DRAMA, DRAMA, DRAMA

"What Bears Noting?" asked Bear.

Well, a guy named Bonehair (or something like that) got his buddies together and ran something through a House, that was designed to upset and frustrate the President, and a whole lot of American people. Mr. Bonehair couldn't even get all his buddies on side with it, but whipped enough to get whatever through. (Not a good situation for him in the long term, though.)

Then the Senator people started looking at what had been dragged through, and in. They thought it was kinda odd, like a

Dead skunk in the middle of the road
Stinkin' to high Heaven.

So they decided to leave Mr. Bonehair's stuff alone, and get on with something called a debt ceiling. (That's when you plaster your worthless stocks and bonds all over the ceiling, I think.)

Now, you would wonder why a Canadian would be worried about the drama, drama, drama in the US Congress.

Well, think about being something the size of a Beaver, that's sleeping beside, say, something the size of an Elephant. Every time the Elephant rolls over, the Beaver gets bounced around. And when the Elephant gets a cold, the Beaver starts sneezing.

Americans are Canada's main trading partners, and vice versa. If the American economy gets unsettled by something some people are doing in the USA, we Beaver-people get upset. When American stock markets get the shivers and shakes, Canadian markets start looking for a warm sweater.

That's why something big in US of America Bears Noting up in Canada.

And, that's the news.

~ 30 ~

Well, . . .

It's like this.

I was planning to have something worthwhile here today. Hopefully thoughtful; possibly provocative.

But that's not going to happen.

I have been busy with some other very worthwhile work, but it isn't something that I can post here. Not today; perhaps not ever.

You realize, as do I, that this kind of thing isn't supposed to be happening. I'm retired. I have not appreciable work to do.

Alas; I'm not a very good manager of my existence. The unanticipated has an "interesting" habit of sneaking in where and when lest expected.

"Life happens while you're in the process of making plans."

Ever had that problem? I suppose you have.

So, to keep you from getting completely bored, here are some questions.

Can there be such a thing as a moral economy? If such a thing existed, what might it look like; what would be the key characteristics? Would it be consumer-driven? Would it be focused on the needs of people, or focused on the needs of business?

That'll keep you thinking for a few minutes at least.

(Hint: I'm going to be getting on to the idea of a Moral Economy. I'll explain on Friday. That will have something to do with a series of newspaper columns I have written over the last eight years, and the thinking that has gone into the whole concept.)

Thank you for your patience.

MOSQUE AT "GROUND ZERO," USA.

Well, this is going to be long. Longer than usual. And in several parts.

(BTW, you can blame Da Blog Fodder for this; he put me up to it. Mind you, he's been active in posting, and sharing other information, about this pending development. As have his readers. If you go over to his blog and look about, you'll find lots of things to consider. Much of it centres around his "Of Mosque and Men." OK — credit given where credit it due.)

As there has been a huge amount of mis-information floating around about this proposal of a mosque a few blocks from "Ground Zero" — the site of the old World Trade Center in New York.

I want to start by putting out as much correct data as I can. To that end, I begin with the observations of a blog friend from New York, who has worked on Wall Street.

The proposed mosque would be part of a building housing various areas relating to Islam, and also some recreational areas, including a swimming pool. The location is not at "ground zero," but several blocks away.

There are to be all sorts of commemorative areas at, or closer to, ground zero.

The area of the proposed mosque and cultural center now houses a variety of enterprizes, including bars, discount electronic shops, and shops specializing in pornography.

I used to work in a big office building a short block away from the Twin Towers back in the late 1970's and early '80s. That part of Wall Street has always been a strange architectural mix of very, very old New York buildings, varying eras' attempts to be modern, and many humdrum bits of ugliness.

It houses gleaming offices where capitalism reigns, churches, pizza shops, tourist souvenir stalls and shops, discount clothing stores...even luxurious lofts created out of discarded old buildings. Most of the wealth is well-hidden. On the street level, it's a bit of a honky-tonk place, where everything moves pretty quickly.

News stories that say that the proposed mosque is to be built on the site of the Twin Towers are incorrect.

There are a number of parks in the area, some located on the nearby river side...great places to sit and catch some fresh breezes, and perhaps think peaceful thoughts.

That, from New York.

The larger issue is the amount of furor this has created in the U.S., and (to some extent) elsewhere. Much of that upset has focused on how westerners understand Islam, and how westerners are being encouraged to see Islam. That is the issue which I find most concerning.

As a bit of historical background, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all share a common background, and are collectively known as the "People of the Book." That is an important consideration.

I want to try to put in some information about Islam. And I want to try to look at how Islam is being portrayed  in North America, particularly the US.

I'm not claiming in any of these comments that I perfectly understand all these things. I don't. But I know enough to be able to ask questions, to encourage thought — which is all I'm trying to do.

TRUST OUR GOVERNMENT?

