LET'S HAVE MORE NEWS MEDIA DISCLOSURES ABOUT . . . THE NEWS MEDIA THEMSELVES

  
 
      IT HAS MORE OR LESS FALLEN OUT OF THE HEADLINES, but the Murdoch-News Of The World scandal did raise some questions related to the trustworthiness of "The Press" in general -- and they are questions that I believe need to be explored.

      Since that revealing UK parliamentary inquiry last month into the now-deceased News Of The World's morbid cellphone-hacking caper, there have been few, if any, proposals from within the conventional mainstream press for reforms in the field of news gathering and publishing -- even though the conventional press is not always shy about about wandering into scandal sheet territory itself.

      I mean, sex and scandal sell well in all forms of popular information dissemination, don't they, and not just in the tabs. Yet, somehow, that reality has been overlooked in the handwringing over the Murdoch press.

      The mainstream press, of course, is always eager to adopt a lofty position and treat the trash press as by definition unworthy of being taken seriously, saying in effect, "That's not us -- we are responsible."


      THE PRESS IS A BUSINESS THAT IS NOT especially comfortable with the idea of criticizing or investigating its own methods and practices, while at the same time reserving to itself the right to pry into everyone else's business.

      I've been retired from the game for more than 20 years, but I'm still a news junkie, and over those years I've thought quite a lot about how easily the news media get by without being called to account that much.

      So, today, I'm going to throw out, in a helpful, speculative way a few suggestions that might contribute to improvement of public trust in The Press. (Surveys show, by the way, a relatively low rating for public trust of the news media, aside entirely from the Murdoch thing.)

      Just before I get into my suggestions, however, I'll repeat one of my biggest complaints, which I never tire of voicing -- and that is my objection to the relentless concentration of ownership in the conventional news media, seemingly just about everywhere in the English-speaking world. The sad part of it is that the general public doesn't seem to notice, or else doesn't really care, so muted are any protests. Oh, that's right, I just remembered -- the mutes are operated on the whole by the concentrating forces themselves, aren't they? But the good news is that we do occasionally see the on-line "press" taking the ball away from the big boys, and this is to the public benefit.


      A LONG TIME AGO the Canadian government commissioned an inquiry into the monopolizing trend in Canada's news media. The upshot was a report, based on complaints and suggestions to the inquiry by many concerned citizens, containing a number of constructive recommendations, including legislated limitations on concentration of ownership. The idea was to encourage competition in news, the better to inform the pubic.

      Nothing came of it, the concentration continued.  I suppose there weren't then (as now) many politicians who wanted to arouse the hostility of news media owners, managers, and publishers intent upon diminishing competition in news coverage and thus improving their profits.

      Okay, that battle seems to have been lost, at least for now. But let us not despair -- there are other ways in which improvements can be made with the objective of making The Press more reliable and trustworthy, and that's what I'm on about here.

      What I have to suggest would go under the heading of "conflict of interest," a topic that does engage the interest of the news media, because it is one major activity of news gatherers. Looking into conflicts of interest, mostly in politics and business, and the publicizing of it in its news spaces, is a significant part of the bread and butter of news-gathering-and-publishing businesses.

      Therefore, I propose, that same principle ought to be one that is equally applied to those who do the news gathering, including news commentaries and editorials. And applied as well, where it might reasonably be applied, to publishers, managers and other news media executives.


      FOR EXAMPLE:

      * The business-news editors and reporters should have to disclose what investments they own, in what companies, if any; or at the every least disclose whether, on any given story they have handled about any given company or class of business, they hold any personal interests.

      * Ditto for political reporters and commentators on where their personal political -- and business interests too -- may rest, if any. Do any of them hold a publicly undisclosed membership in any political party? And, if a political story or government policy affects a company or class of business, have they any personal interest in any of those businesses? It might even be fair to ask how they vote.

      * Ditto for the writers and editors of the sports pages, where any personal interest might involve any of the sports or teams or athletes or personalities written about (including animal racing).

      * Ditto for the writers and editors of the entertainment pages.

      And so on and so forth, for culture, for religion, and for all the other sections and content of a newspaper (TV or radio station).


      NOW, WOULDN'T YOU AS A NEWSPAPER READER,  TV viewer or radio listener feel more comfortable, and enlightened, if you knew those personal things about the people you pay to keep you informed?

     And, knowing those things, wouldn't you feel a good deal more trust toward them and view them as more reliable as well?

      All right then, the people of The News Media have to act: they should suck it up and give us the lowdown on their personal selves and interests, and their relationship to the news. If there's conflict, they need to own up to it, and get rid of it. Create a better-informed readership. We are entitled to that information. It could be a fascinating part of many a story.   

   

DISSERTATION ON MURDOCH'S MELODRAMA

                        
                              DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH
     
      Pardon me if I sound a little cynical here, but having spent most of my working life in the newspaper business,  I have to say that I suspect Rupert Murdoch and his "journalistic" empire will emerge from their current troubles without suffering much long-term damage.

      So, okay, the News of The World is gone. But as Murdoch himself suggested, that was virtually peanuts, less than one per cent of his holdings. Everything else, it appears, is intact within his empire, and no doubt the byword in his organization worldwide is something like, "Onward and upward, the sky's the limit," and so on.

      The time element in the probing of the Murdoch empire's shenanigans, both in the UK and the U.S., is such that he and his minions will be able to keep on doing for months and months, perhaps even years and years, what they have been doing, before any serious or deep  changes and reforms are imposed, if any can be.

      What I'm saying is that the whole thing shows every sign of being such a long and drawn out affair that people will have lost track of it before a lot gets done.

      Sure, some stock market dip in the Murdoch companies' shares did occur, but that's unlikely to be serious or lasting. The thing is, Rupert, already worth about $7 billion, has a keen knack for making money (although there's a question mark over certain iffy ventures he's attempting in China). But, let's face it, anyone who controls $7 billion isn't likely to suffer anything approaching heavy-duty financial penalty. For someone like Rupert, suffering a little embarrassment -- "the most humble day of my life" -- can't hurt much within the context of his entertainment empire.

      The situation is the following:  An extensive UK police investigation has been ordered into a particularly goulish and gruesome example of Murdoch press cellphone hacking. That's good, except that the best estimate of the inquiry's duration is one year, which probably means it will take longer, especially since some highly questionable links between the Murdoch people and cops in the UK are involved.

      And only then, we are told, can the promised judicial inquiry begin.  How long that will take, only Murdoch's maker knows. And of course there's talk of a probe by the U.S. Congress concerning allegations involving his large U.S. operations, but what might happen there is uncertain, given the conservative-dominated, Murdoch-ideology-leaning House of Representatives.

                              AFTER THE PROBES, WHAT THEN?
      What might then happen? Perhaps some criminal and/or civil charges against any lawbreakers. There might be quite a few of those, in light of reports that as many as 12,000 people were victimized by telephone tapping and other "blagging" incidents allegedly perpetrated by a UK branch of Murdochs' News Corp.

      Fortunately for the Murdochs and the News Corp., the mysterious death of the chief whistle-blower in the Murdoch  phone hacking scandal, Sean Hoare, evidence-gathering is severely compromised -- unless, that is, Hoare left behind well-protected notes and documents in support of his allegations.

     Hoare was a totally key figure in the whole story, having worked for the Murdoch scandal sheet, News of The World, where he gained first-hand knowledge of phone hacking.

      Rupert Murdoch and his son were the very picture of sincerity and contriteness before the UK parliamentary hearing yesterday, protesting complete innocence of these nefarious practices in their empire -- and they still refused to take responsibility for the misdeeds of their trusted executives.

     This to me was sheer evasion, to put it mildly.  It made me think of the U.S. president, Harry Truman, a gutsy guy who had a sign in his office that said: "The buck stops here." I guess the Murdochs don't know about such things.

      No -- my impression of the Murdochs is that they have a sort of understanding with their empire's executives that they, the executives, operate on "principles" perhaps expressed this way: "Get audience, get readers, expand market-share, do whatever you need to do to improve the bottom line. But don't do anything illegal in your news and information-gathering. And keep me out of it, I don't have time for all the details of every operation. If you do anything illegal, it will not be with my approval, I will deny all knowledge and disown you." Just speculating, that's all.


                              A BIG POINT IN MURDOCH'S FAVOR
      I watched a great deal of the five-plus-hours testimony before the UK parliamentary committee inquiry on July 19, and there was one matter that I never heard mentioned, even in passing, but it is something that must be discussed.

      It is the question of freedom of the press. All democratic societies, to my knowledge, advocate and support freedom of expression, whether by oral or printed or broadcast means. Without the embracing of that principle there can be no democracy.

      I wish to point out that freedom of speech and the press does not mean it can only be freedom of a "responsible" or "ethical" or "principled" press or speech. No, it is simply freedom of speech. You say and write what you like, and you take your chances as to whether you are guilty of libel or slander. There are laws against those, and it can cost you and hurt you a lot if you break them.

      Information-gathering takes many different forms, most of them legal, but not all of them perhaps "ethical" by puritanistic standards. During my career, I had my own moments in that regard, but my lips are sealed. In the news business, you get your news where you find it, we always used to say.

