paid the big bucks and retire with a juicy pension. Nevermind that women who access services and those who provide services are often put at risk ... politicians need a safe, effective and private way to bring about change ... well ain't that ironic. 'Cause women need a safe, effective and private way to bring about change too ... change in their pregnancy status.
Nothing to do with abortion is every going to be secret, and why should it be. Canada is a pro-choice country and although we are not without our glitches in the system
-PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-
we should be ensuring that part of an extensive sexual health education includes knowledge of and access to Plan B (the morning after pill) and RU486 (medical abortion) so that many early unwanted pregnancies can be dealt with safely, effectively and privately. I read somewhere that as many as 30% of unwanted pregnancies, in countries where RU486 is used, are ended with medical abortion. Between that and Plan B it would seem that surgical abortion would be on the decline even. Isn't THAT a nifty thing. That must scare the pants off the anti-choice crowd, that women would be able to deal with such a high percentage of unwanted pregnancies so privately ... ssssshhhhhhh!
(a booming and sophisticated voice now bellows)
Will Canada be next to approve RU486?
Will the women of Prince Edward Island find medical abortion to be a helpful step in addressing the lack of leadership and integrity amoung their elected officials in bringing abortion access to PEI?
Will decision-makers on PEI recognize the need for a mandatory and comprehensive education program at the highschool level on PEI that teaches our youth about Plan B and Medical Abortion along with all the other fun birth control, sex and sexual health 'stuff'? (I know, that one is hilarious).
Will women on PEI see primary care surgical abortion services finally established in PEI? Because the hypocrisy of offering medical abortions and not surgical abortions is ridiculous on so many levels.
Like a good old fashioned cliff hanger! I'd love to say that's entertaining but really it's a tad tedious waiting for PEI to move into the current century and for our Premier, Robert Ghiz and our Health Minister Doug Currie to grow a pair of ovaries and bring about the policy change that Island women deserve. To see that women on PEI have access to what is an essential part of their primary health care. But then, we'll get this done with our without them, and increased access medical abortion, with RU486 would be a good start.
Expanded, Not RESTRICTED Abortion Options - From 'Dammit Janet'
Stay tuned, this discussion is far from over:
A bit of light for abortion on PEI
Way of the Future: Medical abortion, private, safe, cheap
Categories: Posts from our progressive community
london, day two
Links to be added later
We had breakfast in a little cafe (what New Yorkers call a coffee shop, a real working-person's breakfast spot) in R's neighbourhood. This was my only opportunity to have a full English breakfast on this trip, and it was yummy.
We got a bit of a late start, but that was probably best in the long run. I either did poor research or didn't fully take in what I was reading, because we didn't realize the British Library was no longer part of the British Museum. Last time we were in London, the British Library was closed for its massive renovation. I had really enjoyed it when I was here before, and I knew Allan would want to see it. So first we went to the British Museum, learned our mistake, and got back on the tube to the King's Cross, where the new British Library is located.
The exterior is an unprepossessing building, but the interior is white and light and airy, designed around a glass-encased tower of books, with seating all around it. Scores of people were working in the open, sitting in chairs of very clever design - each comfy chair a small L, with a desk for a laptop and a side table for papers and books. There are also standing spots, where you can lean against a tall, slanted back support.
The Library's permanent exhibit has been updated and modernized. When I was there in 1985, if I recall correctly, it was a parade of male British writers and British historical documents. I do also remember seeing a Mozart score. I was still an English major at heart and that was fine with me. Now they've widened their lens. Along with Shakespeare and the Beowulf manuscript, there are early printed documents from China, Japan, Korea, and India, and along with the Gutenberg bibles there are korans and hagaddahs. The music section includes a Beatles display, and there are female authors other than Jane Austen. Also Magna Carta, the Lindisfarne Gospels, and many gorgeous illuminated manuscripts, which I love.
We only went to the permanent exhibit, although there were two current exhibits, one on propaganda and a beautiful display on the detective novel. There's also a huge philatelic collection, contained in a wall of metal plates, stacked side by side, that you can pull out to view. One interesting stamp we saw: from the Lodz ghetto in occupied Poland: judenpost.
In between the British Library and meeting Mara at her workplace, we thought we'd see some of London's great new architecture. We took the tube to London Bridge, came above ground, turned the corner, and WOW, there was The Shard. It's an exciting building.
We walked around to see it from different angles. Looking straight up, against a background of sky and drifting clouds, you get the disconcerting illusion that the building is falling towards you. Because of the building's transparent skin, it looks different at different times of day.
I gather from the media that Londoners have been put off by how expensive it is to visit the observation area - "The View From The Shard" - and how far in advance you have to book: advanced tickets at £25, day-of £30. Then we saw the kicker: "Immediate Access: £100." If you have the dough, you don't have queue up with the riff raff. A class system even for a tourist attraction.
We also saw City Hall, where Mara is working right now, and the top of "The Gherkin", which resembles a giant dildo more than a pickle. Although we didn't see it close up, it seems unappealing in the distance. The shape is interesting but the colour and pattern of the skin seems tacky.
