[Good News?] Al Gore trying hard again...

Well, at least this isn't BAD news...

Some good news for once: Al Gore's Climate Change organization, The Alliance for Climate Protection, is initiating a $300 Million propaganda campaign in the United States, to help convince the American people that a radically new vision for curbing emissions is needed. It will be spent mostly on TV ads and the internet... and hopefully it will get through to the worst culprits of the carbon guzzlers. Good work Al!

One more thing: If you read the CBC article about this, you'll see this quote that Gore offered to the Washington Post: "The simple algorithm is this: It's important to change the light bulbs, but it's much more important to change the laws." YEAH, NO KIDDING! This is what I've been saying since the beginning of this whole frickin carbon conundrum came on the radar: Individualist solutions to global warming are all fine and dandy (and even necessary), but we won't see any SIGNIFICANT decline in the amount of carbon emissions until we make major changes to our political and economic STRUCTURE... and that means LEGISLATION. See my previous article on the Political Economy of Global Warming.

[Plea] Letter to the Environment Minister

To The Honourable John Baird, M.P.
Minister of the Environment
bairdj@parl.gc.ca

Mr. Baird, I write this personal letter to you as part of a desperate plea – a plea for you to take a new approach on carbon emissions and climate change.

As a citizen of Canada, I am responsible and complicit in the unacceptably high per capita CO2 emissions produced in this country. Ranked within the top ten per capita emitter countries, each Canadian is playing a significant role in causing rising global temperatures - These rising temperatures in turn will see the great North ice caps melt, various small island states submerged (not to mention low lying areas such as the city of Manhattan - gone), the belt of the tropical planet dried up by desertification, and an increase in devastating storms on par with Hurricane Katrina (if not stronger - Katrina had weakened to a class 3 hurricane by the time it struck New Orleans), and lets not forget the hundreds of millions of people who will become "environmental refugees" as a result. There is a list of predicted devastations in the IPCC's latest report, which I have posted for viewing here, (in case you haven't had a chance to read it).

As a citizen of Canada, I do not want to be accountable for these impending human disasters. Do you? This is why I have tried to reduce my personal emissions: I have given up on cars and I now ride my bike year round (this was not an easy trade off given Edmonton’s cold winters!), I carefully insulated my house and keep the household temperature to a minimum level, and I try to only buy locally produced goods. But try as I might, I am quite powerless to curb the emissions of the real polluters – the massive companies in the industrial sector and, particularly, the tar sands companies here in Alberta. These companies (including Suncor, Syncrude and Shell Canada, among others) are continually pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere on behalf of all Canadians, and they clearly are more interested in profiting from petroleum than making the world livable for future generations. You, on the other hand, are in a position of power, and as the old adage goes – with power comes responsibility. For this reason I plead with you to put through new, tougher legislation that will a) cause a swift shift to an economy based on sustainable energy resources, and b) drastically enforce the reduction of carbon emissions, effective immediately!

We don’t have time to waste, and this is easily proven by reviewing the facts that we continue to hear from highly regarded environmentalists and organizations:

• Bill McKibben, distinguished environmentalist, explained in December how the world reached a level of atmospheric homeostasis before the industrial revolution with carbon dioxide levels sitting at 275 parts per million. For the last few years we thought the upper limit was 450 parts per million before the damage becomes irreversible, but new studies show that 350 parts per million is a limit we would be wise not to surpass. TODAY WE’RE AT 383 PARTS PER MILLION!!!
• Bruce Cox, Executive Director at Greenpeace Canada, argued today that carbon sequestration won't work, that we need to focus on renewable energies, and that "the international consensus is that to avoid the worst excesses of climate change, global greenhouse gas emissions must peak by 2015, then start falling".
• Matthew Bramley, Director of the Pembina Institute's climate change program, announced in May 2007 that "the government's national targets come up short against the science, leading countries' commitments, and our legal obligations under Kyoto," and further that your Turning the Corner Plan has "little chance of meeting the government's target of stopping the growth in Canada's greenhouse gas pollution by 2010-12," AND FURTHER, that your plan has "numerous loopholes and gaps that undermine the credibility of the government's target for 2020, which is to limit Canada's emissions to about 2% above the 1990 level."
• Recent studies by scientists show that the deadline for when we must reduce emissions is much sooner than previously anticipated, and that we must bring our emissions to ZERO in order to avert the devastation of climate change.