       Just to clarify, though: I never was involved in or ever heard of any other reporters being involved in telephone tapping. But I can't say that I never did gain possession of purportedly "confidential" documents or make them public in an "unauthorized" way; and I can't say I never eavesdropped on what were supposed to be confidential meetings. The results of such actions usually turned up good news stories, all of them in the public interest (to the chagrin of many a politician), and I apologize in no way for any of those activities.

     If the News of The World or other Murdoch news outlet violated some other law than laws against the admitted cellphone-hacking -- such as laws against libel and defamation, or of theft or blackmail, and so on -- then the perpetrators ought to be charged and tried on the evidence. Those laws exist and are sufficient, I say, to deal with any of the problems covered by the heading, "journalistic misdeeds."

      Other than that, though, it's fair game. If the Murdoch press wishes to produce mostly sleazy news of scandal and crime, or political and economic propaganda (as many of the Murdoch interests have been characterized as doing) then that is its choice, and it is perfectly free to do so.


                              THE MORE COMPETITION, THE BETTER
      People will either purchase its publications, or listen to or watch its broadcasts, as they please. It is the people  -- in the marketplace of ideas and information -- who will decide the success or failure of that news endeavor.

      My own view of the matter is that the more competition in the news marketplace there is, the better for society. So, yes, I do have criticism of the Murdoch empire for its clear efforts to build monopoly-like holdings that can overwhelm the print and broadcast world with one particular point of view -- in the Murdoch case predominantly conservative and right wing ideas and interests. Its critics are strong in their  claims that Rupert's empire uses political influence through its media to improve its profitability.

       Concentration of ownership in any industry, in my view, is bad for society. It is especially bad in the information media. (Canada, unfortunately, has seen examples of that that.) And I hope Murdoch is not given the necessary government permission to further concentrate his UK empire in broadcasting.

      Much as a lot of British politicians might wish to bring down the hammer on Murdoch, I'm not sure the UK parliament can do much -- other than prosecute actual breaches of the law, and prevent concentration of ownership -- to otherwise "curb" the Murdoch press there, without infringing on freedom of speech generally.

      And, after all's said and done, I believe it's a good thing that they can't.

    
    

    
    

          

REFLECTIONS ON AFTER-HOCKEY ANARCHY

              
       FIRST, LET'S DEAL WITH THE CULPRITS -- I say the perpetrators of the Vancouver vandalism ought, at the very least, to be severely spanked and sent to bed without supper for at least 30 nights (and days) in secure, steel-barred rooms.

      Those who performed physical violence on other people in that post-Stanley Cup idiocy should, of course, get more appropriate penalties, according to the severity of their crimes.

      All convicted rioters should also have to undergo training, while in jail, in how to write on a chalkboard, a couple of thousand times:  "I will be a good boy (or girl) after all future sporting events, win or lose." (None of the rioters could be called a boy or a girl, admittedly, because they are people in grown-up bodies -- but it seems their skulls still contain infantile brains.)

      On their release, the culprits should be facing big bills for the damage they caused in Vancouver's downtown region with their rampaging, all such bills to be ascertained by the courts and/or the "searching" public inquiry we almost certainly now can expect to see launched by our political leaders here in British Columbia.

      In the meantime, we non-rioters can sit back and soak up the advice and reflections we'll find it hard to avoid from editorialists, columnists and other sociological "experts" on the toilet-training, parenting, possible educating and social and economic status of these only-marginally-civilized rioters.

      We also need to consider other factors related to the rioting and its aftermath, and I will now contribute to that debate,  but mainly in one particular only -- and that a somewhat political one.


      THE RIOTS HAVE BROUGHT AN OLD TERM TO THE FORE:
      "ANARCHISM!"
      Except that in the newspapers they didn't put it in italics and caps, or follow it with an exclamation point, in the way I have here, or in the way it was done frequently many, many decades ago.


      Our Vancouver police chief, Jim Chu, led the way in using the word "anarchists" to describe the sources of the rioting. Commentators have being using it as well. So it is out there and must be given some attention.


      "Anarchism" is a word loaded with political and economic meaning -- and it has been used in the past by entrenched interests against people working for social, political and economic justice and change aimed at improving life for citizens.


      Women's suffrage activists a hundred years ago got the anarchist label. So did people who worked for broader representation generally in elected bodies. People struggling for improved working conditions in sweat-shop days (still far from gone in many parts of the world) were "anarchists." People who demanded workplace bargaining power and unions, to improve wages and get better and safer working conditions, were given that appellation.


      In short, it has been a convenient term for those seeking to protect economic, political and other self-interest -- an all-encompassing pejorative aimed at denigrating someone or something.




      
      THE ANARCHISM MOVEMENT HERE, in Vancouver and B.C. generally, seems to be more or less non-existent.  I know -- there is an Anarchist Party of Canada, but I don't believe we can view it in the serious way that our law enforcement chief does. Here's why: it is called the Anarchist Party of Canada (Groucho-Marxist).  It is supposedly a dadaist sort of group. (You can look up "dadaism" on the web, if you like; it's kind of kooky, but too damn complicated to detail here.)


      Every once in a while the Groucho-Marxist anarchists have been in the news for pushing pies into the faces of well-known people, including onetime prime minister and opposition leader Joe Clark, and Bill Vander Zalm, before he became B.C. premier.


      About the only notice taken nowadays of this group, if it actually is one, is by Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia. One of its mottos has been "vote with a pie." Wikipedia says it was loosely affiliated, or shared many members with, the short-lived Rhinoceros Party of Canada, which championed the legalizing of marijuana, among other things.


      In the interests of balanced reporting and commentary, I have sought to make contact with somebody associated with the Anarchist Party, for a statement in response to the allegations about the riot and the "party's" part, if any, in it. So far, I have been unsuccessful, but will keep on trying.




      THE OXFORD UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY says an anarchist is someone "who admits of no ruling power, (is) an advocate of anarchy," or "one who upsets settled order."


     Funk & Wagnalls Dictionary says about the same, but also describes "anarchism" as "the theory that all forms of government are incompatible with individual and social liberty and should be abolished." Funk & Wagnalls also says anarchy is: 1. Absence of government. 2. Lawless confusion and political disorder. 3. General disorder.


      Another interesting definition of anarchism is to be found in the Great Encylopaedic Dictionary of the Reader's Digest, which states: "Political doctrine standing for the abolition of all organized authority and state machinery, and advocating the creation of a society in which men will be expected to live together in harmony on the basis of voluntarily respected mutual contracts."




      THOUGH IT IS SIMPLISTIC AT TIMES, I'D SAY IN THIS CASE that the Reader's Digest has given a pretty useful and concise definition of anarchy. It and the other word authorities combined would seem to give credence to Police Chief Chu's conclusion (except, I guess, for that "harmony" bit in the Reader's Digest definition).  I do wonder, however, whether the chief has given much, or any, thought to the idea that anarchism is a political concept, and not just violent, unlawful activity.

      I will study carefully anything he might say about anarchy in future. I do, however, have this question for him now: Is the chief making a suggestion that an actual organized group, who style themselves a political anarchy movement, started this riot by intent? If so, I think he ought to give the public the facts of the matter as soon as possible. Any time the police interest themselves in political matters, lawful or otherwise, we ought to be told.

      Although Chief Chu was not precisely accurate in his remarks about anarchy as a political concept (because, as we've seen, it theoretically does aim at societal harmony, cooperation and peace), he certainly was on the mark to state the Hockey Riots were a good sample of what anarchy can be like, perhaps in a non-political form, as in a breakdown of law.

      It might even be fair to say that what we witnessed in downtown Vancouver on the night of June 15, 2011, probably went far beyond anarchy.


      JUST ONE LAST THING -- a sort of sociological note. About all those car-burnings in the riots.  Surprised by that? Well, you shouldn't be.

      Don't you know? It's a cultural thing, learned behaviour, I think it's called. Take a look at movies and TV. How many dramatic programs and crime programs, and "action" and "adventure" movies are there that don't have at least one car-burning in 'em?

       Now, there's something for Chief Chu and our coming commission of inquiry to examine.               


            

RIDICULOUS OR NOT, 'JUDGMENT DAY HAROLD' COULD ACTUALLY BE ON THE RIGHT TRACK

    
   
      AT GREAT RISK TO MY PERSONAL REPUTATION, I want to say a word or two on behalf of The Rev. Mr. Harold Egbert Camping, the California radio evangelist who claimed it would be game over for most of us on Saturday, May 21, 2011. That is, it was to be God's Day of Judgment, the Day of The Rapture.

      With egg all over his face, the morning after, he can't have felt very rapturous, having just suffered a massive failure, again, of his holy predictive capabilities, on the question of humanity's existence.

      It was the day on which some of us -- the chosen, the deserving, the believers -- were to be "raptured up" into the sky to be with Jesus. And the rest of us (meaning, if I'm not mistaken, most of us) were to be left behind to perdition, the place of eternal damnation, also known as Hell. For good measure, this Christian preacher added that five months after May 21 to the day, God would destroy the Earth and the universe.

      All of this is based upon Rev. Camping's interpretations of the Bible, and his complex calculations for the crucial dates, drawn from Biblical prophesy.


      I WILL NOT EVEN TRY TO GET INTO THE BIBLICAL convolutions that give rise to the Camping predictions. It is sufficient to know that his conclusions were made and, as these kinds of predictions generally do, attracted widespread public attention and response.