When Mara got out of work, we took a long and seemingly complicated tube ride to Chiswick (pronounced "chis-ick"), and met Justin and their daughter A at a beautiful pub, the Duke of Sussex, a great setting and a really interesting Spanish-themed menu. We ordered a lot of food and wine, and had a really nice time. Mara's daughter is an amazing girl - smart, precocious, adorable, and altogether charming.
When it was almost A's bedtime, Dad and daughter took off, and Allan and I went to another pub and had a quick pint with Mara. Everyone inside was watching a Chelsea v Tottenham game. Neighbourhood pubs are one one of my favourite things about the UK. (They are disappearing, too. I'm told that in the country overall, an average of three pubs close each week.)
We went back to Mara's to see her flat, then a long tube ride back to R's neighbourhood. I love the tube. (We used the hell out of our day passes.) And I love London! This visit was mainly to see friends, but just being in this great city gives me such a charge. I fell in love with London on my first time there in 1982, and only like it more every time I've been back.
This morning we were up very early. R drove us to the tube, which we took to the St Pancras Station, and are now in Paris!
We had breakfast in a little cafe (what New Yorkers call a coffee shop, a real working-person's breakfast spot) in R's neighbourhood. This was my only opportunity to have a full English breakfast on this trip, and it was yummy.
We got a bit of a late start, but that was probably best in the long run. I either did poor research or didn't fully take in what I was reading, because we didn't realize the British Library was no longer part of the British Museum. Last time we were in London, the British Library was closed for its massive renovation. I had really enjoyed it when I was here before, and I knew Allan would want to see it. So first we went to the British Museum, learned our mistake, and got back on the tube to the King's Cross, where the new British Library is located.
The exterior is an unprepossessing building, but the interior is white and light and airy, designed around a glass-encased tower of books, with seating all around it. Scores of people were working in the open, sitting in chairs of very clever design - each comfy chair a small L, with a desk for a laptop and a side table for papers and books. There are also standing spots, where you can lean against a tall, slanted back support.
The Library's permanent exhibit has been updated and modernized. When I was there in 1985, if I recall correctly, it was a parade of male British writers and British historical documents. I do also remember seeing a Mozart score. I was still an English major at heart and that was fine with me. Now they've widened their lens. Along with Shakespeare and the Beowulf manuscript, there are early printed documents from China, Japan, Korea, and India, and along with the Gutenberg bibles there are korans and hagaddahs. The music section includes a Beatles display, and there are female authors other than Jane Austen. Also Magna Carta, the Lindisfarne Gospels, and many gorgeous illuminated manuscripts, which I love.
We only went to the permanent exhibit, although there were two current exhibits, one on propaganda and a beautiful display on the detective novel. There's also a huge philatelic collection, contained in a wall of metal plates, stacked side by side, that you can pull out to view. One interesting stamp we saw: from the Lodz ghetto in occupied Poland: judenpost.
In between the British Library and meeting Mara at her workplace, we thought we'd see some of London's great new architecture. We took the tube to London Bridge, came above ground, turned the corner, and WOW, there was The Shard. It's an exciting building.
We walked around to see it from different angles. Looking straight up, against a background of sky and drifting clouds, you get the disconcerting illusion that the building is falling towards you. Because of the building's transparent skin, it looks different at different times of day.
I gather from the media that Londoners have been put off by how expensive it is to visit the observation area - "The View From The Shard" - and how far in advance you have to book: advanced tickets at £25, day-of £30. Then we saw the kicker: "Immediate Access: £100." If you have the dough, you don't have queue up with the riff raff. A class system even for a tourist attraction.
We also saw City Hall, where Mara is working right now, and the top of "The Gherkin", which resembles a giant dildo more than a pickle. Although we didn't see it close up, it seems unappealing in the distance. The shape is interesting but the colour and pattern of the skin seems tacky.
When Mara got out of work, we took a long and seemingly complicated tube ride to Chiswick (pronounced "chis-ick"), and met Justin and their daughter A at a beautiful pub, the Duke of Sussex, a great setting and a really interesting Spanish-themed menu. We ordered a lot of food and wine, and had a really nice time. Mara's daughter is an amazing girl - smart, precocious, adorable, and altogether charming.
When it was almost A's bedtime, Dad and daughter took off, and Allan and I went to another pub and had a quick pint with Mara. Everyone inside was watching a Chelsea v Tottenham game. Neighbourhood pubs are one one of my favourite things about the UK. (They are disappearing, too. I'm told that in the country overall, an average of three pubs close each week.)
We went back to Mara's to see her flat, then a long tube ride back to R's neighbourhood. I love the tube. (We used the hell out of our day passes.) And I love London! This visit was mainly to see friends, but just being in this great city gives me such a charge. I fell in love with London on my first time there in 1982, and only like it more every time I've been back.
This morning we were up very early. R drove us to the tube, which we took to the St Pancras Station, and are now in Paris!
Categories: Posts from our progressive community
Survey Says: Many Canadians Are Unreflective About Religion
The latest census is out and for one reason or another, one of the several numbers upon which media attention has been fixated are the religion figures. This sort of ties into my new series on science, evolution, and the future of humanity, but actually it’s a separate question which I probably would have written about anyways. So I hope you’ll forgive the digression.