What have you done to address these serious, educated concerns - concerns which highlight that the government's current plan Turning the Corner - won't work?

Unfortunately, Turning the Corner, DOES WASTE TIME. It calls for 20% in reductions by 2020! This is too late Mr. Baird - and you know it! First off, there is no way that market mechanisms will see the reduction of 60 to 70% of emissions by 2050. You know this. Secondly, by 2050 - as you've seen above, every environmental organization out there says this is way too late! We need to turn the corner now, not 40 years from now!

If murder is the most serious of crimes, why do we allow the tar sands corporations to continually wreak havoc on the environment and increasingly pump carbon into our atmosphere? We know that these emissions will end up causing the deaths of millions of people - and YOU - Mr. Baird, will be held accountable. Do you want to end up as a defendant on the International Criminal Court twenty years from now, when the global consensus on carbon emissions finds that anyone in a position of power who serves to further enable climate change is criminally responsible (as suggested by David Suzuki)? I doubt you do, so act now to stop emissions (and protect yourself from future incarceration!)!

What ultimately bothers me most, Mr. Baird, is that since "Canada's New Government" has come to power, the amount of carbon we Canadians are pumping into the atmosphere has increased, and it is projected to continue to increase, as admitted by Stephen Harper himself! The IPCC predicts that because of totally lax laws on climate change (like those here in Canada), global CO2 emissions from energy use between 2000 and 2030 are projected to grow 40 to 110% over that period! This gives me and fellow citizens a feeling of shame for being Canadian. I was so ashamed when Canada was awarded the Fossil Award at the UN Climate Summit. Please act now to bring back Canada's international reputation!

Here's a direct quote from the International Panel on Climate Change's latest report: "Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years." Are you going to remember this in August, when the sweltering heat causes people to lock themselves in their damp basements or crank up their air conditioners (thereby wreaking havoc on the grid)?

The IPCC also provides a map of the world showing the most drastic increases in average temperature over the last 35 years. There is only one part of the Earth that has seen an average temperature increase as high as 3.5 degrees... guess where? It's a massive area that covers Canada's North West and most of Alaska. YES, we are experiencing harmful temperature increases here in Canada already!

I know that as the Minister of the Environment in a country which holds the second largest proven oil reserves in the world, your job is not easy: You have the difficult task of making sure the environment is a priority when all the others are blinded by the dollar signs that mar their vision of the tar sands. But by virtue of your position, this must be your fight.

If I may ask you to engage in this thought exercise – How do you want Canadians to remember your work as a member of Parliament, fifty years from now? Do you want to be remembered as a Minister who was tough on climate change? Do you want to be remembered as the first politician who stood up to the corporations which continued to pour carbon dioxide into our atmosphere without concern? Do you want to be remembered as the famed politician who turned the tide on carbon emissions – the one who was directly responsible for enacting strong legislation which actually saw the amount of carbon emissions decrease nation-wide? Do you want to be remembered as the first politician to truly comprehend that economic growth is meaningless unless there is a sustainable world to live in! I ask you this because at this rate, Mr. Baird, you will not be remembered this way! At this rate you will be remembered as the Minister who wasted billions of dollars and years of precious time trying to sequester carbon, as the one who found every possible way to appease big oil while forgetting to invest in renewable energies, as the environment minister who forgot to implement a carbon tax when the budget was passed, like the province of British Colombia smartly did earlier this year.

Fifty years from now, I want to look back to the year 2008 and think of Mr. Baird as the one who actually made it happen. And that's my plea, Mr. Baird.... please, make it happen.