      That response, as we have seen, is made up mostly of jokes and wisecracks, many of them I think quite clever. However, I suspect the feelings of Rev. Camping will not be hurt, because his beliefs, backed in his mind by scriptural authority, undoubtedly give him confidence that scoffers will face special punishment.

      Here's my take on Rev. Camping and his imaginings concerning the End Time: he may be on the right track, but he is lamentably on the right track for the wrong reasons. He also is far too impatient in his desire to get to the end of the world.

      Of course, this may be a function of age. At 89, this gentleman, like all aging folks (yes, I include myself in that category) is holding onto the wrong end of what might be called "the stick of time," and some subconscious awareness of this might be influencing his religious outlook. A kind of "if it's going to be over for me, so it will be for multitudes, my Bible tells me" attitude; in this may lie some consolation for him.


      PERSONALLY, THE WAY I VIEW THE PROBLEMS OF AGING is to resolve that, whatever they are, one must do one's best to deal with them, and just keep on trying, to get the most out of and to give the most, to whatever time is left.

      I hope Rev. Camping has some similar rule to live by, but my point is that he doesn't have to rely on the Bible as the source for his concern over the end of the world (if it in fact is concern, in light of his apparent religious delight in the prospects for the end). No, the events of the world, and the condition of the world today ought to be enough to satisfy any need he has to see the world come to an end, or something close it. As I say, he just needs to crank it back a bit, and not be in such a hurry.

      If Rev. Camping would pay more attention to the daily news, he would see that humanity and its leaders are engaging in conduct that cannot continue for long with success.

      Has this reverend gentleman not acquainted himself with the problems of environment degradation, no small part of it irreversible?

      Is he informed on "the population bomb" and where it is inexorably leading?


      WHAT IS HIS KNOWLEDGE OF A RELATED PROBLEM, that of deep poverty in what we in North America regard as the disadvantaged Third World (but toward which a great many of us feel quite superior, even though we have substantial poverty problems of our own)?

      And let us not overlook what may be the most gigantic threat to the continued existence of humanity -- the growing militarization of the globe, including that of the outer space surrounding us.

      The weaponry available today worldwide, Rev. Camping, is so effective and destructive, and the existing and potential international conflicts so intense, that sensible investors must be salivating over the profits to be made from investments in war industry stocks.

      Thermonuclear bombs exist in the thousands, and range in power to many, many multiples of the tiny bombs that destroyed two Japanese cities in August, 1945, and brought World War Two to an end.


      I DON'T KNOW WHETHER OUR REV. CAMPING SAW IT or not, but an article was published eight or nine weeks ago in the San Jose Mercury News (in Camping's state), under the byline Nadia Drake, the first two paragraphs of which said the following:

        "SAN JOSE, Calif. -- Life on Earth is hurtling toward extinction levels comparable to those following the dinosaur-erasing asteroid impact of 65 million years ago, propelled forward by human activities, according to scientists from the University of California, Berkeley.
        "This week, scientists announced that if current extinction rates continue unabated, and vulnerable species disappear, Earth could lose three-quarters of its species as soon as three centuries from now."

     There you are, Rev. Camping. Little doubt exists that the end is going to come. It's just a question of when. And some of us will breathe easier in hearing highly qualified scientists in your state say it'll probably not be for another 300 years or so. So, unfortunately, you're not going to be around to enjoy it. Just the wrong time.

      Well, that's show biz. And, as you undoubtedly know, being something of an entertainer yourself, timing is everything.  

          
    

    

    

    

    

      

A POLITICAL BLANK CHEQUE FOR HARPER?

  
       IF I HAPPENED TO BE A SERIOUS GAMBLER, why, I'd be dealing in big bucks right now in the aftermath of Canada's important national election -- and I'm sorry to have to report that my bucks would all be going the wrong way.

      Yes, I have to admit it:  I would have bet on the wrong horses. Today, therefore, I will operate on the principle that, like it or not, you can't deny a winner, and do record my surprise at the showing by Stephen Harper and his Conservatives. And one absolutely has to congratulate the New Democratic Party for its historic advance, while feeling a bit sorry about the demise of the Liberal Party.

      The Harper Tories won the big prize in an all-out battle that was relatively fair and square, with only the occasional blob of serious mud hurled. Today is the first day of four straight years of Harper majority government.  And, after five years of minority Harper government, Canadians will find out how realistic were concerns, by people like me, that a majority Conservative government would not be good for the nation.

      In my pre-election comments in this space I found it difficult to see how the Harperites could achieve majority status, in light of some serious policy issues they represented. These included their suspected leanings toward: a probable shrinking of health care; tax breaks for big business; heavy deficits; inability to cope with worsening inflation and a poor employment picture; and wasteful financial commitments to  militaristic ventures -- to say nothing of control-freakishness, authoritarianism, government scandals and Tory contempt of Parliament.


     MONDAY'S ELECTION RESULTS SHOW that those issues had no negative influence whatsoever on support for the Conservatives; in fact, the Tory vote went up. A great many Canadian voters, it seems, really don't care a lot about such issues. (That's now -- but who knows? Perhaps in the next four years they will find some issues, in addition to the aforementioned, upon which they actually will be moved to vote.)

      But isn't what we got still a minority government? I expect some people will ask that question, pointing to the fact that the Tories received only about 40 per cent of the popular vote, and yet won more than 54 per cent of the seats in the Commons. And it will be said, as well, that a total of only 61.4 per cent of eligible voters cast ballots, with the effect that the Tory 40 per cent actually is much less than 40 per cent of eligible voters.

      Well, I'm sorry, folks, that's just the way our electoral system works. Yes, there was talk election night about the need for electoral reform, to more fairly and democratically reflect voters' wishes, but I'll bet that Mr. Harper, who benefited hugely from the present system, is unlikely to do much about changing it. (That's one bet I wouldn't mind losing, though.)


      AS MUCH AS ONE MIGHT LIKE TO SAY the Tory mandate isn't really a decisive one, and that the party has only a minority mandate, I insist it isn't that way at all. If nearly 40 per cent of eligible voters are regarded as having failed to participate in democracy, I'm here to say they did.

      Without casting ballots they were still voting because they were saying: "Hey, I'm perfectly happy with whatever the voting outcome might be. I'm too busy, anyway, to get to the polls. If others can afford the time to vote, then that's great --  they can decide for me, I'll go along with them whichever way they vote."

      I'm not recommending such an attitude at all, because it's my view that if you decline to vote then you have absolutely no complaint coming; should a government be elected that does things you don't agree with, you've pretty well already shown you don't care.

     So, on that basis I have to say that the Harper mandate is a very solid one, and he can now proceed in the knowledge that he has what looks to me like a blank cheque, politically.


      EVERY ELECTION IS HISTORIC, BUT SOME ARE MORE historic than others -- and of course the May 2, 2011 vote was historic, bigtime. Especially when it comes to the Liberals and the New Democrats.

      With respect to the Liberals, if a medical person were describing what happened to them, that person likely would be diagnosing the Liberal party as being in "guarded" condition, meaning "We're not sure we can save the patient."

       That party on May 2 suffered a serious, near fatal attack and is on life support. Mr. Ignatieff may become a footnote to Canadian history, if he's lucky -- but it will be only in the sense that he was on the bridge when the typhoon struck his party's ship, and was completely unable to find the wheel (or if he could find it, didn't know which way to turn it). To say the Liberals struck a reef is putting it mildly. Plus, I don't think it is overstating matters by saying that any party selecting two losing leaders, for two elections in a row (i.e., the Liberals), well, that party can't look to much of a future.

  
      SO, THE LIBERALS HAVE BEEN SHOVED OUT OF THE WAY by the New Democratic Party into the political region we recognize as nowhere. The NDP's Jack Layton ran a masterful campaign, found the right words, and knew how to use them. He stunned Canadian politics by surpassing the wildest dreams of his party's rank-and-file, and perhaps even his own expectations of success.

       Imagine -- he turned Quebec politics completely on its head, destroying the Bloc Quebecois (probably Quebec separatism, too), and virtually shutting out the Liberals and Conservatives in that province.

       Now that he's Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition, Jack Layton knows that in this position he leads a party that is "the government in waiting" -- it is the alternative to the government of the day. He cannot help but feel himself on a historic path to power. It has been said that if your party achieves Official Opposition status is will be government one day. We'll see.

       How Mr. Layton performs in his new position, how he carries out his significant responsibilities "on behalf of average, working Canadians," these things will be important not just for his future, but for  Mr. Harper's and, more importantly, Canada's future as well.

      

    
  

HARPER AND THE TORIES NOT A GOOD BET

  
         
     IT'S NOT GETTING THE POLITICAL ATTENTION it deserves, but the fast-inflating cost of living is severely bothering most Canadians -- and they want action.

    They fear, with some justification, that if things keep going the way they are, we're all going to be in a much tougher place economically.

    Such a situation is really not a good one for the party in power, since it makes the voting populace quite restive and quick to put the blame on those in Ottawa who had the ability to make things better, but didn't.

    And this, friends, brings me to my first prediction for the outcome of the election: It is not going to go well for the Harper Conservatives.