    Question: When is a deal not a deal?
    Answer: When you make it with the government.
    Many in the Saskatchewan’s Agricultural sector, and beyond, will remember the problematic changes by the New Democratic Party to the Gross Revenue Insurance Plan (GRIP) in 1992. Now, The Saskatchewan Party has created a similar fiasco — with chiropractors.
    I hadn’t planned on returning to Canada’s democracy problems so soon. But Saskatchewan's recent Budget holds a precise example of what has been worrying me, and so many other Canadians.  (I’m not saying this is only a Saskatchewan problem; it’s just that Saskatchewan’s event is so timely.)
    Previously, I discussed the latest report from the Canadian Index of Wellbeing. A central finding in the “Democratic Engagement” report was that Canada is facing “a huge democratic deficit, with trust in Canadian government and public institutions on a steep decline.”
    The “steep decline” was pushed ahead by the Saskatchewan government’s decision to limit funding for chiropractic care.
    Every three years, the Saskatchewan’s Chiropractors negotiate a contract with the Saskatchewan Health. That was done again, the agreement was ratified by the chiropractors. Their president, Dr. Shane Taylor, of Regina, says the agreement included a 2.5% increase in government payments per patient visit, from $12.50 to about $12.80. (That’s for the first 16 visits; Taylor said 90% of the roughly 125,000 people who see a Chiropractor each year go for 16 visits or less.) Taylor says he went to the Saskatchewan Health and signed the agreement on behalf of the chiropractors earlier this year.
    In the budget, the Wall government reneged on the deal, offering only limited chiropractic assistance to people with very low incomes. It’s a case of using a law to over-rule a contract. And it’s quite legal, as unhappy farmers learned in 1992, in relation to GRIP.
    The government’s decision has created several problems.
    First, this has destroyed the credibility of people negotiating on behalf of the Government. The budget decision screams “bad faith.”
    Second, this decision has jeopardized the health of people who are now getting chiropractic care through Saskatchewan Government Insurance (in the case of car accidents) or the Workers’ Compensation Board (for people hurt on the job). Payments to chiropractors from those agencies were based on the government agreement with chiropractors. The questions: can those agencies still pay chiropractors, and how much?
    Third, this is a major setback to the direction of 21st century medicine and holistic care. The goal of “Functional Medicine” is not to simply treat injuries and illnesses, but to treat people. And to work largely on “evidenced based care.” Taylor says the evidence shows chiropractors can get people back to work faster, at less cost, and more effectively, than can physicians. But when you have the physician and chiropractor working together, perhaps with other professionals, the progress is even better.
    Three questions remain. What can chiropractors do, will they be paid by government-related agencies, and on what other deals will Brad Wall’s government renege?
    And behind all that, there is an even more sinister sign. This is the conservative government's first broad step in privatizing health care. The actual process is called "de-listing." It's the government's way of saying, "Remember some of those services we used to cover through medicare; we're not going to cover them any more."
    Which means individual citizens are going to have to reach deeper and deeper into their own pockets to meet their health care expenses. For the old, and the chronically ill, this is just the beginning of their nightmare.

---------

This originally appeared as an op-ed column in The Western Producer of March 24, 2010.

DEMOCRATIC WELL-BEING

Just as money can’t buy happiness, Gross Domestic Product doesn’t tell us how well we’re doing as a nation. (Gross Domestic Product is the overall measure of our nation’s economic activity; it came to be regarded, erroneously, as the sign of how well a country was doing.)

Protests across Canada on January 23rd, against the lengthy shut-down of Parliament, are one sign things aren’t going an well.

But that’s no surprise to Canada’s Institute of Wellbeing. The Institute (an independent, non-partisan body) recently released its report on the “Democratic Engagement” Domain, the first report of its kind done in Canada, perhaps in the world. (This one follows reports on “Living Standards,” “Healthy Populations,” and “Community Vitality.”)

The central note in this report is that Canada is facing “a huge democratic deficit, with trust in Canadian government and public institutions on a steep decline.” That’s seen in the fact that fewer people are voting, or are participating in formal political activities. Likewise, about half of Canadians aren’t satisfied with their democracy, while very few believe federal government policies have improved their lives.

This “democratic deficit” didn’t surprise to me, either. During our last federal election, only 3 out of 5 eligible voters cast ballots. Stephen Harper was returned as Prime Minister with the support of merely 23 per cent of Canadian voters. Hardly a ringing endorsement. That number highlighted for me the increasing malaise I’ve seen among among urban and rural citizens — a kind of resigned indifference — a feeling that government doesn’t work for them, or represent their concerns. Their response, to paraphrase Shakespeare: “A plague on all your political parties and governments.”

Lenore Swystun and Kelley Moore of Saskatoon’s Prairie Wild Consulting saw that, and a lot more. Together with Holder and Associates, they developed the report for the Institute. Their work was based on historic studies of Canadian attitudes, plus their own research with Canadians from coast, to coast, to coast, as well as international studies.

They considered not only voter turnout but interest and participation in political activities, as well as representation of woman and minorities in Parliament, and Canada’s commitment to international development. We’re promised to put 0.7% of our GDP into Official Development Assistance; we actually spend about half of that most years, putting us in 16th place among 22 countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (Our government is way behind Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, though it is twice as generous as Japan and the U.S.)

That doesn’t fit my perception of Canadians’ overall caring and generosity. Consider how much we’ve raised for relief in earthquake-ravaged Haiti, and you can see how generous Canadians are. I think many see the mis-match between what they do and what our government does. The report reflects that visible mis-match.