[Report] The IPCC Predicts Doom

Here is the copy and pasted text of Article 3.3.1 of the International Panel on Climate Change's latest report on global warming (warning: get your Prozac ready):

3.3.1 Impacts on systems and sectors

Ecosystems

The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this
century by an unprecedented combination of climate change,
associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects,
ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. landuse
change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, overexploitation
of resources).


Over the course of this century, net carbon uptake by terrestrial
ecosystems is likely to peak before mid-century and then weaken
or even reverse, thus amplifying climate change.


Approximately 20 to 30% of plant and animal species assessed
so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases
in global average temperature exceed 1.5 to 2.5°C (medium confidence).


For increases in global average temperature exceeding 1.5 to
2.5°C and in concomitant atmospheric CO2 concentrations, there
are projected to be major changes in ecosystem structure and
function, species’ ecological interactions and shifts in species’
geographical ranges, with predominantly negative consequences
for biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services, e.g. water
and food supply.

Food

Crop productivity is projected to increase slightly at mid- to
high latitudes for local mean temperature increases of up to 1
to 3°C depending on the crop, and then decrease beyond that in
some regions (medium confidence).


At lower latitudes, especially in seasonally dry and tropical
regions, crop productivity is projected to decrease for even small
local temperature increases (1 to 2°C), which would increase
the risk of hunger (medium confidence).


Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase
with increases in local average temperature over a range
of 1 to 3°C, but above this it is projected to decrease (medium
confidence).

Coasts

Coasts are projected to be exposed to increasing risks, including
coastal erosion, due to climate change and sea level rise.
The effect will be exacerbated by increasing human-induced
pressures on coastal areas (very high confidence).


By the 2080s, many millions more people than today are projected
to experience floods every year due to sea level rise. The
numbers affected will be largest in the densely populated and
low-lying megadeltas of Asia and Africa while small islands
are especially vulnerable (very high confidence).

Industry, settlements and society

The most vulnerable industries, settlements and societies are
generally those in coastal and river flood plains, those whose
economies are closely linked with climate-sensitive resources
and those in areas prone to extreme weather events, especially
where rapid urbanisation is occurring.


Poor communities can be especially vulnerable, in particular
those concentrated in high-risk areas.

Health

The health status of millions of people is projected to be affected
through, for example, increases in malnutrition; increased
deaths, diseases and injury due to extreme weather events; increased
burden of diarrhoeal diseases; increased frequency of
cardio-respiratory diseases due to higher concentrations of
ground-level ozone in urban areas related to climate change;
and the altered spatial distribution of some infectious diseases.


Climate change is projected to bring some benefits in temperate
areas, such as fewer deaths from cold exposure, and some
mixed effects such as changes in range and transmission potential
of malaria in Africa. Overall it is expected that benefits will
be outweighed by the negative health effects of rising temperatures,
especially in developing countries.


Critically important will be factors that directly shape the health
of populations such as education, health care, public health initiatives,
and infrastructure and economic development.

Water

Water impacts are key for all sectors and regions. These are
discussed below in the Box ‘Climate change and water’.

Climate change is expected to exacerbate current stresses on water resources from population growth and economic and land-use change, including urbanisation. On a regional scale, mountain snow pack, glaciers and small ice caps play a crucial role in freshwater availability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than one-sixth of the world population currently
lives.

Changes in precipitation (Figure 3.3) and temperature (Figure 3.2) lead to changes in runoff (Figure 3.5) and water availability. Runoff is projected with high confidence to increase by 10 to 40% by mid-century at higher latitudes and in some wet tropical areas, including populous areas in East and South-East Asia, and decrease by 10 to 30% over some dry regions at mid-latitudes and dry tropics, due to decreases in rainfall and higher rates of evapotranspiration. There is also high confidence that many semi-arid areas (e.g. the Mediterranean Basin, western United States, southern Africa and north-eastern Brazil) will suffer a decrease in water resources
due to climate change. Drought-affected areas are projected to increase in extent, with the potential for adverse impacts on multiple sectors, e.g. agriculture, water supply, energy production and health. Regionally, large increases in irrigation water demand as
a result of climate changes are projected.