Anyhow, the headline figure is that the number of Canadians who stated on the census that they were non-religious has increased from a small portion (16%) to a slightly less small portion (24%). What one is to make of this, it’s hard to say. The Globe & Mail has printed two articles on the subject, one titled “Canadians Losing Their Religion” and the other “Religion in Canada is Changing, But It’s Not Being Abandoned.” There’s also been the perennial gag about Jedi Knights, a subject which holds absolutely no interest to me except to say that it’s nice to see how many people approach the census with as much cavalier disdain as the Conservative government does.
But the thing that intrigues me about the religion figure isn’t that it’s shrunk. It’s that the figure is so high. About 75% of Canadians espoused a religion on the 2011 census. Almost all of them stated that they were Christian. It’s certainly true that those describing themselves as having “no religion” is increasing, but the vast majority of Canadians continue to say they are religious, Christian in point of fact. Next time you’re out in public (or at work), pick 13 people out of the crowd. Over the past 10 years, on average, 1 of those people abandoned their religion. All of this is simply to say that when the media prints statements like “we’re losing our religion,” they’re making statements that are really only valid for a very small minority of Canadians.
It does raise an obvious question, though: where exactly is all this religion?
//
//
// ]]>What I mean is something quite different from the “are we losing our religion?” prattle that is presently making the rounds of the professional media. To show you what I mean, I’m going to compare the headline figures from the census with some very slightly more detailed questions asked on a regular Association for Canadian Studies poll last year.
Now, we know from the census that about 75% of Canadians say they are religious, and that about 67% say they are Christian. There’s no reason not to take Canadians at their word when they make these statements. I’m not accusing them of lying on the census.
We should, however, ask what it means when they say that they’re religious. On the ACS poll, only 67% of Canadians stated affirmatively that God exists. Note that this is less than — not a lot less than, but noticeably less than — the 75% of Canadians who say they are religious. About 10% of “religious” Canadians don’t actually believe in God.
That’s a minor quibble, though: the numbers drop off even more quickly from there. 58% of Canadians agree that “a higher power governs the world” — raising some obvious questions about an additional, substantial tranche of “religious” Canadians who think that God exists but does not intervene in any world affairs. (This is a feature of several religious traditions, but none of them have large followings in Canada.)
The next drop is even bigger: only 42% of Canadians say that religion is an important part of their life. This figure is particularly intriguing. It means that something like one-third of religious Canadians (say they) believe that God does exist and does govern the world, but still don’t think it’s important to figure out what He, She, or It wants from them, and to live their lives accordingly. I really don’t think I need to say anything more about the sheer vapidity of whatever “religion” is being espoused by such persons: they’ve already as much as said all that needs to be said.
It’s easier to explain why people say they’re religious but don’t really believe in God — mainly cultural inertia combined with a vague sense that church attendance and morality go hand in hand — than it is to explain why people say they believe in God but don’t think that this belief should play an important role in their lives. There’s simply no way to reconcile these statements in a way that makes any real sense whatsoever. The only real explanation that I can think of is that these people are simply bullshitting the pollster, and maybe themselves too.
And I have my doubts about the remaining 42%, too. It would be interesting to see the results, for instance, of a poll of all self-declared Christians which walked through the core elements of the Apostle’s Creed, which at least in theory is the bedrock statement of Christian orthodoxy defended by basically all denominations. How many Canadians, in other words, will state that they genuinely believe that God exists in three persons; that He impregnated a virgin in order to bring his “son” into the world; that this son was executed but raised from the dead and now “sits at the right hand” of God; and that this son will return to usher the faithful into the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting? How many Canadians could actually explain, in remotely coherent detail, the concept of the Trinity?
//
//
// ]]>I really have no idea what answers Canadians would give to such questions. It would be especially amusing if more than 42% answered yes to the above, but I kind of doubt they would. I rather suspect that there are even more people who say they take their religion seriously but would get seriously hazy when asked to give details. It’s hard to find a survey that even began to ask such thorny questions, but there was a 2010 ACS poll which revealed, hilariously, that one-quarter of Canadians believe in reincarnation, something directly at odds with the core tenets of the faiths which at least some of those people claim to adhere to.
I hesitate to use American figures, for various reasons, but in this case it is useful to make a comparison, since we generally assume that Americans are more religious and conservative than Canadians are. In regular polling conducted by the Barna Group, fully 60% of Americans “said their faith had ‘greatly transformed’ their life” and only around 10% said their religion wasn’t important to them. But 40% denied that Jesus was sinless, and 60% claimed that the Holy Spirit was not a living force. 35% said they believe in Satan, but 76% said that religion was a choice between God and the devil. Only about half of those who said that the Bible was a sacred text owned to having read it outside of church in the past week.