     OKAY, THE DISCERNING READER WILL SAY, BACK THAT UP.  Fine, I'll try.

     First, you can't deny that the cost of living -- inflation -- is getting out of hand. And I think those who  pretend that the government tells the truth when it issues national inflation figures, are living in fantasy. I claim it is higher than they say, and by quite a lot.

     I mean, come on: the loaf of bread from the local bakery, what was it a year or so ago, maybe 18 months ago  -- something like a buck and a half? And today? Hah! Only $2.75!


     But forget such petty things as loaves of bread. How about gasoline? Out of sight, and getting higher. Not only that -- in addition, everyone sees the price of oil (meaning our car gas) as the root cause of almost everything else going up, because almost everything else requires energy to produce, and so on and so forth.

     (Insert, April 19, 2011: Now, today, Statistics Canada has documented this, four days after I wrote the foregoing. Its report says there was a jump to 3.3 per cent in inflation -- from 2.2 per cent -- in March, led by food and gasoline prices. We all still know in our hearts that it was probably more than that, because there is a compound increase as inflation rises.)

     In some of the campaign-platform literature I found a promise by Harper that he'll really bear down on enforcement of competition in the market place, if reelected. You bet. Hey, this is the guy who goes for multi-billion-dollar warplane purchases in a no-bid (that means "no competition") contract. Hardly looks as if he really has a lot of time for competition, does it? Not in armament purchases, not in the oil trade, not in banking.

     In the oil business, by the way, how is it that a petro-power like Canada, sitting on huge oil reserves, finds it so convenient to go along without a whisper of criticism with rip-off "world" prices set by a blasted cartel, namely OPEC? This ensures that Canadian consumers pay through the nose at the pump, because our governments just love OPEC.

     Why? Well, I suspect it's because the North American oil companies, fattening off OPEC price-fixing, tend to be major campaign fund contributors to political parties of conservative bent. So we lowly consumers might well ask: Why can't we be like oil-rich Venezuela?  Even though it is a member of OPEC, it has been known to give its citizens a break on gas.



     AND THEN THERE'S THE CANADIAN DOLLAR, sitting right up there as the world's premium currency; today it's some four cents higher than the former mightiest currency in the world (that of the mightiest nation in world history, the good old U.S. of A, our closest neighbor).


     Just thinking about that dollar-rise makes me furious. Not because it might suggest we're superior to the U.S. and nobody recognizes it -- no, it angers me because most Canadian retailers, well-versed in the entire book, cover-to-cover, on how to rip off customers, refuse for the most part to give the poor consumer a break, say by even splitting with the consumer the benefit to be had from now-lower cost U.S. imports on their shelves.


     I think Canadians would like to hear their prime minister -- and the other party leaders -- leaning on retailers to make sure the consumer receives a benefit from that currency advantage.




     THE YOUTH VOTE IS ANOTHER REASON for my belief that Harper could be headed for the exits.


     The extremely wide viewership attracted by a website lampooning the Conservative leader is a strong sign that Harper is not making it with the younger voter. Those who are not aware of this spoof need only call up www.shitharperdid.com to view it.


     But I didn't need to know about that parody to realize that young people view Stephen Harper as somewhat of an anal personality, robotic, pre-programmed and probably not especially interested in their issues. I talk to young people a fair bit (after all, I've got six grandchildren, three of them of voting age) and I find from them that Harper does not rate.

     I don't know how strong an influence the youth vote exerts on election outcomes, but I'd venture the view that if the youth vote is concerned enough about Harper's leadership over the past five years, then they'll get to the polls and have a significant negative influence on his political future.

    The youth vote is also important because of a tendency in the young to need novelty.  Five years in office is a long time to them, and with such an outlook on regime length, they are probably more inclined than older folks to cry, "Time for a change in Ottawa!" This is not good for Harper.


     ANOTHER VERY TOP ISSUE:  HEALTH CARE.  The three main parties are falling all over themselves to persuade the voters that they will preserve and protect Canada's national health care insurance system. I believe Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and NDP leader Jack Layton when they issue their health care promises, but I am suspicious of Stephen Harper's.

     I am skeptical because of statements Harper made before he became prime minister. His background, before he rose to the political hights, indicates he was somewhat of an Ayn Rand kind of conservative, with her "objectivism," a very rigid doctrine in supporting the "every man (and, by extension, woman and child, too) is on his or her own," it's the individualist society for all, the greatest good for those who can get it, and so on in similar tone.

     With respect to national health care insurance, Harper once called it "socialism," and he is a sworn enemy of that political philosophy.  Also, back in 1997 he delivered a speech to an American think tank in which he referred to Canada as "a northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term."

     I know that his current campaign platform pledges allegiance to health care, but I'm afraid I cannot trust such a pledge. My view is that if his party should win a majority in Parliament, a year later we will find our health insurance plan in a drastically altered, eroded, and diminished state. I think his secret agenda is to turn it into the American style of plan in which you have to buy health insurance from private, for-profit insurance companies with their habit of denying claims. Oh, that Harper does love things American.

    And while we're on the subject, I just want to say I'm getting tired of hearing all the guff about health care insurance being "unsustainable." If you can afford to spend billions on new fighter-bombers, then you can certainly afford national health insurance. If the success of the plan needs a little more in fees, then I believe people who can, will be prepared to pay.

     Then there's another point -- I would like those who claim we get "free" health care in Canada would cut it out. It ain't free, folks, we pay for it in fees and taxes. It's a good plan -- we all put some money in the insurance pot (through fees and taxes) and it keeps us from going broke or dying before we really need to.  Canadians find it good, and firmly believe it's a fine thing to have a healthier nation than it would be without that insurance.


     THERE'S MORE THAT BOTHERS ME about the Tories, but I'm not going to go into a lot of detail. We could talk about corruption, probably for another couple of thousand words; we could point to Tory neglect in environmental protection; we could talk about the power-mad, control-freak aspects of the Conservative campaign, much evidenced by the "bubble" around Harper; we could talk about the G8 scandal, about very questionable and wasteful defense (war goods) contracts; and about contempt of Parliament  (a very bad thing). These are definite issues and I'm sure they will be thoroughly aired on the campaign trail.

     Speaking of the campaign trail, I did watch the leaders' debate, and I found Harper wanting. In fact I was calling him "the Great Denyer" before it was over, because he kept saying things like "That's not true," and "You are totally wrong," or just changing the subject instead of answering the question.

     The main point I'm making here (in case you haven't guessed by now) is to show my personal dissatisfaction with the Harper government, and have done so by discussion of things that concern me, and that I'm sure bother many Canadians. The Tories have had their chances, for five years, and have far from satisfied me or earned my trust. I think it's time for a change.

     And just how am I going to vote? If not Tory, then what party will I pick? I'm thinking it over, I'm thinking it over. About all I will say for now is that my vote will not be for the Bloc Quebecois.

     
     SO, WHAT ABOUT THE GREEN PARTY?  Glad you asked. The Green Party has noble motives, beyond a doubt. And it is running lots of candidates. In the last election it received something over 900,000 votes, and that makes it a very noticeable player in our nation's politics.

    As most people know, the Greens won not a single seat in the House of Commons. In this election, I  hope that the Green leader, Elizabeth May, wins in her constituency of Saanich-Gulf-Islands, because Parliament needs a strong environmental voice, if for no other reason than to keep the other parties honest and true to their environmental pledges.

     Practically speaking, though, it does not seem the Greens have a chance for more than token representation. People admire them, but they are inclined to vote for a party they think has a real chance of forming a government, and all parties do claim to have strong environmental planks in their platforms.  The Greens, as I see it, represent good reasons why Canada must take a sincere look at its electoral system, and get serious about bringing in proportional representation.

     Under the current system (termed very poorly the "first past the post" system) it is a scandal that a party with the support shown by the Greens is without a voice in the Commons.

  
     FOR ME, A REASONABLY GOOD OUTCOME would shape up like this: a minority non-Conservative government, which could be only a Liberal or NDP minority, with the likelihood that it would be Liberal.

     I know Ignatieff has ruled out any coalition, but should the Liberals form a minority government, then they would have to rely on and accept some ideas and policies from NDP leader Jack Layton. I can see Ignatieff doing this without much difficulty, since he knows Layton to be one of the brightest minds in Parliament, an intelligent man with Canadians' interests at heart.

     Of course, if there is basic change in the air by the time election day rolls around (and I suspect it is already building, and not in Harper's favor), then it could be a big change to, in fact, a majority government, thereby eliminating any need to discuss what might happen in a minority situation.

     Yes, I'm sure the night of May 2 is likely to be one of the most interesting nights in Canadian political history. It'll make for fascinating TV. In the meantime, I hope everyone remembers this:  To be part of the big election show, to express your real stake in the outcome, you've got to get out there and vote.

     Good luck, Canada.


  

  

    
  

 

COULD THERE BE MORE FUKUSHIMAS? YOU MIGHT NOT WANT TO BET AGAINST IT . . .

  
    
     HAS HUMANITY DUG ITSELF INTO A NUCLEAR PIT with little or no way out? Is the day of that great advance in physics, nuclear-powered electricity, nearing its end? Are many nuclear scientists, after all, not exactly the brilliant brains we once thought they were?