The negative impacts of climate change on freshwater systems outweigh its benefits (high confidence). Areas in which runoff is projected to decline face a reduction in the value of the services provided by water resources (very high confidence). The beneficial impacts of increased annual runoff in some areas are likely to be tempered by negative effects of increased precipitation variability and seasonal runoff shifts on water supply, water quality and flood risk.

Available research suggests a significant future increase in heavy rainfall events in many regions, including some in which the mean rainfall is projected to decrease. The resulting increased flood risk poses challenges to society, physical infrastructure and water quality. It is likely that up to 20% of the world population will live in areas where river flood potential could increase by the 2080s. Increases in the frequency and severity of floods and droughts are projected to adversely affect sustainable development. Increased temperatures will further affect the physical, chemical and biological properties of freshwater lakes and rivers, with predominantly adverse impacts on
many individual freshwater species, community composition and water quality. In coastal areas, sea level rise will exacerbate water resource constraints due to increased salinisation of groundwater supplies.

[Desperation] A Case for Withdrawal

Recently, a government-mandated commission led by John Manley was asked to prepare a report on Canada's role in Afghanistan and proposals for Canada's future role there. Canada has now effectively been engaged in a war there for six years, and the Manley report has called for an extension of Canada's mission until 2011 (provided NATO kicks in more support for the mission).

As a result, a vote was passed in the House of Commons, in which the Conservatives and the Liberals colluded to extend the mission in Afghanistan, despite the fact that the WAR VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW - as carefully explained by Linda McQuaig in Holding the Bully's Coat.

This war is a travesty, and we Canadians are responsible. We have the death of our own soldiers and 40,000 Afghans on our hands. Since the Canadian mission in Canada plays a huge relief role for the American military, we are implicitly contributing to the Iraq war as well.

The whole idea of our commitment to "international development" there is a total farce. Further, the war is simply being lost, as the Taliban acquires more support against the NATO forces who are seen as foreign invaders.

We have to stop this. I've been meaning to write about Afghanistan, but it takes time to put all the important points together - so I'm still working on it. In the meantime, many others have done an excellent job, so I am posting two good articles on Afghanistan here, below.

I dare anyone to read through this and still claim that Canada has any legitimate purpose there! There's just nothing good about this war, nothing to be gained by it, and all of the arguments in favour of staying there are exposed as pure lies.

*************

WHY WE MUST MARCH AGAINST THE WAR THIS SATURDAY
by Joel Harden

"Courage, my friends, we can still make a better world"

The above quotation comes from Tommy Douglas, former CCF/NDP leader and
longtime peace activist.

It reminds us why we must march, rally, and educate ourselves about
Canada's mission impossible in Afghanistan.

It reminds us why this Saturday marks an important moment in stopping
this war, and truly helping the people of Afghanistan.

We need courage to challenge the bluster of Canada's warmongers, and the
politicians who support them.

Let's face it: Canada's war in Afghanistan is already over. This war
will end in 2009, but not due to any wisdom from the federal government.
It is already a failure and a majority of Canadians know it.

Western reconstruction operations in Afghanistan are a farce. Following
a time-honoured pattern, most of this money leaves in the briefcases of
foreign contractors.

As an aide to Hamid Karzai recently told a Quebec reporter, "the
international community has injected $19 billion into Afghanistan. About
95% of that leaves the country... non-governmental organizations employ
540 foreigners who earn from $5000 ton $35,000 per month. The last
elections cost $395 million. It was the foreigners who organized them,
and the kept the money for themselves."