All of which leads me to conclude that very few religious people take their religion very seriously, which is why I don’t take it particularly seriously, either. The evidence suggests that only a minority of religious Canadians consider their religion important enough to, for instance, come up with logically consistent answers to some fairly basic questions on the subject. The real question isn’t why the number of non-religious has grown from 16% to 24%, but why the number of people who say they’re religious remains so high when plainly, for many if not most of them, religion is not actually important to them at all.
All of this dovetails quite neatly with the leading theory at Sixth Estate, which is that people are ignorant and either unable or unwilling to think deeply. There are important reasons why this should be the case, most of them revolving around the fact that brains are expensive. Last year, I made much the same point about the pathetic state of Americans’ knowledge of the most basic facts in elementary science, a subject which most people also show no particular interest in taking seriously:
One thing we can say for certain is that a very large number of people are appallingly ignorant. As I suggested in my title, one-quarter of Americans still believe that the Sun goes around the Earth. One-half of Americans also think that the Earth goes around the Sun (or vice versa) in one day, rather than one year.
In addition, more than half of Americans think that antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria, and this number is actually climbing (up 7% over the last 5 years). Americans are also evenly split on the existence of the Y-chromosome, on whether electrons are smaller than atoms, and on whether there’s land at the North Pole or just ice…
At best, I think we can conclude that Americans are badly confused about basic scientific concepts. This probably won’t surprise many people, especially scientists or educators. It doesn’t terribly surprise me either, given that the British Columbian government recently engaged in weighty deliberations over whether fish, bacteria, and viruses were all members of the “animal kingdom” (the general consensus: bacteria and viruses probably were, but fish might not be).
It probably goes without saying that vast ignorance is an unfortunate basis for democracy.
Tweet
Categories: Posts from our progressive community
The Mutilated Census and the Madness of Stephen Harper
He had done a lot of monstrous things, before he woke up one morning and decided to gut the census.
For no sane reason.
But for me it marked the moment when Stephen Harper crossed the desert of twisted ambition, and entered the dark valley of his personal demons.
For it was that crazy, and look what that maniac has done to us now.
Read more »
Categories: Posts from our progressive community
ProWomanProForcedPregnancy Is a Total Stand-Alone (Astroturf) Organization
In a recent blogpost about March for Lies being such a good teachable moment for young women to learn slut-shaming and sanctimonious judgement, we mentioned that the original article by Amanda Watson seems to have struck a nerve with those professional female slut-shamers over at ProWomanProForcedPregnancy.
They responded with their lie protest that they are NOT affiliated with other organizations.
You be the judge. The principal is Andrea Mrozek. Here's her day job.
Andrea currently works at the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada as Manager of Research and Communications.But PWPFP is not owned or affiliated with James Dobson's loathesome Focus on the Family, they say.
Seems opinions differ on that.
Focus on the Family Canada (French: Objectif Famille) is a Canadian affiliate of the American evangelical Christian organization Focus on the Family.
. . .
Focus on the Family Canada is operated and directed independently of Focus on the Family USA.[citation needed] However, some ties do exist between the two organizations. Between 2000 and 2003, the Canadian affiliate received $1.6 million in services from the larger American organization. Two members on the board of directors of Focus on the Family Canada, Tom Mason and Jim Daly, are also vice-presidents of Focus on the Family in the United States. Other than receiving financial support from Focus on the Family USA between 2000 and 2003, Focus on the Family Canada relies fully on donor support for its operations.
. . .
Focus on the Family Canada has also established the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada/Institut du Mariage et de la Famille Canada (IMFC).It's all just a big coincidence that Mrozek moonlights as the principal of an astroturf anti-abortion website.
Make sense to you?
They responded with their lie protest that they are NOT affiliated with other organizations.
You be the judge. The principal is Andrea Mrozek. Here's her day job.
Andrea currently works at the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada as Manager of Research and Communications.But PWPFP is not owned or affiliated with James Dobson's loathesome Focus on the Family, they say.
Seems opinions differ on that.
Focus on the Family Canada (French: Objectif Famille) is a Canadian affiliate of the American evangelical Christian organization Focus on the Family.
. . .
Focus on the Family Canada is operated and directed independently of Focus on the Family USA.[citation needed] However, some ties do exist between the two organizations. Between 2000 and 2003, the Canadian affiliate received $1.6 million in services from the larger American organization. Two members on the board of directors of Focus on the Family Canada, Tom Mason and Jim Daly, are also vice-presidents of Focus on the Family in the United States. Other than receiving financial support from Focus on the Family USA between 2000 and 2003, Focus on the Family Canada relies fully on donor support for its operations.
. . .
Focus on the Family Canada has also established the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada/Institut du Mariage et de la Famille Canada (IMFC).It's all just a big coincidence that Mrozek moonlights as the principal of an astroturf anti-abortion website.
Make sense to you?
Categories: Posts from our progressive community
Durham Police Abuse Of Authority
I'm not sure what is more disquieting, the conduct of constable James Ebdon or the very timid sanctions Durham Police Chief Mike Ewles imposed on the errant officer. Neither exactly cultivates confidence or trust in those who 'protect' us.