     Many such questions are being framed in the minds of people everywhere in the aftermath of Japan's nuclear disaster -- which still threatens to become a catastrophe. These are eminently worthwhile questions,  I believe most people will agree, and must be debated.

     Although it could be that politicians and the nuclear power industry will not do much more than launch vast public relations campaigns aimed at calming public concerns, the pressures created by those concerns, we must believe, will have to have at least some influence on future approaches to nuclear power development.

      I'd expect Canadians above all are worried about the status of nuclear generation of electricity, because Canada is a huge player in the field of nuclear electricity production, and has been for nearly half a century. Canada has 18 operable reactors, most of them in Ontario, according to the World Nuclear Association (WNA), which represents the nuclear industry.

     The exact number of "operable" reactors is hard to pin down, since reactors require shutdowns from time to time for maintenance -- or repair of leaks, as with one in Pickering, Ontario! It seems the total for Canada could be as much as 22 if all are operating at once. In addition, Canada has two reactors under construction, three are planned, and three more are proposed, says the WNA in a March 2, 2011, listing of worldwide reactor distribution.

     CANADA'S ROLE IN THE NUCLEAR WORLD has involved renunciation of any nuclear weapons development or use. We have determined that no uranium exported from Canada can ever be used in the production of nuclear weapons, and insist on that before issuing export permits.

     Whether that prohibition is totally effective, I cannot say; one might expect some of the exports could possibly, somehow, get diverted to nefarious use. At any rate, we intend to be pure, we will not add to the already thousands of thermonuclear bombs that exist in, and are a grave hazard to, the world, and that's it.  Canada will use the atom for peace, we will concentrate instead on research, and build and use nuclear reactors for electricity production. All very peaceful, right? -- all very nicely-nicely Canadian, yes? Well, now we know it's not exactly quite like that.

     Now we know -- as I heard one unidentified nuclear-power critic say on TV the other day -- that probably there is no such thing as a "fail-safe" nuclear power reactor, anywhere. If Three Mile Island in The United States, in 1979, and Chernobyl, in Ukraine, in 1986, were not enough in the way of disasters, then (many people are saying) the last straw has now been presented to the world by Japan.

      The nuclear power industry, quite naturally in its own interests, is arguing that we shouldn't panic, that there are specific elements in the Japanese disaster which suggest that we shouldn't blame the event on what is called the inherent instability of nuclear reactors. Instead, they say, we ought to blame the combination of natural disasters -- the huge earthquake and subsequent tsunami; the true cause of the horrible event.

    The argument then develops into: Yes, the real fault lies in nature's unpredictability and, admittedly, in the human error that led, to begin with, to the construction of the Fukushima reactors in an earthquake-prone nation. There we have it -- it's human error.

    Hmm. Let's see -- wasn't human error a factor in Three Mile Island? And, oh, yes, it was a major element in the Chernobyl catastrophe. But we must ponder this too: Japan, again according to the World Nuclear Association list, has a total of 55 nuclear power reactors, has two under construction, plans 12 more, and is thinking of building one more. How can this make sense, now?

    ARE WE TO TAKE FROM THIS POINTING TO HUMAN ERROR the idea that we mustn't fault the nuclear-reactor industry, or the nuclear power plant owners and operators? Well, a huge part of the multi-billion-dollar nuclear power industry (and I mean mega billions), including plant designers and equipment providers (like the huge General Electric Corp.), has private ownership, and operation, at times under lax government regulation. And isn't it true that private industry must aim at maximum profit? Does this not mean the possibility of cutting corners, economically, in operation and oversight, and thus, perhaps, fewer carefully applied safety measures against extremely dangerous radiation? Some say yes, some say no. I'm personally inclined to say yes.

     This means the public is forced to accept risks that should be unacceptable. Anti-nuclear groups, like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, have called for an end to heavy government subsidization and tax breaks for the nuclear power industry, claiming that the industry could not survive (thankfully, they would say) without these breaks.

     They also have made this point: "Canadian reactors produced about 35,000 tonnes of high level radioactive waste (spent fuel) by the end of 2000. Despite a 10-year study, and the expenditure of $700 million for research, a national environmental assessment in 1998 failed to support the nuclear industry's proposal for deep-rock storage of radioactive waste. The waste will be hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years."

     See what I mean about getting into the nuclear reactor pit and not being able to escape from it? You can build and operate these things, if you have the unbelievably high sums required, but the problem of radioactive-waste disposal is a great challenge. You bury it, or you dump it in the sea or some other body of water -- yet those methods, the critics say, are not foolproof. Hundreds of thousands of years of hazard, indeed!

     Organizations like Greenpeace have been on top of the inherent dangers in nuclear reactors for a long time. Eleven years ago they and the Sierra Club argued for shifting from such expensive and dangerous ways of producing power to more environmentally friendly ways, such as wind power and solar power, and more efficient use and management of hydro-power. They refer to Canada's nuclear power industry as representing 50 years of failure, and emphatically point to the problems the industry had by then -- eleven years ago -- experienced, outlining a list of "devastating accidents" that had plagued Canadian CANDU reactors. (In recalling the situation back then, they say today that little has changed in the interim.)

     ONE OF THOSE DISASTROUS ACCIDENTS threatened a horror at Pickering Reactor #2 in 1994. That event started with a major-loss-of-coolant accident that spilled 185 tonnes of heavy water. "The emergency core cooling system was used for the first time ever at a CANDU reactor to prevent a meltdown," say Greenpeace and Sierra. (My italics.)
      
     I wonder whether a man like the prospector-miner Gilbert Labine, who made Canada's first discovery of economic uranium in 1930, ever dreamed of such scenarios when he was mucking about in the region of Great Bear Lake, Northwest Territories? I'd guess not, but as things turned out he goes down in history as the man who turned Canada onto its modern nuclear path. The Great Bear Lake is where he discovered the Port Radium deposit. As the Canadian Encyclopedia notes, it was originally exploited for its radium content.

     The exploration for this substance picked up pace, with other discoveries, in the 40s, of big deposits  in the area of what is now called Uranium City, northern Saskatchewan, and, in the 50s, in the Elliot Lake region of northern Ontario.

     So if you think Canada is not a major nuclear power, better think again. We not only have lots of nuclear reactors (none in this Blog's province of British Columbia, I'm thankful to be able to report) -- we  also produce some 22 per cent of the world's uranium, the key element in nuclear reactions. We are in second place among leading uranium producers; we were first for a long time, until overtaken in 2009 by Kazakhstan.

     We can say, however, that without Canada's production, the world likely would not be as nuclear-reactor infested as it is. Our uranium production businesses have a stake in the use of their product in the rest of the world's building and operating of nuclear power reactors. Contrary to popular belief, then, Canada's hands would not seem to be so clean when it comes to nuclear energy -- at least to those worried about proliferation of power-producing reactors.

     What I'm trying to say in all of this alarm over nuclear reactors is, I suppose, that while the nuclear focus right now is upon Japan, and will be no doubt for at least several weeks, and perhaps much longer, we should not limit our nuclear thinking to Japan (or, for that matter, to Canada). We should be thinking about the entire globe's nuclear reactor involvement. There's lots of it, and there are big plans for expansion.

     I DON'T WISH TO UPSET PEOPLE,  but facts are facts, and I do think everyone should be alerted to the following information from the WNA. (Note that the following is completely separate from the world's manufacture of thousands of thermonuclear weapons. It more than underlines the reality that we live in a very heavily nuclearized world, and with all of its accompanying dangers.)

     Our Earth has upon its surface a total of about 440 operable civilian nuclear power reactors. (The number was 443, until those earthquake-tsunami problems occurred in Japan and shut down at least three  reactors, with three more turned off, meaning all six of Fukushima's reactor units out of action.)

     The nation with the largest number of operable reactors is, no surprise, The United States of America, with 104. The WNA says the U.S. also has one reactor under construction, nine planned, and 23 proposed. All of these figures and plans, I must note again, were on the WNA list prepared as of March 2, a week before the Fukushima blowup; since Fukushima, the issue of nuclear reactor expansion has grown quickly into something politicians in the U.S., and everywhere else, are finding they now have to look at with great care.

     In second place, with 58 reactors, is France, with one under construction, one planned, and one proposed.

     No. 3, as mentioned earlier, is Japan, with 55.

     Russia is next, at 32, with 10 under construction, followed by South Korea at 21. India has 20 (with five under construction, 18 planned and 40 proposed), the UK has 19, and Canada is next with its 18, closely followed by Germany at 17. China has 13 reactors, with 27 under construction, another 50 planned -- and a breathtaking 110 proposed.

     Ukraine has 15 operable reactors, Sweden has 10.

     And we must not forget Iran. It is listed as having one reactor under construction, two planned, and one proposed.

     In total, the World Nuclear Association lists 47 nations as having either operable nuclear reactors, or  reactors under construction, definite plans for reactors, or simply proposing some.

     The most telling statistic of all, and let me shout it this time, is the fact that the world has some FOUR HUNDRED AND FORTY operable nuclear reactors. And worldwide there are also 62 under construction, 158 planned, and -- 324 proposed! Whew! This definitely sounds like a nuclear-reactor race to me.