How can we build a Moral Economy, which reflects the needs, concerns, and values of Canadians, and to which political parties and governments see they must align themselves?

The time has come for us to see this situation for just how bad it is, and do something about it. "Politics" as a whole has become far too insular and entrenched; I really doubt that the current system in Canada can reform itself. If you've ever compared parties election platforms with the priorities set in party policy conventions, you'll see the gaping canyon that separates the two. There's an appearance of democracy, of consultation; in reality, parties are run from the top down. Same for governments.

The report provides some broad recommendations.
• Create opportunities for meaningful engagement;
• Seed a culture of engagement in government;
• Ensure more accountability and transparency in politics;
• Invest in civic engagement;
• Make voting easier
• Increase diversity in politics;
• Use technology better;
• Invest in civil society; and,
• Engage Canadians about our place in the world.
It also calls for more research, and closer monitoring, which are important.

The problem, of course, is that the current political ethos, our political context, is dead set against all those principles for action. Canada isn't the only nation facing this; most "democracies" in our world are having the same problem.
  
Perhaps ordinary citizens, of varying ages and backgrounds, using internet connections, will be able to repeat the events of January 23rd, at different times and in different places. Maybe they will become the Democratic Engagement which the report anticipates. Frankly, I don't see an alternative to the "huge democratic deficit" that Canada faces.

* * * * *

This post is based on my "Moral Economy" op-ed column which appeared in The Western Producer on Thursday, February 4, 2010.
√

PITY POOR SASKATOON (2)

I recently wrote a letter to the newspaper about the sad state of affairs in our city. I have begun to describe that situation in the first part of "Pity Poor Saskatoon." Today the my thoughts appeared in the "Letters to the Editor" section of the paper -- albeit in an edited form.

Here's the original.

It’s Saskatoon's election time. And John Gormley (with his “usual gang of suspects”) is back with GAAG. (That’s short for “Gormley Against Anything Good.”)

Gormley mentions a “Gang of Four” on Council (“The Politics of City Election Campaigns,” Oct.16/09) but says less about Council’s other seven “gang-sters.” What Gormley missed is their thinking about urban development, which he perhaps shares. They’re firmly stuck in the 1970s. This is 2009.

Saskatoon’s deeply in debt, instead of using a sustainable, “pay as you go” development policy. That debt level is 1970’s thinking. Watch for taxes to rise significantly or services to be cut drastically.

We had the Gathercole building, then the Gathercole site, then Parcel Y; now it’s the “Atch hole.” Will Lake Placid ever build there? Perhaps the City's accepted a “pig in a poke.” That overall lack of planning major developments is 1970’s thinking. And how long will the “Barry vacant lot” sit vacant?

Consider the Farmers' Market. Built too small, in the wrong place, without enough parking, and streets too narrow. That’s 1970’s thinking. (It’s so crowded I, like many others, rarely go there any more.)

And the mayor wants to turn the Farmers’ Market to a kind of General Store, because he doesn’t understand Farmers' Markets. That’s pre-1970’s thinking.

The new bridges -- Preston over Circle Drive and the south-west Circle Drive Bridge. Where are the spaces for future LRT (Light Rail Transit), that we'll need to move Saskatoon’s growing population? No LRT. That’s 1970’s thinking.

Recycling is important. Community-University research has shown that more than half of what goes into Saskatoon’s land fill can be re-used or re-cycled. That would save the city money and extend the life of our current land fill. But, no civic curb-side recycling here. More 1970’s thinking.

There’s a problem with 1970’s thinking. Cities that keep using it don’t shine; they rot.
-------

Just to fill in the blanks, John Gormley is a lawyer who was a Conservative Member of Parliament for a time. He makes his living as a radio talk show host these days. He's just touch to the right; he thinks Attila the Hun was a socialist. When he speaks of those with who he disagree he calls them "the usual gang of suspects."

"Saskatoon Shines" is the big advertising motto the city is using currently.

Curb-side recycling (usually done by the City itself) is a feature of many Canadian cities, often much smaller than ours.

Some of the other elements are explained in previous postings.

The reference to "Atch hole" is to our Mayor, Don Atchison. The community largely wanted the Farmers' Market to go on the Gathercole site. But Mayor Atch (who is up for re-election) has an "edifice complex" -- a Farmers' Market is too simplistic and dull for such a great site. Sigh!

PITY POOR SASKATOON

We're getting close to our civic election. It comes in less than a week -- October 28th.

A lot of people are saying things are pretty good in Saskatoon. Yes, a lot of fancy things have been done along the river in the downtown. But where are the items of substance?

Where is Lake Placid's "River Landing" development, which should be close to finished now, but hasn't even been started? It's supposed to be the "anchor" of our city's downtown redevelopment. (See my earlier post on "Fort Gathercole.")


Where is "Station 20 West" -- the grocery store and service centre for the people in one of our poorest neighbourhoods, who desperately want and need a grocery store? The Provincial Government originally promised significant financial support to the project. They we had an election, and a different party formed the government. The new party canceled the deal with the poor, the old, the sick, and citizens in general.