Categories: Posts from our progressive community
Show Me The Money
Hot on the heels of the Auditor General's revelation that the conservatives cannot account for $3.1 billion allocated for anti terrorism the Star tells us that ninety percent of $2.4 billion paid out to consultants comes with no description of what was paid for and get this our government refuses to divulge that info.
Read more »
Read more »
Categories: Posts from our progressive community
Guest Commentary From the Salamander On The Harper Regime
The other evening I put up a post on Kellie Leitch, the erstwhile physician turned Conservative M.P., enthusiastic sycophant and prominent apologist of all things Harpereque. As he occasionally does, The Salamander, in a comment on the post, offered his own observations of Ms. Leitch and a host of other Harper acolytes.
Always unsparing in his excoriating assessments, I am reproducing his offering below for readers to enjoy:
.. the pedantic and simplistic rhetoric keeps on churning.. that's the hallmark of Stephen Harper, the Harper Government, the Harper Political Party, the Harper Bureaucracy, the Harper Young Harper Party initiates, the Harper Electoral Volunteers, the Harper Data Miners, the Harper Live & Robo Call service bureaus, the Harper Ad Agency, the Harper Polling Companies .. the Harper Think Tanks, the Harper University Democracy Fronts
A ways back I described Ms Leitch as a 'dead end' .. when I should have been more illuminating. Although Kelly Leitch is yet another 'star' MP in the decaying Harper low orbit layer of ethically spaced out junk bond vote collectors.. she is merely a messenger.. and dull programmed echo.. As some might say.. a red herring .. a beep meep sputternik
But why shoot down such a useful sample specimen.. or 'carrier' that has the Harper political animal DNA staggering rabid dinosaur embedded ? She reminds me of the large Dean Dean Del Mastro who was equally capable of getting that big eyed glossy evangelistic Harper fervor in front of the cameras... 'the fact is in fact.. that the NDP carbon tax.. is in fact' .. and that oily pompadoured smug gelding idiot spouting 'the root cause of terrorism is terrorists !' And let's not forget the loyal warthog Peter Van Loan drone..
Hell .. while ol Dean n Poilievre & Van Loan, Hamilton, de Loray & Jennie Byrne was denying, plugging, denying, plugging the leaks from electoral fraud.. the ministerial creep jackasses such as Kent were endorsing the poisoning and shooting of boreal wolves, Clement was sanitizing his back trail form the G20, Ashfield was obstructing marine biology to promote farmed salmon and Joe Oliver was painting his skinny millionaire stockbroker/lawyer arse into the dangerous corner its frying in now.
Joe Oliver .. he's toast - a Canadian quisling, the Benedict Arnold, General Custer tar sands fall guy either before or after Harper resigns or is fired or goes into hiding with his trusty aide Ray Novak and at least one panda. One of many with no conscience, no common sense, no glowing heart, standing on guard with forked tongues, financiers, foreign energy consortiums, ideologues carpetbaggers and charlatans.. Why ? Good question ... What drives these sellouts ?
I like the Kelly Leitch's.. and the duplicitous and vicious pedantic MP secretaries like Michelle Rempel.. and Poutine Poilievre .. if we see them as lab rats and look for a cure.. an antitoxin .. a vaccine .. for the infection they carry .. while we try to deal with the really serious 'carriers' of the toxins .. Harper, Mackay, Baird, Flanagan, Kenney, Manning .. the list just is shocking ...Recommend this Post
Categories: Posts from our progressive community
Stephen Harper: His Caucus and Cabinet
Stephen Harper's Caucus and Cabinet.
H/t: Lorne's Post Kellie Leitch Speaks Again In Her 'Master's Voice' .
H/t: Lorne's Post Kellie Leitch Speaks Again In Her 'Master's Voice' .
Categories: Posts from our progressive community
On public evils
Yes, there's plenty of reason to wonder what the Canadian public is getting for millions of dollars in ads intended to advertise...nothing at all. But I'll point out that the answer may be even worse than one might suspect at first glance.
Here's the background to the latest set of ad spending:
Taxpayer-funded government ads are supposed to inform citizens about programs and services, according to Treasury Board guidelines.
But when the Conservatives recently put out a tender for a major new ad agency contract that could see the feel-good "economic action plan" brand continued until 2016, they highlighted consumer confidence and the direction of the country as key objectives.
The government acknowledged Tuesday that "action plan" TV ads currently blanketing broadcasts of the NHL playoffs don't contain any actual measures from this spring's federal budget — although the ads are tagged with the budget's #eap2013 handle.
...
Despite the current radio disclaimer, the Harper government has not included any caution about MPs still having to approve the "economic action plan 2013" claims being made in its TV ads.
A spokesman for the Privy Council Office, which serves the prime minister, said that's because there's nothing new in the TV ads.
"The recent radio ads launched by the Department of Finance contained new measures for consideration by Parliament as part of the March 21, 2013 budget," spokesman Raymond Rivet said in an email.
"This is why a disclaimer was included. The recent EAP television advertisements did not contain new measures and aired before Budget 2013."So what would we expect to be the result of advertising which is expressly aimed purely at "confidence" rather than actual outcomes, at expectations rather than reality?