     How many of those reactors now operating are likely to have really big problems, and I mean really BIG  problems (since practically all of them have "little" problems from time to time) -- that is, big,  fatal  problems like those at the complex known as Fukushima?

     I'm not sure I'm qualified to say. But one doesn't have to be a nuclear scientist to toy with the idea that-- well, perhaps using the nuclear scientist allusion isn't such a great choice right now . . . so I'll just say that one doesn't have to be excessively bright to regard the nuclear power reactor as terribly and tragically problematic for the world.

     WE'VE JUST GOT TO BELIEVE, IT SEEMS, that the headlong charge to a greater nuclear reactor future will moderate. But will the politicians and nuclear industry mouthpieces give us much more than talk?  Will anything really change? Who can say?

     The outlook isn't promising. There was a story in the paper just today, with the headline, "Ontario to spend $33 billion on reactors." The Ontario energy minister, who made the announcement, was quoted as also saying that, of course, all kinds of public input will be sought on the construction of two nuclear reactors at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in Clarington, Ont., about 85 kilometres east of Toronto. The new reactors will replace aging nuclear plants, the story said. Mindful of the Japanese disaster, he assured everyone that Ontario's nuclear plants are and will continue to be terribly safe.

     So the prospects for cranking back nuclear things don't seem good.  Perhaps our only answer is that most of us have to trust, have faith; we have to believe that the nuclear reactor world will reconsider its activities, and phase itself out, and sooner rather than later.

     As crazy as it might appear, I'll say it again: We've got to believe -- but back up that belief through application of pressure from the public on the dim-sighted (and/or misguided) politicians.

     After all, we can argue that a lot of nuclear scientists truly do accept their responsibilities. In the past they've sounded constant alarms over thermonuclear weapons and the need to eliminate them because those weapons are absolutely inhumane and genocidal by their very nature. The nuclear-war clock is winding down, or up, at least some disarmament is afoot, etc. Quite a few nuclear scientists seem to be stepping forward now in the current reactor controversy.

     Also encouraging is the fact that respected and responsible public organs like the Los Angeles Times are more and more in the fray. It recently ran an editorial on nuclear reactors, some of which merits repeating (which this area's Vancouver Sun has done, and which I now also will quote, because The Times spoke very much to the point).

      The LA Times, commenting on Fukushima, took a dim editorial view of nuclear reactor expansion, saying that such power plants "are so expensive, and their risks so extreme, that private investors are reluctant to fund them, even with huge government subsidies and loan guarantees."

     The paper said plans to build a "national repository" for waste in Nevada had been shelved, "meaning radioactive waste is being stockpiled at individual plants in a way that is unsustainable. And then there's the threat of a Japan-type disaster."

     The LA Times said the U.S. gets 20 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power plants (the like figure for Canada, I should note, is about 16 per cent).

     Concludes The Times: "There are more cost-effective ways of weaning the country off climate-warming fossil fuels, namely improved energy efficiency and more renewable power. In the cost-benefit analysis, nuclear doesn't add up."

     Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and all Canadians concerned about the proliferation of nuclear reactors will agree with that.


                                           ---------------

DO WE REALLY WANT EQUALITY FOR WOMEN?

  
     
     A CRUCIAL QUESTION -- Well, the One Hundredth International Women's Day has come and gone, and now we can expect renewed vitality and commitment in campaigns, worldwide, for advances in women's equality.

     Or can we?

     I raise this question because, in reports on all of the discussions and celebrations surrounding The Big Day that I've studied, I have failed to detect a single mention of the one huge forward step that would truly put the campaign for equal rights on a fast track to success.

     And that big step would provide the framework for overcoming the most serious of the discriminations against women -- including such matters as the wage disparity between men's and women's pay, and the "glass ceiling" holding down women's progress up the promotion ladder.

     That step, friends, involves nothing more than a relatively simple revision of laws governing political representation. It would work any place in the world where there is representative government, and I believe it also would provide hope and inspiration for women in those benighted parts of the world where women are treated as property, as virtual slaves.

     Now, I'm not suggesting the general question of women's involvement in the political process has been ignored during the International Women's Day festivities. Certainly there have been many references -- on TV, radio, newspapers -- to the fact of under-representation of women in the national, regional, and local law-making bodies of democratic nations, not to mention in those of near- and non-democracies of the world.

     Unfortunately, about all we get in response to the awareness of female under-representation is a kind of hand-wringing, plus mutterings about how we must urge our political parties and organizations to take more notice of the need for greater participation of women in politics and elections, and more nomination of women candidates. And, so, the status remains quo, and women, by and large, fail to be better represented. (But I must note here that the emergence of the new Liberal leader in B.C., the soon-to-be-premier Christy Clark, is a good sign; I hope she has an opportunity to examine my proposal, and perhaps be inclined to act on it. I think its adoption might just win her many, many women's votes.)

     But the status quo is why I am writing this piece. To some, the proposal I am going to outline may sound familiar, and that's because I (a man with three daughters and three granddaughters) have a deep interest in women's rights (as was my Shirley, the late, much loved mother of my daughters); it may also sound familiar because I have written about the subject before.



     AND NOW -- HERE'S OUR SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM:  Let's take the province of British Columbia, Canada, for our model in showing how the reforms I am advocating would work.

     The way it goes now in the election of a provincial government is the election of one Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) in each constituency (also termed a riding), with candidates nominated by the party association (or politically independent group) wishing representation in the Legislature. When all the votes are counted in each riding, the candidate earning the most votes wins the seat. And the party with the greatest number of seats forms a government.

     As it now happens, male candidates usually outnumber female candidates, and in any event the number of MLAs who are male have always outnumbered the female MLAs. Thus, we get a "male-dominated" legislature (or city council, or House of Commons in Ottawa), with intermittent complaints about male domination of our democracy, and, when something like International Women's Day comes along, many, many well-expressed complaints of the same character. The cliche goes on and on: "We must have more women candidates, to redress the balance."

     Well, just saying such things hasn't achieved much, if anything. What I suggest is that we make one very simple amendment in our electoral law: We make space for two MLAs from each riding -- not just one, but two.

     One seat would go to a male candidate, from whatever number of male candidates were in the running for that male seat; and the other seat would be for a female candidate, whatever number won nominations to represent their party or independent group for the female seat.



    AND -- PRESTO! -- EQUALITY OF REPRESENTATION for women has arrived. One woman MLA for each constituency, one man MLA for each constituency. Think of it -- from then on, not a law would be passed, not a policy would be adopted, not a budget would be passed, not a single inquiry would be launched, without the interests and rights of women being well considered.

     I first made this proposal about seven years ago, after having read that some aboriginal groups in Canada's north had attempted to introduce such a system in their selection of representatives in their culture. The idea lost narrowly, but mostly, I would suggest, because of a male-dominant society there. My own view is that it's a great idea and our democracy would be greatly strengthened were we to adopt it.

     There was a citizen's assembly on B.C. electoral reform about seven years ago. The provincial government under Gordon Campbell set it up, on a model written by the former B.C. Liberal Leader Gordon Gibson. The makeup of the assembly was required to have equal representation of men and women, and it did.

     That knowledge encouraged me, so I sent in my proposal, crediting it to the Inuit, and gave my arguments in favor of the reform. It was accepted by the assembly secretariat as a formal submission to be copied and circulated among the full membership of 160 assembly appointees for their consideration.

     I was disappointed when the inquiry's report finally came down. It had no reference whatever to the proposal I had made.



     THERE IS NO DOUBT, THOUGH:  I intend to keep pressing on this subject, until I am shown good reason as to why it is a faulty idea, having received no such arguments as yet. One mild criticism I have heard is that some women might take the idea of legislated equality of gender representation as unacceptable tokenism. I believe the motivation for such an attitude might come from the idea that women want to "make it on my own merits, I don't need someone to legislate or decree my voting rights." And so on.

     My answer to that is the following:

     Is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms not a piece of legislation? Does it not demand and insist on equality of rights for the sexes? And do you not accept that Charter as a positive, proper and absolutely necessary part of our Citizen Rights? Of course you do.

     Well, what I say is that equality of representation of men and women in our democratic electoral bodies is not a form of tokenism, but rather is also a positive, proper and absolutely necessary part of our electoral -- our citizen -- rights.

      So step forward, citizens, put the heat on the political powers-that-be, and demand this important reform.    

GETTING A GRIP ON THE EGYPTIAN DRAMA

  
     
     OH, TO BE AN EGYPTOLOGIST -- I know, I'm using the term "Egyptologist" here in not quite the right context. I am aware that an Egyptologist is someone with expert knowledge of the Pyramids,  the Pharaohs, Egyptian antiquities, Egypt's place in the beginnings of civilization, and of ancient Egyptian history, including Biblical. In short, the Egyptologist's field is not exactly current events.
     My offbeat use of the term is an attempt to express the wish that I knew a lot more about Egypt, now that I and the whole world -- including Egyptologists, I'm sure -- are caught up in watching events and developments in that nation with fascination and, sadly, with growing feelings of horror. (Egyptologists will, actually, be very concerned about whether Egyptian antiquities in museums are being adequately protected through this upheaval.)
     What we are witnessing is a revolution, a brave attempt to kick out the rule-with-an-iron-fist President Hosni Mubarak and his cronies. He views himself, it seems, as some modern, all-powerful Pharaoh -- but his subjects are telling him:  "Let the Egyptian people go, stop your oppression and corruption, let them have democracy and  freedom, honesty and justice."
     But he is not going easily.
     In view of these events I have decided to improve my knowledge of Egypt, and have looked up a few facts concerning the country of today, with particular attention to geographical and other connections between Egypt and my own bailiwick, which happens to be the Greater Vancouver area of Canada. I also will draw conclusions from my research.
     What I have found may be of interest to those who might want to improve their ability to cope with the Egypt story.