Where is the long-promised childrens' hospital that we need for our province?

Where in the new Oliver Lodge -- a long-term care for seniors in poorer health? The provincial government promised money about 20 years ago for that. So far the only thing that has been accoplished is the demolition of the oldest wing of the existing building.

Why has our city council incorporated a new art gallery, instead of fixing the existing one? The new building will be much more expensive (if memory serves correctly).

(Mendel Art Gallery)

On top of all that, the mayor and his associates on Council have driven the City deep into debt, and have raised the tax rate 20% in the last 6 years.

And the number and value of building permits this year is way down.

The saying is that, "Saskatoon Shines." To me, Saskatoon has a dull glow at the best. Maybe "rot" better describes what's beginning to show.
√

IN PRAISE OF COALITIONS

What Canada needs is a reasonable and effective coalition government. We need a government where people can work together, to solve the problems and build on the strengths of our nation.

Unfortunately, that isn’t likely to happen, because of the personalities involved.

Coalitions are normal in many countries -- Israel, India, Germany, France, and Italy, to name a few. In Britain, right after World War 1, Prime Minister David Lloyd George led a coalition government from 1918 to 1922. Britain again had a coalition government (including Conservatives, Labour and, Liberals) from 1935 to 1945 (there was no election during World War 2). That coalition was led first by Neville Chamberlain, then by Winston Churchill. Canada even had an elected coalition government -- the “Union Government” of Prime Minister Robert Borden, from 1917 to 1920.

There is nothing new, strange, or illegal about coalition governments. They have been, and can be, very effective.

Coalitions represent a wide range of thought, much like the thinking of Canadian people. That’s a good thing: we all don’t always think alike agree on everything. If we did, life would be pretty boring. And there would be no chance for change. However, we do think differently; we see situations differently; we see varying opportunities for the future. I think this diversity of thought is good.

As I have written before, much of Canada was built by people from very different backgrounds working together to solve common problems. They knew that if they didn’t work together, they wouldn’t survive, individually or collectively. That reality hasn’t changed.

On the other hand, single-party majority government’s don’t have the same sensitivity to the wide variety of thinking among Canadians voters.

Of course, we almost had a second coalition government in Canada last December, involving the Liberals and New Democrats, with the tacit support of the Bloc Québecois. That would have been a bit different, in that coalitions are usually formed at the request of the ruling Prime Minister. But Stephen Harper recognized the problem, and ran like a dog with his tail between his legs -- to the Governor General. It apparently took a fair amount of convincing, but Michael Jean bailed him out.

But that tells us why we are not likely to have a coalition government.

We have adult men and women in our Parliament who are content to play “king of the hill” like little boys and girls. Stephen Harper is lusting after a majority government, so he can enforce radical change on Canada -- until the country no longer resembles what it has been (to paraphrase one of his more “interesting” statements). We have Michael Ignatieff, brighter and more experienced than Harper, but less politically seasoned, lusting after the same job. We have Jack Layton dreaming of more power. So these personal ambitions prevent the collaborative, community-building approach that our country needs at a difficult and challenging time. Which is not at all helpful.

Canadians-- young and older, rural and urban -- need something better than that, and deserve something better.

(This was originally written for The Western Producer, a Canadian newspaper, and published October 8, 2009. It speaks of a number of British parallels.)
√

ONE DOWN, TWO (?) TO GO

The first of what may be three elections for us is over. Danielle Chartier, representing the New Democratic Party, (i.e. Social Democratic) received 1,840 votes. Corey O’Soup of the Saskatchewan Party (i.e., Conservative) was second with 1,506 votes. Two other candidates (Liberal and Green) got just over 70 votes each, in the by-election held yesterday.

(Danielle giving her victory speech.)

The past two men who held this riding were both NDP, and both Premiers (i.e., Prime Ministers of the province). It was the CCF, forerunner of the NDP, which led the fight for medicare in Saskatchewan, then the rest of Canada.

Danielle lives just a block from our home; O'Soup doesn't live in our city, let alone the Riding. Danielle has a long history of community service. Cory was involved in a community development project, but turned his back on the people of this riding for the sake of political opportunity, when people needed his help (very long story).

Next up; civic elections, which will be held last week of October.

Will there be a federal (national) election? Well, the boys and girls of the Parliament in Ottawa are still "playing poltics" about that. When "scoring points" for "the party" is more important than serving peoples' needs, politics gets pretty disgusting. Sigh!
√

ELECTION FEVER

In Saskatchewan, we may be hit by three (count 'em, three) elections in quick succession this fall.

1. In the Saskatoon Riversdale Provincial (as in State or County) Riding, the by-election is set for mid-September.

2. In late-October, we have elections for Saskatoon City Council (like other urban and rural municipalities in the province).

3. Now, there's a chance we may have a Federal (national) election as well -- the key issue being programs of support for workers who lost their jobs in the recession (such as Employment Insurance).

I think elections are a good thing. It is actually a chance for people who want to think, to think about the issues that effect their lives -- political or more-than-political.

But three in a row in a few months? Let's get serious!