The most obvious possibility - and the one which we likely see as both the Cons' intention and the primary source of outrage - is that it's purely a matter of partisan gain. If Canadians are more satisfied with the economy (whether or not that satisfaction is based on their actual interests), then the Cons have a greater chance of clinging to power in 2015. And Stephen Harper has never been reluctant to spend as much money as he can get his hands on to benefit his own political future.
I'll take at face value that political interests likely reflect the Cons' main intention surrounding the EAP ads. But distortion of Canada's partisan landscape is far from the most dangerous possible result of a massive confidence-boosting campaign.
Instead, the greatest risk may arise if the ads succeed in achieving their goals. If the Cons actually reach nearly every Canadian with constant messages about "jobs! growth! prosperity!" and drown out any voices of concern or countervailing considerations, then the result may simply be to widen the gap between perception and economic reality. Or in other words, to inflate an expectations bubble which is doomed to pop at some point.
Now, the Cons may figure that irrational exuberance is a public good - or at least a risk worth taking if it helps to win an extra term in office. But those of us whose real lives are at stake may have reason to disagree.
Which isn't to say that any given scheme to short Canada is particularly likely to succeed. But we should expect that our federal government would be primarily focused on improving the actual lives of Canadians, rather than deliberately putting perceptions first. And since the Cons have made it abundantly clear that they have their priorities wrong, we should be eager to put somebody more responsible in charge.
Here's the background to the latest set of ad spending:
Taxpayer-funded government ads are supposed to inform citizens about programs and services, according to Treasury Board guidelines.
But when the Conservatives recently put out a tender for a major new ad agency contract that could see the feel-good "economic action plan" brand continued until 2016, they highlighted consumer confidence and the direction of the country as key objectives.
The government acknowledged Tuesday that "action plan" TV ads currently blanketing broadcasts of the NHL playoffs don't contain any actual measures from this spring's federal budget — although the ads are tagged with the budget's #eap2013 handle.
...
Despite the current radio disclaimer, the Harper government has not included any caution about MPs still having to approve the "economic action plan 2013" claims being made in its TV ads.
A spokesman for the Privy Council Office, which serves the prime minister, said that's because there's nothing new in the TV ads.
"The recent radio ads launched by the Department of Finance contained new measures for consideration by Parliament as part of the March 21, 2013 budget," spokesman Raymond Rivet said in an email.
"This is why a disclaimer was included. The recent EAP television advertisements did not contain new measures and aired before Budget 2013."So what would we expect to be the result of advertising which is expressly aimed purely at "confidence" rather than actual outcomes, at expectations rather than reality?
The most obvious possibility - and the one which we likely see as both the Cons' intention and the primary source of outrage - is that it's purely a matter of partisan gain. If Canadians are more satisfied with the economy (whether or not that satisfaction is based on their actual interests), then the Cons have a greater chance of clinging to power in 2015. And Stephen Harper has never been reluctant to spend as much money as he can get his hands on to benefit his own political future.
I'll take at face value that political interests likely reflect the Cons' main intention surrounding the EAP ads. But distortion of Canada's partisan landscape is far from the most dangerous possible result of a massive confidence-boosting campaign.
Instead, the greatest risk may arise if the ads succeed in achieving their goals. If the Cons actually reach nearly every Canadian with constant messages about "jobs! growth! prosperity!" and drown out any voices of concern or countervailing considerations, then the result may simply be to widen the gap between perception and economic reality. Or in other words, to inflate an expectations bubble which is doomed to pop at some point.
Now, the Cons may figure that irrational exuberance is a public good - or at least a risk worth taking if it helps to win an extra term in office. But those of us whose real lives are at stake may have reason to disagree.
Which isn't to say that any given scheme to short Canada is particularly likely to succeed. But we should expect that our federal government would be primarily focused on improving the actual lives of Canadians, rather than deliberately putting perceptions first. And since the Cons have made it abundantly clear that they have their priorities wrong, we should be eager to put somebody more responsible in charge.
Categories: Posts from our progressive community
Your Assignment, Should You Choose to Accept
Loyal DAMMIT JANET! readers, I have an assignment for you today.
I want you to send these two links to your cranky Uncle Bob and your tax-hating Cousin Laura and ask them if they are OK with this spending by the CONtempt Party government.
Item 1: Secret spending on consultants.
A Star investigation has found 90 per cent of the $2.4 billion paid out in the past decade comes with no description of the work done — and more than a dozen departments refuse to provide details when pressed.
Item 2: Economic Action Scam.
Those TV ads are still airing more than six weeks after the budget was read in Parliament.
Liberal MP Scott Brison said his research shows each single ad spot on CBC's Hockey Night in Canada is costing taxpayers about $95,000.
That's enough to pay the federal contribution toward 32 summer student jobs for the season, said Brison.
According the government's annual advertising reports and recent cabinet approvals, the Conservatives have spent at least $113 million on EAP-specific ads since 2009.And that's not even counting the $3.1 billion missing in anti-terror spending, the egregious costs of War of 1812 commemorations, F-35 and other military boondoggles. Et fucking cetera.