     THE CLOSEST I HAVE EVER BEEN TO EGYPT, I'm sorry to confess, is 2,380 kilometres (1,479 miles) from it, and that was when I visited Vienna in 2002. While there I suppose I'd never have given a thought to Egypt, except that I met an Egyptian, a young chap from Cairo, who was very fluent in English, as well as in German.
     He was a street vendor of what we in Canada usually call hot dogs, and he sold me a very good one. (To me, anything Germanic in that line is A1.)  In a pleasant conversation with this vendor, after he told me he was from Cairo I asked why he had come to Vienna. His reply was that he wanted to see it because he knew it had a long history as a crossroads-of-the-world, and was one of the most beautiful of cities. He also had a yen to travel, see the world. Besides, he was doing better in Vienna than he could in Cairo.
     At the time I thought to myself, wow, he has come quite a long way from home. But, Mr. Mubarak's misdeeds and their aftermath have made me aware of how unconsidered that thought was, because, really, Cairo is not any further away from Vienna than, say, some town in western Ontario is from Vancouver. (Vienna, incidentally, is, by air, 8,415 kilometres, or 5,290 miles, from Vancouver.)
     My vendor, to be sure, is only one of many thousands of Egyptians who have left their home country for other lands. Some 50,000 to 60,000 have come to Canada -- and today are of course concerned about the welfare of their relatives back home.

     THAT'S A SMALL BIT OF PERSPECTIVE,  SO NOW HERE'S A BIG PIECE, one, I'd say, of greater significance. Our province of British Columbia occupies a territory of 365,948 square miles, and has a population approaching 5,000,000. Egypt, in comparison, has a size of 386,662 square miles, a little more than 20,000 square miles larger than B.C. -- and is occupied by a population of somewhere between 80 and 83 million people, depending on whose estimate you take.  Try to imagine B.C. with more than 80,000,000 people!
     Yes, B.C. has a much different geography than Egypt, we have too many mountainous regions to permit vast population expansion of Egyptian dimensions (try as our governments might to compress more and more people into some of our limited-space metropolitan areas).
     Egypt, says the 2011 World Almanac, is largely desolate and barren, although it has some hills and mountains in its east and along the Nile. So, lots of open, flat land, seemingly plenty of room for a large population. I think its population size, though, is a strong contributing factor to that nation's current problems. Of course, that's the case for much of the rest of the world as well -- too many people to support. (That's another topic, but a terribly important one, and it is one I intend to explore in detail in this space soon.)  
     The Egyptian nation and people rank on the world's list of nations at 103rd place in Gross Domestic Product, according to figures from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Canada is in 11th place. (I could not find comparable figures for B.C., so have had to rely on figures for all Canada.)
     Egypt's per capita personal income is estimated between $3,000 and $6,000 (30-40 per cent of the people being at or below the poverty line). Canada's per capita income is estimated to be around $35,000 to $38,000.
     I report these figures with no intention of trying to put down Egypt or boast about Canada. I use them to illustrate the dire economic plight of the Egyptian people. World food prices are fast rising, the world oil price is high and probably going higher, incomes don't show many signs of improving. So I ask: How can anyone wonder why Egyptians of all ranks are rebelling against a corrupt, cruel, authoritarian leader?




     BUT THERE'S A MUCH LARGER QUESTION THAN EGYPT. The geopolitical experts and analysts are, quite naturally, homing in on all the ins-and-outs of Egyptian politics, the demands of the people for democracy and a better economic life. They speculate on how the struggle there is going to turn out, how significant it is to Middle East peace. Also under review is the issue of whether Egypt represents another example of upheaval that threatens to expand in the Muslim world. Has the Middle East become a tinder box or not? Look at Tunisia and Yemen. Will we soon see ever more nations getting into the fray, with perhaps the U.S., maybe along with Israel, invading Egypt to "save" it? Where do Russia and China stand, what might they do? Questions abound.
     All of these are important angles, in particular the need for the settling of a permanent, workable peace in the Middle East. (A U.S.-Israel military expedition into Egypt, beyond doubt, would put Middle East peace on ice probably for years. Other complications that would burst forth from such an action, in fact, would be immense and more than dangerous. I want to believe it could not possibly happen.)


     I DO THINK, THOUGH, THAT A BIGGER QUESTION faces the entire world, not only Egypt -- and that is the issue of economic circumstances which seem to be working against the average person. The rising prices of oil and food are hurting everyone, especially those in less advantaged countries.
     Similarly, people lose when any of their tax payments are used up on government corruption and other wasteful spending, often for military purposes, the commission of which crimes are alleged against Egypt's Mubarak -- and also against some other leaders around the world.
     Thus, it is not unreasonable to ask:  How many other countries are there like Egypt (and, earlier, as noted, Tunisia and Yemen, and in Europe, milder displays in Greece, Britain and Ireland)? Will we see other nations with significant numbers of citizens who have reached such a stage of frustration and anger  that they, too, will soon take to the streets in serious mass protest?


     ALL OF THIS IS CLOSELY TIED TO GENERAL INFLATION, steady, unremitting inflation. So persistent is it, in fact, that it seems almost to be fixed government policy, never mind what oil cartels and Big Oil, or multi-national corporations, may do on their own to control markets. Governments appear to think that it's relatively harmless to just print more money to cover more deficits.
     The idea the Canadian government and most other governments have of trying to ensure that annual inflation is kept at "tolerable" levels of, say, two-or-so percent, has morphed into something more drastic.
     That is, into a condition in which governments, in effect, are showing that it is definite government policy to have an inflation rate that is no lower than that target rate. With the result that, if you are a saver, each dollar you saved last Dec. 31 will be worth 98 or fewer cents in purchasing power (happy New Year) next Dec. 31. And so on, year after year. (By the way, I don't believe government inflation figures; I think the true rate is quite a bit higher than we're told.)
     This all just dandy. You know, I'd like to see some mathematician-chartered account work out the total of compound inflation that has occurred, at least in the western world, since 1945, when wartime wage, price and profit controls more or less ended, and real economic development began its upward climb.  
     I'd think that figure would be an absolute fright. And if inflation keeps going the way it has (some experts say it will actually grow large, and fast), it will not end happily -- anywhere in the world.
     Will the Egyptian drama even begin to awaken thoughts of such possibilities, or of what might be done about them, in the minds of anyone among the several thousand key people worldwide who have charge of the fate of humankind politically, economically, militarily, culturally?
     Let us pray. (And you can be sure that I will have future observations and facts to outline as we discover how those prayers are working, or have worked.)
     
       
       
     
     
         
     

A TIME FOR CELEBRATION--AND SUSPENSE

    
     WHY IS BEGINNING A NEW YEAR such an exciting time, an occasion for celebration? Is it, as many suggest, because we have come to collectively recognize it as a time for summing up, for clearing the decks and starting anew? Or is it just an excuse for yet another party, a modern version of "pagan" winter festivals, before we have to plunge back into the same old rat race?
     I suppose it all depends on how we individually look at it. Perhaps there will seem something of the obvious in my own view on the matter, but, just to be clear about what that view is, I'd say most people are influenced in their outlook by how they made their way through the year just ended.
     If it has been a good year in their personal lives, say with an earnings increase or other happy event, they'll naturally be in an optimistic mood and eager to celebrate.
     Others less fortunate may be more inclined, if they are still able to "accentuate the positive," to welcome the symbolism of a new year as an opportunity for achieving a better life in the year ahead, and thus welcome New Year's partying as a way to express thankful good riddance to a difficult twelve months, and then celebrate with a degree of hope for the future.

     THERE'S A CHRISTIAN BACKGROUND to the celebration of New Year's Day, although, as with Christmas, the seasonal celebration aspect pre-dates Christianity; for example, ancient Egyptians, Phoenicians and Persians began their year at the autumnal equinox, and the Greeks at the winter solstice. And they celebrated.
     The Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia says that in the Middle Ages under the Julian Calendar, "most European countries . . . observed New Year's Day on March 25, called Annunciation Day and celebrated as the occasion on which it was revealed to Mary that she would give birth to the Son of God."
     But with the introduction of the Gregorian Calendar in 1582 (says my Encyclopedia Britannica), Roman Catholic countries began to celebrate New Year's Day on Jan. 1. Scotland followed in 1600, and Germany, Denmark and Sweden about 1700, England in 1752.
     The Jewish New Year, called Rosh Hashanah, or the Feast of Trumpets, comes in September, and is prescribed by the Old Testament as a holy Sabbath. The Chinese celebrate New Year's between Jan. 10 and Feb. 19 of the Gregorian Calendar. In India, because of wide cultural and ethnic diversity, New Year's is celebrated, usually as religious festival, on a number of different dates.
     For the world generally, though, we know that it runs mostly on the same Gregorian Calendar in many ways, so Jan. 1, and the night leading up to it, are big events just about everywhere.