Yes, there are significant issues we have to deal with in our community, province, and nation. But to try to tackle all the problems at, effectively, the same time, is to invite being overwhelmed -- politicians and voters alike.
`

REFLECTIONS ON TWO NATIONS -- TWO HOLIDAYS ( JULY 1 and JULY 4)

There are a lot of people, on both sides of our common border, who think Americans and Canadians are pretty much the same. That is true, superficially. When given more consideration, the hypothesis begins to fall apart.

That doesn't mean that Canadians are good and Americans are bad. Or vice versa. It is just that we are different. We see things differently; we value things differently.

The starting place, I suppose, is our own respective institutions. Americans are in search of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," according to the Declaration of Independence (traditionally thought to be signed on July 4, 1776). In the British North America Act (July 1, 1867), Canada's first constitution, a key phrase refers to "peace, order, and good government." Those phrases represent two very different approaches to life. So one should hardly be surprising that our thinking is different.

Though I'm being a bit "broad brush" here, I think it is fair to say that Americans are more individual-oriented, while Canadians are more community-oriented (though much less now that in the past).

Nowhere is this more obvious that in our approaches to health care. Canada has, in effect, a single-payer system. Each province (state) has its own health care program, and pays for hospital and physician services in its province. (Constitutionally, health care is a provincial responsibility.) There is a federal act which co-ordinates inter-provincial collaboration, and provides federal money to the provinces, so similar services can be maintained nation-wide, regardless of the relative wealth of the various provinces.

This did not come quickly or easily. It evolved over a 20 year period, from the end of World War Two until the mid-1960s. Saskatchewan (where I now live) was the first province to take action. In 1946, the Saskatchewan Hospitalization Act was passed, giving free hospital care to virtually everyone in the province. The provincial government wanted to do more at that time, but didn't have the money. By 1957, the Federal government passed the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, which extended the Saskatchewan model to all provinces through permanent Federal-Provincial shared-cost funding. With the federal money in place for hospitals, Saskatchewan again took the lead in providing coverage for physicians services in 1962. By 1966, there was another Federal act, which provided shared-cost funding for physicians services. And while there has been some fine-tuning of the system over the subsequent years, the principles are still much the same.

I knew some of the pioneers of the Saskatchewan acts. The acts came about because of citizen pressure on government. There were lengthy public discussions -- in Church basements, Community Halls, and School classrooms. Rural people, particularly, saw neighbours loosing their farms -- both their homes and business -- in order to pay their hospital and doctor's bills. They agreed that sort of thing shouldn't be happening in a country like Canada. (That's not "peace, order and good government.") The leading party in Saskatchewan, the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, was both instigator and responder to the citizens demands. And citizen demand is what ultimately led to the development of what is referred to as "medicare" in Canada.

So today, every person's hospital care, and doctor's care, is covered. A couple of provinces charge premiums for individuals or families, but these are relatively small, certainly not at the levels of US insurers. (To get Canadian-level care in the US, people would have to pay over $1,000 per month).

Ironically, the challenge which led to Canadian medicare is still a huge problem in the United States. Almost 50 million Americans (just under 20 per cent of the population) have no health care coverage, because they cannot afford it. Many more have inadequate coverage. Unpaid medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US; of those who go bankrupt, 75% have some, but not enough, health insurance.

The proposed solution is a single payer. It's called HR676, and is slowly gaining support. A recent poll I saw indicated about 60 per cent of health care professionals, particularly doctors, support some form of this plan. This plan appears to go well beyond the bounds of Canadian legislation, in that it covers a lot more than Canadian medicare.

What will happen next is not clear, for either country. Some Canadian physicians are pushing for a return to more private health care (meaning more money to doctors, at patients' expense). Some Americans are pushing for better care through better insurance, even if that is provided by government (with or without some premium paid by the insured).

Interesting times await.

CHANGE HAPPENS

I've made some changes in how I do my blogging.

When I first set up the blog "The Ethical Pilgrimage," it was in connection with my post-graduate studies in bioethics. When I became chronically ill, my plans to finish my degree evaporated.

Now, that blog is about to do the same (more or less).

I'm going to keep it up in the blogsphere, as a matter of historical record and reference (should I need it, or other people want to see particular items). Thoughts which I would normally have posted there will be found on this site. I will probably be posting here a bit more frequently, though "Chrome on the Range" will still be my primary blog. "Desert Epiphanies" will continue to be the site for more thorough discussion of matters related to spirituality, faith, and church.

Thank you to those who have taken the time to read and follow those few notes on "The Ethical Pilgrimage." If you'll "bear with me," I think you'll find this site to be as noteworthy as that one.
√

SMOOT-HAWLEY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN, or, How to Turn and Recession into a Depression

Most people are not familiar with the "Smoot Hawley Tariff Act," named after the guys who put the ideas together. But those tariffs helped turned a U.S. recession of 1929 into a world-wide depression through most of the 1930s. And the current U.S. government is about to do the same thing all over again, with it's new $855 billion, "America first" stimulus package.

Once again, Americans are showing they cannot remember their own history. They are again jeopardizing their economy, and the economies of other nations.