The balance of "reconstruction" money goes to drug-running warlords who
call the shots in the current Afghan government. These thugs – many of
whom terrorized Afghans in the early 1990s – build mansions for
themselves and their friends, and get NATO to guard their compounds.

Poverty in Afghanistan is at record levels. As foreign contractors
clinked beers in Kabul, a thousand people froze to death this winter.

A million pounds in bombs were dropped on Afghanistan in 2007, and
40,000 Afghans have died since 2001. Not surprisingly, Afghan resistance
to the occupation is growing. Hamid Karzai, in reality, is the Mayor of
East Kabul. No doctored poll by U.S.-government funded agencies can
honestly say otherwise.

Still, after yesterday's vote on the Afghan mission, Stephen Harper will
likely crow about "staying the course." He'll go to NATO with a fistful
of political nerve, claiming widespread support for Canada's so-called
"war on terror."

No doubt, some will throw up their hands and insist that protest doesn't
matter. Polls indicate 61 percent of Canadians are opposed to extending
Canada's war in Afghanistan, but that wasn't reflected in yesterday's
House of Commons vote.

But a funny thing happened yesterday in Harper's pre-fabricated
democracy. Regular people, like you and me, showed up to serve notice
that we will stop this war. We demonstrated that an ounce of bottom-up
activism can challenge the mightiest of bullies.

The Commons galleries erupted in anti-war chanting. Soon after the
Tories voted, "End it, don't extend it!" was heard throughout the
building. Our chanting could even be heard as we were shepherded into
the halls by security.

Dion and Harper were stunned. They didn't expect this intrusion of
democracy. They didn't think us plebes would storm into their "palace,"
and point out that the Emperor has no clothes.

My friends, this Emperor's been naked for years, and their "palace"
belongs to all of us. Let's get on with the task of telling others. This
Saturday, we'll rally, we'll march, and we'll educate ourselves. We'll
build the support and capacity needed for our message of peace.

As veterans from the Vietnam War will attest, peace activism is about
persistence, and appealing to the hearts and minds of Canadians.

Courage my friends: we can, and we will, stop this war.

See you on the streets tomorrow!

There are over 20 cities and towns holding anti-war rallies this weekend
as part of the World Against War days of action. rabbletv will be
bringing you coverage, include a live webcast of the Toronto rally,
right here at rabble.ca from 1:00p.m. to 6:00p.m. EST on Saturday, March
15.

Joel Harden is a member of the Ottawa Peace Assembly.

*********************


WE'RE THERE BECAUSE WE'RE THERE

by Rick Salutin

February 22, 2008
Here are some thoughts for the coming parliamentary debate on
Afghanistan. Consider it the unManley report.

Why are we there? Tom Axworthy, summing up the Manley panel's reasons
for Canada's military mission, says: "The Taliban's return would
threaten regional peace and security; the UN has sanctified the mission;
NATO is committed; and Canada should help failed states." Those are
sentences, not reasons. Here's panel member Derek Burney: "Canada is a
G8 member and, as such, is expected to engage internationally, serving
global organizations to which we belong in a manner befitting our
responsibility ..."

It's sheer pomposity: "sanctified," "befitting." Why are we there? We're
there because we're there. That's it. We went for various reasons. Now
the heavy hitters want us to stay. Because we're already there.

But won't NATO come apart if it doesn't pull this off? So what? Why
shouldn't NATO go back to the North Atlantic, where it's from, and be a
defence alliance, which it was? If that no longer makes sense, let it
disband. Why look for work in places like Kosovo and Afghanistan? What
about saving failed states? This is one of those phrases (like civil
society) that entered public discourse suddenly, and has made mischief
ever since.

All states fail to some degree. Why is it our task to grade this one and
get its marks up? If there's a specific problem, like incubating terror
cells, then take some useful half-measures. Pursue and isolate the
terrorists, cordon off the hot spots and don't think you can solve
everything. There's an arrogance in "nation-building," another dicey
phrase. Send the NATO forces home and let them nation-build there. Life
is mostly half-measures.