     HOW IS IT, YOU WELL MIGHT ASK,  that our present-day New Year's festivities, in North America, other English-speaking nations, in South America, Africa, big chunks of Asia, and much of Europe besides, have lost their "holy" flavor?
     Well, I've searched for some authentic explanation, but have come up empty. I am therefore obliged to fall back on hunch and instinct: I believe that we must put it down to decadence, friends, pure decadence. We might, in fact, go so far as to say, "a backsliding to paganism."
     Those of religious bent, however, should not be too distressed, because they can take consolation from the fact that we have adopted the practice of making New Year's "resolutions," whether we're adherents of a religion or not.
     When we make resolutions to do better in this aspect or that of our personal lives in the coming year, are we not seeking improvement in a somewhat conscience-stricken way? And is not achievement of a clear conscience an everyday pursuit, practice and indeed promotion, of just about every religion? Quite so. And let us hope that the good resolutions are resolutely kept by one and all.

     WHAT DO WE HOPE FOR THE NEW YEAR? Everyone makes his or her own choices in replying to that question, so I can give only my own answers. Each of the answers, I must say, involves some element of suspense, because, well, that's part of the attraction of this time of year: Not knowing  what the future will bring. About all we can be sure of is that there will be surprises.
     Most people will, I expect, initially think about hopes for the New Year from a self-concerned point of view; that is, they consider their own status in life--economic, social, healthwise and otherwise--and how it might be improved. But before long they will also turn to considering the state of their nation and the world, since all are linked. If the nation is doing well, then they're more likely to as well; ditto the world.
     As for myself, I'll keep my personal-life concerns to myself (until such time as I decide otherwise, of course, because almost anything can be a subject for this space), but I will now proceed to briefly share my own personal and sometimes offbeat outlook on the nation and the world.

     ELECTIONS, ANYONE? It is highly unlikely that the people of British Columbia will be able to get through the year 2011 without an election, and might experience two, not counting the municipal kind. The two main B.C. parties are about to be leaderless, and so they, the Liberals and the New Democratic parties, will be staging leadership conventions to select replacements for Premier Gordon Campbell and NDP leader Carole James.
     The scramble to succeed each seems to be pretty lively. But, not having much more than an average citizen's knowledge of such goings-on (my days of covering politics being long gone), I won't try to pontificate about who might win the leadership jobs.
     As far as the Liberals are concerned, it would seem a stretch to think they can come up with anyone who has enough charisma and ability to rescue them from the low-popularity black hole that Campbell dug for his party. But one never knows, given the highly effective status modern political advertising-brainwashing has attained.
     With the NDP, one can only hope that the party's leadership goes to none of the cabal of backstabbers who performed their coup against James. There are more honorable ways of doing things.

     AND WHAT ABOUT THE NATIONAL SCENE? A national election, according to most reports, is being put down under the heading, "Likely, maybe." Today's news (Dec. 30, 2010) included a report that the minority government under Conservative PM Harper is making preparations to get into election mode, starting soon with a Harper cabinet shuffle.
      If a federal election does come in 2011, it will present Canadians with an important choice. They will have to examine very carefully where the Conservatives really stand when it comes to the national health insurance plan, Medicare.
      Voters will need to ask themselves whether they are prepared to risk cutbacks in--or even loss of-- that vital program should the Conservatives win a majority. If they have any smarts, the national Liberals will make Medicare and its future the main issue--and they should, quite justly, make the most of Harper's early-career expressions of firm dislike for such schemes as Medicare. As leader of a minority government, he has seemed relatively benign on the question, but if he should be handed a majority, I say, "Watch out!"

     THE AFGHANISTAN WAR IS THE OTHER major issue of the next federal election campaign.  Yes, the Canadian troop drawdown is in the works, but it seems to me there is a degree of government disingenuousness about precisely how and when and to what degree this will occur. I think this may be as a result of pressures on Ottawa from Washington, which needs all the help it can get.
     There is another military issue to consider: the federal government's deal--around $8 billion--for the purchase of up to 80 Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.
     What's going on here? This is, or will be, one of the most efficient killing machines ever invented. Why do we, supposedly sensible Canadians, need these aircraft? So we can take part in a U.S. attack on Iran--or on Venezuela, or on any other country that dares to disagree with the U.S.?
     (Well, probably not Iran. It's too able to defend itself. Besides, to attack and invade Iran the U.S. probably would have to institute the draft, and that would be an insurmountable political problem for Mr. Obama. Maybe Venezuela, though. It has lots of oil, so we can be forgiven for thinking of the American conquest of Iraq and its oil. Except that, right, Venezuela is really friendly with Iran, and, besides, it might not be exactly a pushover militarily . . . . Well, maybe the Americans will pick somebody or something to attack, no doubt some place with oil, and likely ask us to go along for the ride . . . why, yes, with weapons like the F-35.)
     The F-35 deal to my mind is one of the most scandalously wasteful deals in Canada's history. It should not be allowed to proceed, in spite of any cancellation penalties that might be involved.  The Liberals and other Opposition parties have a duty here, and they must use every means at their disposal to stop that deal. If it means an election through a vote in Parliament that defeats the government, then fine--I say that with the voters of Canada,  that deal will not fly.

     FOR TITLE OF "LEADING HUMANITARIAN AND Newsmaker of The Year,"  I nominate Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks mastermind. He has brought to the public information the world has needed for many a year--the exposure of the not very pretty inner workings of the greatest and most powerful empire humanity has ever known, that, of course, of the country known as the U.S.A.
     The world cannot help but benefit in major ways because that empire, and any future pretenders to empire, are going to have take greater pains in informing an increasingly skeptical public about their policies and actions, if they wish to continue in elective, democratic office. They have suffered in the trust department. (Unfortunately, early reactions do not indicate a leaning in the direction of self-correcting reforms in government practices. The opposite--meaning greater pains to cover up with even greater authority--appears to be the more likely outcome.)
     One of the difficulties I see in the whole Assange-WikiLeaks story, however, is a very serious one and could present potential life and death issues. I am speaking of the lives of Mr. Assange and his organization's large crew of workers.
      Assange himself seems to me to be in real peril of never being able to walk a free man again and, in fact, might even find his life in danger, whether walking free or not. We've already heard calls from some in the U.S. proposing his summary execution. If the same attitudes extend toward any who might replace Assange in the event of his long-term incarceration, or of his execution or "disappearance," or extend even to those who work for WikiLeaks, then totalitarianism will have replaced democracy. We can only wish Assange and his helpers well, and hope we are totally wrong in the possibilities we have projected.              

     IN ANY NEW YEAR REVIEW,  ECONOMICS surely must top the list of assessments. The way things are economically today, and have been for the past couple of years, it's probable that a great many people will be happy to have made it through 2010 with little or no economic loss, never mind gain. And, in facing the 12 months ahead, both sets of individuals, the fortunate and unfortunate alike, will be including a note of caution in their expectations.
     It can be taken as a given that we face a rocky path ahead, through and probably beyond 2011, according to quite a few estimates. The U.S. would seem to be a major part of the problem. Of course Canada has by most accounts survived, and even recovered to a point, from the world "failure" economy of the past two years. We thus may adopt a holier-than-thou posture with relation to the rest of the world, and our so-called journals and broadcast outletssof record, and their knowing commentators, see good times returning, sort of.
     Canadians should not be misled. It's true that we are somewhat significant as a "petro-power" and we also have other vast resources. But the fact is that we are still very, very much tied (attached, bound, locked) to the U.S. economy. As the U.S. goes, so goes Canada; that is almost axiomatic.
     The problem is, the U.S. economy has been tanking, and there hasn't been much sign of recovery, although its government has tried heroically to put on a bright face.
     The thing that seems to me to belie the recovery scenario is America's debt picture. I do not think things can go very well for a country when its government  appears to believe (as has been evident in U.S. governments for some years, but seemingly more so now than ever) that the solution for too much debt is . . .  more debt.
      But aside the problems of the U.S., the world at large faces a continuing major--and much ignored--problem in the form of ongoing massive population expansion, as much as 83,000,000 extra mouths to feed per year.
      So far, world food production apparently is able to more or less keep up with the demand, but how long that can last is anybody's guess. At the moment in our part of the world we are experiencing price increases for food, and the ominous indications are that plenty more are in store.  
        
     BUT ENOUGH OF THE WORLD'S PROBLEMS for now. It's easy to say the world is going to hell in a handbasket, because (as has been often noted in the past) the world is always going to hell in a handbasket.
     It is also true that many people, many countries, many governments are doing their best to keep the world from arriving at an actual hellish place--and at this time of the year, while recognizing that they and we are far from perfect, we have to wish them well and hope for the best.
     If we are going to solve problems, of course, we need to define them, and supplying a degree of definition is my purpose in this Blog entry today.
     So I have to emphasize that, whatever may be in store for Canada, the U.S. and of the rest of the world, we cannot abandon hope for improvement, and we ought to individually try to work for it, through our contacts with others, and through our votes.
     In that spirit, and in a truly neighborly way, I also believe that we Canadians can and should say, to each other and to all peoples:
      "A Happy New Year to you and yours!"