Senator Reed Smoot (a Republican from Utah) and Representative Wallis Hawley (a Republican from Oregon) saw the U.S. economy needed to grow, by increasing American firms' share of business. One way to do that, and effectively "stimulate" the economy, was to restrict foreign imports. That way, people would be forced to "buy American" or pay a lot more for the same thing. In fact, the Bill raised import charges on about 20,000 items.

Opposition began even before the law was passed in June, 1930. Over a thousand economists and many business leaders begged President Herbert Hoover to veto the bill. Complaints came from well over 30 other nations as well. (People knew about it because it had passed the House of Representatives in May, 1929.)

That action may have helped to trigger the financial crash of October, 1929. By the time it became law, other countries were already boycotting or imposing their own tariffs on American goods. Canada was among the first to do so, even before the bill had passed in the U.S. Senate. The U.S. State Department says that between 1929 and 1932, overall world trade dropped by 66%.

While the U.S. stock market had been uncertain since 1929, by 1930, politicians and business leader were saying the end of the crisis was in sight. But in late 1930-1932 the market headed almost straight down, reaching its lowest point in June, 1932, a year after the Smoot-Hawley Law was signed.

Smoot-Hawley wasn't the only problem America faced, but it was significant. The other major problem was a string of bank failures. But if you cannot produce and sell enough to re-pay your debts, of course banks are going to fail. Think of Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns, Mannie Mae, and Freddy Mack, which have run into huge problems in the last few month. It's the 1930s all over again.

History's lesson is that if you put up a brick wall around your country to keep imports out, other nations will do the same. That's the main problem with the current U.S. stimulus package. It has a clause which would do, in effect, the same thing which the Smoot-Hawley Act did in 1930; it will help turn a recession into a protracted depression.

Canada has been protesting, as it did with the Smoot-Hawley Act. The "buy American" clause in the current U.S. proposal is a fundamental violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Will the Americans listen? Who knows? Will Stephen Harper impose Canadian counter-measures if the American law passes. Not likely; I see Harper as pretty timid in his dealings with the United States. Were the stronger-willed, broader-thinking Michael Ignatieff in charge, things might be much different.

President Obama inherited an economic disaster when he took office as America's 44th President. How he handles the "buy America" language in the stimulus package will be a major test of his foreign policy. How he handles it may determine outcomes as far away as Iraq and Afghanistan.

Fascism or Coalition?

Today I received an e-mail note from Canada's Conservative party, telling my why I should support Prime Minister Harper and fight the Liberal-NDP Coalition. The Tory letter began with the words, "Two months ago Canadians voted in a general election. They made a clear choice." The rest is my response.


Thank you for this note.

You are absolutely right!

"Two months ago Canadians voted in a general election. They made a clear choice."

In the end, 5.2 million Canadians (22.2% of Canada's 23.4 million eligible voters) cast ballots in favour of Conservative candidates. That's roughly one voter out of five. A support level for the Conservatives of 1:5 is hardly a ringing endorsement for anything. (In the same election, just over 40% eligible electors, 2 out of five, voted for "none of the above" by not voting at all.)

I don't belong to any party. In my voting life I've supported various parties. If there were to be another election soon -- another huge waste of time and money -- I don't know who I would support. I do know that Mr. Harper scares the living daylights out of me. He seems so hard-headed and self-righteous, and worse, so hard-hearted. His attitude reminds me of those attitudes held by leaders of Fascist governments in the past.

At the party's November policy conference Mr. Harper warned delegates to avoid an ideological approach to governing. "We will have to be tough and pragmatic, not unrealistic or ideological in dealing with complex economic challenges, he said. And he added, "We must work hard to keep Canadians trust and earn it again. We must listen to all voices, whether they support us or not." But by time the 40th Parliament convened, he had entirely forgotten those words.

Sadly, I do not think Mr. Harper is capable of listening to other people. Indeed, in Mr. Flaherty's economic statement, there was a plan to silence the voices of those who are not Conservatives.

So now we are at a crossroads. Should we allow a "centrist and socialist" coalition to rule the country (with the aid of the Bloc Quebecois), or a fascist party rule the country (with the aid of the Bloc Quebecois)? Because Mr. Harper cannot hold office without the support of the BQ, if he faces the opposition of the Liberals and New Democrats.

I know you're going to send me an insulting meaningless "thank you for your comments" letter in reply to what I have written. That says a lot about how much you listen to voices of those who are not die-hard Conservatives. But this letter comes with a warning. I am not at all thrilled by the idea of Canada being governed by a centre-left coalition. But I'm too afraid of Mr. Harper to give him my support. I think I speak for a lot of people in Canada's "silent majority."

Respectfully,

Rob-bear

A $300 MILLION WASTE

Last month, Canadians came through our 40th General Election. A recent survey I heard about said that roughly three-quarters of Canadians were not happy with the experience. I understand that; I certainly was not happy at all.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, lusting after a majority government, finally thought he saw his chance in September. Conservative popularity reached about 40 per cent -- enough to win a majority. So Harper called the election -- even though he (apparently) broke the law on fixed election dates, which Conservatives had introduced, and which became law this spring. He said he needed the election because Parliament was dysfunctional, hoping people would forget that he was the one largely responsible for the dysfunction.