"Without security, there can be no development": Wrong, but I know it
sounds right. The problem is, security in this case means occupation by
foreign troops, which doesn't work well anywhere, especially
Afghanistan. First "we" invade and depose their government, which had at
least provided security. Then we impose a government that "invites" us
in (where we already are) and survives only with our support. Our
presence inspires resistance and recruitment to the Taliban or al-Qaeda,
which revive. (Al-Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist till the U.S. invasion; now
it exports to al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.) The more resistance, the more we
the occupiers have to fight, and opposition grows.

This week, bombs killed many civilians in the "Canadian" area. A
district leader said it was the worst day of his life: "What was secure
has now become insecure." This kind of security creates insecurity. Aid,
in turn, is stymied. A recent UN report says general indicators such as
human development and poverty have worsened since 2004.

What about helping women? Isn't that a good idea? Well, the situation
for women was astronomically better under the Soviet-backed government
in the 1980s before "our side" created the mujahedeen, who threw out the
Soviets, assailed women and were, in turn, ousted by the Taliban, who we
then defeated, installing warlords and clerics in their place. No
lasting developmental good has come from foreign occupation; people
there have learned this. They aren't irrational, they're observant.

Can anything be done? Possibly. But it would take a local political
peace, brokered by regional powers such as Pakistan, India and Iran —
not Lithuanians and Canadians. Then the well-meaning Canadians,
including the military, could do their good works, rather than inspire
rebellion.

Those dumb voters: Despite the Harper taunt that Canadians don't cut and
run, and the Manley plea not to shirk our noble international blah blah,
61 per cent still think our troops should leave. Why lecture them about
why they're wrong, instead of assuming they know what they want?
Stéphane Dion says nobody wants an election on Afghanistan. Count me
out. I'd love it.

Originally published in The Globe and Mail, Rick Salutin's column
"The best progressive ideas are those that include a strong enough dose
of provocation to make its supporters feel proud of being original, but
at the same time, altered so many adherents that the risk of being an
isolated exception is immediately averted by the noisy approval of a
triumphant crowd".

[Images] Visions of the Gigaproject

Clear Water Media and White Pine Pictures have made a documentary film about the Tar Sands called Tar Sands: The Selling of Alberta. In their press release they offered some photos, which I am posting here with the captions they provided. This film offers yet more proof that we've got to stop this environmental and social disaster as soon as possible!

File Name: Stig in Helicopter
STIG BERGSETH
Fort McMurray, AB CANADA 2007
“Stig Bergseth, Senior VP of Statoil, in helicopter looking at a North Sea natural gas platform”
Photo Credit: Daron Donahue
White Pine Pictures/ Clearwater Media

File Name: Wihbey in NY
PAUL MICHAEL WIHBEY
New York, USA 2007
“Paul Michael Wihbey (President of GWEST Associates) addresses a group of investors re: global energy insecurity and the Alberta tar sands”
Photo Credit: Randy Tomiuk
White Pine Pictures/ Clearwater Media

File Name: Rudyck fitting pipe
ANDY RUDYCK (R)
Fort McMurray, AB CANADA 2007
“Andy Rudyck fitting pipe”
Photo Credit: Niobe Thompson
White Pine Pictures/ Clearwater Media

File Name: Keng w Syncrude
DR. KENG CHUNG
Fort McMurray, AB CANADA 2007
“Dr. Chung, Professor at the China University of Petroleum, standing in front of the Syncrude upgrader and a Syncrude tailings pond”
Photo Credit: Daron Donahue
White Pine Pictures/ Clearwater Media

[Loop of Hell] The Entrenchment of Neoliberal Policy in Canada

Photo Caption: Heil Harper?

I just read an excellent article by Bryan Evans regarding the Harper government's 2008 Budget, and how this is a tool to consolidate neoliberal economic policies in Canada. I highly recommend that you read this if you have any interest in understanding the basics of how neoliberal governments gut social spending and pave the way for the economic elite to consolidate their power, which leaves the poor with nothing but their own devices to survive.