If your fiscally conservative relllies start blubbering about AdScam, show them this.
[Sheila Fraser] found that $100 million was paid to a variety of communications agencies in the form of fees and commissions and said the program was basically designed to generate commissions for these companies rather than to produce any benefit for Canadians.
So. A hundred million dollars in AdScam brought down a government. Wanton and secretive misuse of BILLIONS of our money creates nary a blip in the Canadian consciousness.
I don't understand. Do you?
Image sources.
Categories: Posts from our progressive community
Wednesday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- Linda McQuaig discusses Stephen Harper's class war:
Canadians don’t like Harper’s anti-worker agenda — when they notice it. That’s why there’s been such a public outcry since the temporary foreign worker program was exposed as a mechanism by which the Harper government has flooded the country with hundreds of thousands of cheap foreign workers, thereby suppressing Canadian wages in the interests of helping corporations.
Apart from this clumsy fiasco, the Harperites have been adroit at keeping their anti-worker bias under the radar. Instead, they’ve directed their attacks against unions, portraying them as undemocratic organizations run by “union bosses” who ignore the interests of ordinary workers.
It’s revealing that this harsh critique of unions largely comes from business think-tanks and conservative politicians — folks who aren’t generally known for championing workers’ rights but who apparently can’t sleep at night at the thought workers aren’t being well represented by the people they elect to run their unions.
Of course, the real reason Harper attacks unions is because they’ve been effective in promoting the interests of working people over the past century. By establishing norms for higher wages and benefits in the workplace, and by pushing governments to implement universal social programs, unions are largely the reason we have a middle class in this country.- Meanwhile, Carol Goar laments that Ontario's Wynne Libs chose not to make a meaningful effort to cut down on poverty. And Dr. Dawg documents the federal Libs' latest attempt to be indistinguishable from the Harper Cons.
- In the latest in conservative transparency, Alison Redford is covering up her own government's pipeline safety report - presumably to avoid the possibility that its conclusions might get noticed in the review processes for new pipelines. Michael Harris discusses the Cons' strategy of blaming their own scandals on unnamed bureaucrats (who are of course prevented from defending themselves with the truth). And the Star finds that the federal government won't answer questions about $2.4 billion in consulting contracts - while contracts ranging up to nine figures seem to have bought the public little more than the contractor's silence:
(S)everal departments and agencies refused to say what services they bought as part of the roughly $700 million in taxpayer money they spent on management consulting.
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC), in charge of delivering social programs and services, has billed more than $420 million since 2004.
One of the department’s most recognizable divisions, Service Canada, has spent another $129 million for management consulting — more than 70 per cent of which was given to a single recruitment company, according to the government’s contract records.
What consulting work was done for all that money? A spokeswoman with HRSDC refused to say.
The company, Quantum Management Services, was just as tight-lipped.
“I’m not going to answer your questions,” said Anne Cote, a vice-president in the company’s Ottawa office. - Fortunately, at least some individuals are working to shed lights on the increasingly-hidden operations of our state and corporate sectors. And Dennis Gruending highlights a few of the examples noted by the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression.
- Finally, Joe Bower discusses the effect of standardized testing in Alberta - which has enabled the Fraser Institute to take pot-shots at a school for student parents based on its failure to be sufficiently choosy in recruiting pupils.
- Linda McQuaig discusses Stephen Harper's class war:
Canadians don’t like Harper’s anti-worker agenda — when they notice it. That’s why there’s been such a public outcry since the temporary foreign worker program was exposed as a mechanism by which the Harper government has flooded the country with hundreds of thousands of cheap foreign workers, thereby suppressing Canadian wages in the interests of helping corporations.
Apart from this clumsy fiasco, the Harperites have been adroit at keeping their anti-worker bias under the radar. Instead, they’ve directed their attacks against unions, portraying them as undemocratic organizations run by “union bosses” who ignore the interests of ordinary workers.
It’s revealing that this harsh critique of unions largely comes from business think-tanks and conservative politicians — folks who aren’t generally known for championing workers’ rights but who apparently can’t sleep at night at the thought workers aren’t being well represented by the people they elect to run their unions.
Of course, the real reason Harper attacks unions is because they’ve been effective in promoting the interests of working people over the past century. By establishing norms for higher wages and benefits in the workplace, and by pushing governments to implement universal social programs, unions are largely the reason we have a middle class in this country.- Meanwhile, Carol Goar laments that Ontario's Wynne Libs chose not to make a meaningful effort to cut down on poverty. And Dr. Dawg documents the federal Libs' latest attempt to be indistinguishable from the Harper Cons.
- In the latest in conservative transparency, Alison Redford is covering up her own government's pipeline safety report - presumably to avoid the possibility that its conclusions might get noticed in the review processes for new pipelines. Michael Harris discusses the Cons' strategy of blaming their own scandals on unnamed bureaucrats (who are of course prevented from defending themselves with the truth). And the Star finds that the federal government won't answer questions about $2.4 billion in consulting contracts - while contracts ranging up to nine figures seem to have bought the public little more than the contractor's silence:
(S)everal departments and agencies refused to say what services they bought as part of the roughly $700 million in taxpayer money they spent on management consulting.