We had a $300+ million, five-week waste of time, money, and energy. The election brought no significant change in Parliament. The no-longer-progressive Conservatives still form a minority government. The Liberals are still the Official Opposition. The Bloc Quebecois is in third place. The NDP is fourth. The Greens still haven’t elected a member. Some parties gained/lost seats, but not enough to change anything.

And the legality of the election will be argued before the Federal Court of Canada.

The most significant thing about election is the loss of democratic activity. Two voters out of five did not, would not, or could not vote (in some cases because of new election rules). That's even worse than in the Presidential and related elections in the U.S., at the beginning of November. From the numbers, Mr. Harper’s Conservatives enjoy the support of only one voter out of five -- hardly a ringing endorsement, though Harper sees it as such.

What has happened to our political process? I’ve followed politics fairly closely for about 30 years. I’ve seen party policy conventions, election platforms, and politician’s actions. In so many cases, those actions bear little or no resemblance whatsoever to what “grass roots” people deliberated and decided at policy conventions. Is it any wonder that citizens become discouraged by what they see politics over principle or party over principle?

And what happens when the membership of a parliament or provincial assembly bears no resemblance to the number of votes a party gets in an election? Further discouragement. That's what happens in our "first past the post" electoral system, as opposed to a proportional representation system.

It seems that people are losing interest -- and losing confidence -- in our current electoral systems and parties. As decision-making move further and further away from ordinary citizens, those citizens notice the difference, the distancing. And they often conclude that ordinary citizens are irrelevant in the overall scheme of fulfill their roles as citizens?

I believe it’s up to the politicians to address that problem, along with Canada’s people. -- and to do that sooner than later.

Will that happen? Don’t bet the farm on it.

(These thoughts were originally published in The Western Producer, in a different form.)
*

CANADIAN FASCISM (Part 2 - Background)

If you want to check more on Fascism, here's a good link: Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism. I trust you will find this information interesting and useful, and at least a start in understanding what Fascism really entails.

There is also a web site dedicated to explaining how Fascism in, or may be, evolving in the United States of America. See: 14 Points of Fascism: The Warning Signs. This link originates with the "Project for the Old American Century," whose main page concludes with a quotation from Benito Mussolini, the Italian dictator of the 1940s: "Fascism should rather be called corporatism, as it is the merging of government and corporate power." (See About POAC) This does not mean that the American experience is the same as the Canadian experience, but a comparison may be instructive.

CANADIAN FASCISM (Part 1 - Basic Orientation)

I believe that Canada is heading down the road to Fascism, and is making good “progress” in that regard.

For a brief period in Canada’s history, we were afraid of Fascist governments. Between 1939 and 1945, Canada was at war with Fascist governments -- particularly Germany and Italy.

But the rise of Communism, and its rapid expansion in the later 1940s, quickly pre-occupied western nations. Communism was the bogey-man. And people basically forgot about Fascism.

The problem is that, despite their ideologies, Communism and Fascism are almost the same thing, because they act the same ways.

RIGHT vs. LEFT

In common political language, we use terms derived from the French National Assembly, at the time of the French Revolution. (The world has changed so much that it is hard to make legitimate comparisons from then to now.)

Today, politicians of the “right” believe in free-market capitalism and extreme individualism. Politicians of the “left” focus on collective development and co-operative society-building. And there are, of course, various mixtures of those policies. I don’t think either exists in a “pure” form.

LIVING the CIRCLE

The problem, of course, is that the principle defies reality. It assumes a kind of straight line. In fact, political philosophy is built in a circle -- like most other things in our world.

Think of a circle, with the north, south, east and west of a compass imposed on it. That’s how to sort our politics.

On the left side of the circle, you have your “left-wing” parties. On the right side of the circle, you have your “right-wing” groupings. That is pretty clear. What follows is, perhaps, less obvious.

On the top half of the circle, you have “democracies.” On the bottom half of the circle you have “dictatorships.”

So it is possible to have one of four basic models: a left-wing democracy, a right-wing democracy, a left wing dictatorship, and a right wing dictatorship. Left-wing dictatorships are called “Communist.” Right-wing dictatorships are called “Fascist.” Again, I don’t think any of them exists in a pure state.

While the ideology separating Communists and Fascists is radically different, in practical terms they are highly similar. That is why they meet at the bottom of the circle. That is because they are both tightly-controlled dictatorships, that use similar methods to achieve their goals.

I believe that Communism is basically unacceptable to the majority in Canada. I also believe that Fascism IS acceptable to many Canadians. And I believe that we are moving towards a more Fascist form of government, and away from the more balanced social democracy that Canada has been for so many years. The is a move which will fundamentally change our approach to life. Instead of having a kinder, gentler, more equal country, we will end up with one which is more vicious, harsh, and divided. I do not believe those characteristics — vicious, harsh, and divided — are of benefit to any nation.

CHANGE IN AFGHANISTAN?

While there are a lot of global economic and political issues being played out in Afghanistan, it is the social issues -- the life of the people -- which most consistently gets lost in the "change" that is happening.