Check out Canada's Budget 2008: Taxes and the Forward March of Neoliberalism

In my opinion, what emerges from neoliberal policy is what I call a "loop of hell", where a cycle of spending cuts and tax cuts begin to feed off each other. Worst of all, the loop is reinforced by the coerced support of the masses. This is how it works: Cutting taxes tends to be a "popular" move, because nobody likes paying taxes. But, the lost government revenue over the next decade (which in this case amounts to $60 Billion) will mean that any government over the next 10 years has NO CHOICE but to cut spending. As a result, the non-profit sector and the welfare apparatus suffer, the corporate sector is reinforces, non-unionized jobs with no job security nor benefits are favoured over decent working conditions, and everyday Canadians get poorer and as a result, the idea of paying taxes becomes even more unattractive to them. SO then when a progressive government gets elected (yeah right) and says "OK, we're going to put money back into social programs, the welfare state and the non-profit/charitable sector..." the only real way to do it is by a) increasing taxes again (which in our society is a move that is equated with the devil), or b) nationalizing wealth-producing industries (like oil) and transferring profits into the public realm (which is the kind of thing that prompts the CIA to launch coups d'etat and impose American loving conservative governments).

So you see, the loop of hell is a downward spiral, it's a cycle of societal death. This is why it is more important than ever to vote against these kinds of neoliberal budgets NOW, before it's too late. And yet the stupid Liberal party is so afraid of being seen as forcing an election that they don't vote against any of this stuff. It's time people see that it's the CONSERVATIVES that are trying to force elections, they're the idiots who are putting ridiculous legislation on the table - they are to blame here, for the destruction of the few semblances of social consciousness that existed in Canada up until the turn of the millennium, and for enacting legislation that is lining their crony's coffers with cash.

[Election Coverage] Sinking in a Blue Sea

After yesterday's provincial election here in Alberta, I am closer to understanding what it must feel like to be a Maldivian in this era of rising sea levels.

I knew that by virtue of living and working in Edmonton's Old Strathcona neighbourhood, my existence in this province was mostly constrained to the bubble of Alberta's "liberal oasis". In this area of town, almost everyone seems to be on the center-left side of the political spectrum. Before the election, NDP signs were ever present throughout the Garneau and Old Scona neighbourhoods, and indeed, our NDP candidate Rachel Notley took the seat with almost double the amount of votes as the second place Conservative Party candidate. It's hard to imagine that the Conservative-dominated legislature is just on the other side of the North Saskatchewan river - about a kilometer away.

But if you start to move outwards from my riding in any direction, the prevailing political attitudes start to shift to the right. I noticed this while watching the CBC's interactive flash player map of the city during the election coverage. Each riding was coloured-in with the shade of the winning political party. There was Strathcona in the middle of town, saturated in NDP orange. Surrounding this riding on the North West are three ridings coloured in Liberal red, and another NDP orange riding just above that. Effectively, the center of Edmonton went orange and red, but surrounding that is a deep dark sea of Conservative blue, a blue that represents more than 37 years of neoconservative, right wing, social-spending-slashing blue; a blue that conveys the secretive nature of the Energy and Utility Board, which spied on farmers concerned about plans to build power lines on their lands; a blue that connotes the Premier who decided to sue a poor university student for having bought the URL edstelmach.ca; a blue which represents a failing environmental and royalty scheme which will see the expansion of the tar sands - the largest industrial project in the world (and one of the worst emitters of CO2 and pollution on our fragile planet); and a blue which reminds me of a drunken alcoholic Premier who stumbled into a homeless shelter and humiliated the very people who's poverty he had only helped to secure.