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC), in charge of delivering social programs and services, has billed more than $420 million since 2004.
One of the department’s most recognizable divisions, Service Canada, has spent another $129 million for management consulting — more than 70 per cent of which was given to a single recruitment company, according to the government’s contract records.
What consulting work was done for all that money? A spokeswoman with HRSDC refused to say.
The company, Quantum Management Services, was just as tight-lipped.
“I’m not going to answer your questions,” said Anne Cote, a vice-president in the company’s Ottawa office. - Fortunately, at least some individuals are working to shed lights on the increasingly-hidden operations of our state and corporate sectors. And Dennis Gruending highlights a few of the examples noted by the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression.
- Finally, Joe Bower discusses the effect of standardized testing in Alberta - which has enabled the Fraser Institute to take pot-shots at a school for student parents based on its failure to be sufficiently choosy in recruiting pupils.
Categories: Posts from our progressive community
Cons : "Well you didn't ask us."
In response to NDP questions on Monday regarding the missing $3.1 billion in public security and anti-terrorism spending and why even the words "public security and anti-terrorism" hadn't shown up in nine years of public accounts, Tony Gazebo of the Treasury Board blamed the opposition for not guessing the right question :
“If NDP caucus members from the years from 2001 to 2009 did not ask the right questions then that is their problem, not the problem on this side of the House.”In February, Public SafetyMin Vic Toews used the same tactic. When questioned as to how the Cons managed to appoint Dr Arthur Porter - subject of an arrest warrant for fraud, money laundering and bribes/kickbacks in connection with SNC Lavelin - to head up the CSIS watchdog agency SIRC in 2010 without doing a sufficiently diligent security clearance on him first, Toews blamed the opposition parties for not stopping them from appointing a crook by not asking the right question :
"If there were any concerns that he had, he could have brought it to the attention of the appropriate authorities and simply asked the question. He failed in his responsibilities."So from now on, all the opposition has to do is to try to guess which right questions are hidden under the Con security blanket.
.
“If NDP caucus members from the years from 2001 to 2009 did not ask the right questions then that is their problem, not the problem on this side of the House.”In February, Public SafetyMin Vic Toews used the same tactic. When questioned as to how the Cons managed to appoint Dr Arthur Porter - subject of an arrest warrant for fraud, money laundering and bribes/kickbacks in connection with SNC Lavelin - to head up the CSIS watchdog agency SIRC in 2010 without doing a sufficiently diligent security clearance on him first, Toews blamed the opposition parties for not stopping them from appointing a crook by not asking the right question :
"If there were any concerns that he had, he could have brought it to the attention of the appropriate authorities and simply asked the question. He failed in his responsibilities."So from now on, all the opposition has to do is to try to guess which right questions are hidden under the Con security blanket.
.
Categories: Posts from our progressive community
Stephen Harper - He's Not Here For You
But of course I state the obvious here, don't I? Nonetheless, for those who like regular and ongoing illustrations of the fact that the Prime Minister and his acolytes are in the thrall of 'special interests,' one need look no further than a report in today's Toronto Star.
Currently, non-financial businesses are sitting on over $600 billion in cash reserves, thanks to a very favourable tax regime from the Harperites and similarly obeisant and compliant provincial governments. At the same time, however, these 'masters of the universe,' reluctant to spend their largess on research and development, new equipment purchases, or just about anything else, have gotten new incentive to hoard and count their cash:
The Conservative government says the National Research Council is now “open for business” and will refocus on large-scale projects “directed by and for” Canadian industry — a change some scientists call a mistake.
Part of the mandate of the NRC is to work with and help support industry, but what is new here is the fact that it appears this will now essentially be its exclusive mandate, dictated by the 'needs' of industry.
While one understands that it is difficult for the current government regime, looking as it does with grave suspicion upon critical and nuanced thinking, to comprehend, the words of Nobel laureate John Polanyi, who says that steering the NRC away from basic research is misguided, need to be heard:
“One should structure things so (scientists) have the freedom and responsibility to provide ideas to industry, not just receive commands,” ...
Queen’s University professor and Canada Research Chair in Environmental Change, John Smol, explains it this way:
“I look at science as a pyramid. At the bottom you have all this basic fundamental research and at the top you have the applied. But you can’t have the applied without the basic,” he said.
Smol goes so far as to see something quite sinister in the Harper decision to make the NRC the handmaiden of the corporate agenda:
Smol, a lakes ecosystem expert, believes the decision to recast the NRC is part of a Conservative pattern of cutting funding for basic science in favour of applied research that will generate a profit.
“What you find in environmental research are things that will cost industry money,” he says. In a recent study, Smol showed that lakes near Alberta’s oil sands are filled with contaminants.
One assumes that with its new orders, the National Research Council will not anytime soon be conducting such embarrassing studies that could hamper the ever-stronger march of corporate dominance.
Another victory for the Harperites. Another loss for the non-corporate citizens of Canada.Recommend this Post
Categories: Posts from our progressive community
Pages