"Change," according to whom?

Whose life will be better for all this "change"?

Basically, we Euro-Americans are trying to drag the Afghan people into the 21st century (from our perspective), even if “we” have to drag “them” kicking and screaming (which they are).

“We” want to change thousands of years of culture, and do it virtually overnight. We're trying to change their whole society — everything they believe about who they are, and how their society "should" operate.

It is a kind of a cultural imperialism. But we are doing it because, you see, “we” think a liberal democracy “would be good” for “them.”

Change focus. We are in the early 1960s. The Americans are trying to get the Saudi Arabian royal family to effect a more “democratic” and “humanitarian” tone to their society. The response from the Saudis is instructive. “Do not send us your Coca Cola, Ford cars, or upstart son of a whisky merchant [i.e., President John F. Kennedy]. We have our own culture and have had it for thousands of years.”

Is real change possible in Afghanistan?

There are strong forces opposing change in Afghan society. Particularly the Taliban, but they are not alone. Traditional rulers, so-called "Warlords," really don't want much change, nor do many traditionalist clerics and ordinary citizens. No different from our society, where "conservatives" of all kinds oppose creative change.

A recent report for a knowledgeable Afghan woman, on International Woman's Day in Saskatoon, presented the situation in sharp contrast. (What she said is well known; she simply highlighted the problem.) "Redevelopment" money being spent three ways in Afghanistan. First, to arm and equip the new Afghan army. Second, to "pay off" the "Warlords." If there's any money left over after that, it might go into something else like a school or a hospital.

And that is the situation which the Canadian Government wants to support until 2011. Because the government thinks real change will happen if it supports this new "status quo."

If we are rdally committed to making change in "their" society, we'll have to leave troops -- army of occupation -- for several generations -- not years, or decades; generations. It will take that long for real change to take hold. Otherwise, the "conservatives" in that society will quickly reverse any changes that have been made.

And who will benefit from any of these kinds of "change?

"POLITICS" MADE SIMPLE

Listening to people talk about "politics" today, I feel very sad about the lack of basic understanding that most people have about "politics." I'm not talking about party positions or philosophical positions. I'm talking about the basics of politics.

To understand politics in our society, we need to reflect on "the cradle of democracy" -- ancient Greece. The Greeks had an wonderful word -- politeia. (That is the word from which we have our English words "politics" and "political.") That Greek word meant citizenship -- particularly "the rights and responsibilities of the citizen" — and citizens collectively.

But over the millennia we have developed "political institutions," of two kinds.

First, there are assemblies, which bring people together: city councils, legislatures, parliaments, congresses, etc. These are now filled with "elected representatives."

Second, there are parties: associations or groups of people who tend to think the same way about most things.

The flaw with these "political institutions" is that they have taken away — usurped — the rights and responsibilities of of citizens. Their actions deprive ordinary citizens of their politeia -- their "politics. "About the only thing left is the "right" and "responsibility" to put an "X" on a particular line of a particular piece of paper at particular times.

The loss of those rights is a historic study in itself.

There was a time when the leaders of the assemblies might have been "the brightest and best" — but more often they were simply the people who had the most power — either economic or military. With today's assemblies, there are lots of bright people on the outside — often brighter that the elected representatives. But because the elected hold the power — power which they are usually reluctant to share — we citizens have lost the core of our citizenship.

The time has come for us to reclaim our politeia -- our citizenship.

FORT GATHERCOLE

Within the next few months, citizens and visitors in Saskatoon will note construction starting on Fort Gathercole.

While that title is strange to some, I trust it will catch on, for two reasons.

First, the construction is on the Gathercole Site. That was the site of Saskatoon's old Technical School, thought the building later became the office for the Saskatoon School Board. The building was re-named in honour of the long-time Director of Education, the late Dr. Fred Gathercole. The structure was torn down a couple of years ago because the city had no understanding of how to re-adapt the structure, and had no interest in learning. Since then, the City has taken to calling that chunk of property simply "Parcel Y." (It's also know is "Parcel Why?" by some of those who wonder why the city is allowing such strange and inappropriate development of the land.)

The second part of the name comes from the structure of the proposed development itself, by an outfit with the title "Lake Placid." It is actually shaped very much like an old prairie fort — one that could have been built by the Hudson's Bay Company or the North West Company. But instead of logs palisades, Fort Gathercole has three enormous steel, concrete and glass boxes for walls: the hotel box/wall, the condominium box/wall, and the retail-professional box/wall. If you muster up the courage and dare go inside the walls, you'll find a open courtyard. It has a paddling pool in the summer and a skating rink by the winter. There's nothing that would draw people to the site except the walls and the quaint courtyard, but the City still thinks of this as a kind of destination attraction (which shows how "small" some people think).

Overall, it's a bit of "stunning mediocrity" — stunning because it is so mediocre for a space which is just begging for something excellent.

Take note — coming soon in the heart of Saskatoon — Fort Gathercole.

(NOTE -- October, 2009 -- the land, which is still vacant two years later, is coming to be called the "Atch hole" -- after the mayor who wanted this kind of development so badly. Kinda' catchy, in its own way, that title.