Yet despite having been lied to, spied on, cheated on, and left to their own devices for 37 years, 41% of Albertans decided to elect - for an 11th consecutive time - the very bastards who have been doing all the lying and cheating. This has been the lowest voter turnout in the history of the province, and astonishingly, contrary to many pre-election predictions, the conservatives have gained an even stronger position in the provincial legislature, with the NDP losing half of its existing seats, and the liberals losing 7 of their 16 previous seats to the conservatives.

So here we go again - another 4 years of a bad deal. At this rate, this liberal oasis I am currently sitting on - this island of orange and red - will soon sink into the rising blue sea. It's time to light a flare in the hopes of being saved. Or perhaps, like the Maldivians, I should join a coalition of small island states.

[Appeal] The Bullies of the World

What do Turkey, Israel and Colombia have in common?

Well for one, these countries (geographically speaking) are absolutely beautiful, and they all contain an incredibly rich civilizational history. I have been to both Israel and Colombia, and I can honestly say that the extremely warm and caring cultures I was welcomed with made my visits to those countries wonderful.

However, these countries also have this in common: They all made news this week for sending their troops across the border into neighbouring countries, with the intention of assassinating members of rebel forces. And they all succeeded:

• Just last week, Turkish forces entered Northern Iraq in a midnight raid. In the ensuing days they killed over 100 people, whom the government claims were Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK) rebels, and they destroyed PKK bases. See one of the explanatory stories here.
• Just a few days ago, Israel launched yet another incursion into the Palestinian territories, again with the intention of assassinating members of Hamas. In these few days the Israeli forces have killed over 100 people, most of whom are likely innocent civilians. See the news story here.
  
• And just yesterday Colombian troops entered Ecuadorian territory and assassinated one of the FARC's rebel leaders, Raul Reyes. See the story here.

This kind of action by states is immoral, it is illegal, and these governments should be held accountable. We, the people of this world, should not accept this type of behaviour from any country. It merely exacerbates conflicts, and most likely serves to increase the support for rebel factions.

Those violent factions within the PKK, Hamas, and the FARC are all fighting for their causes in the wrong way - armed struggle is the way of the past. This century should see people's struggles for social justice taking place in the form of peaceful, (truly) democratic movements which seize state power in the most legitimate way - by garnering support from everyday people and civil society, by demonstration that their cause is the most just. And these causes are just: Kurds should have autonomy for their peoples, Palestinians should have a sovereign state and should be compensated for a half century of death and destruction, and Colombian communists should be able to participate in national politics without restrictions. But armed insurrection, kidnappings, rocket attacks - that kind of armed response is only feeding the cycle of violence.

The three countries above also have something else in common: They are historically amongst the top receivers of American military aid. Between 1980 and 1999, Turkey received $11.5 Billion worth of military equipment from the US, not to mention the more than $6 Billion the country received in grants and direct loans during the same period. In 2007 alone Colombia received $584 million in military and police aid from the United Sates, and in the last five years the county has received $3.45 Billion dollars in military aid (and this does not count the hundreds of millions of dollars in other forms of aid). And Israel... conservative estimates indicate that it received $2.28 Billion in military aid from the US in 2006 alone. And, since 1949 the US had handed over nearly $100 Billion in aid to that country.

Is this a coincidence? No. The US publicly uses measured "diplomatic language" with these countries when they use their American-funded militaries to launch illegal raids into other countries. You'll hear Condi Rice saying something like "We caution Israel to use restraint", "We call on Turkey to complete its mission in a timely manner and withdraw its troops". This kind of diplomatic bullshit is tacitly allowing countries like this to break international law!

The United States, by virtue of arming these countries to the teeth, by virtue of giving them nothing more than a little slap on the wrist for such actions, by virtue of providing a horrible example of a powerful state which shows absolute contempt and disregard for international laws and conventions - by virtue of these facts the United States is complicit. In other words, when Israel sends secret agents into Beirut to kill a member of Hamas, when Turkey bombs entire areas of Northern Iraq, and when the Colombian military displaces hundreds of peasants and make villages "disappear" - the United States should also be held accountable.

Shame on you, you bullies of the world!