Blog THIS: December 10

December 10, 2008
International Human Rights Day!
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 04:31 PM ET

Today is the 60th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Human Rights. On December 10th, 1948, 48 states voted in its favour. Although not one state voted against it, eight abstained: including the former Soviet Union, taking issue with the inclusion of individual property rights; apartheid-era South Africa, saying that "human dignity would be impaired if a person were told he could not reside in a particular area"; and Saudi Arabia, saying that the Declaration was too Western-centric and did not reflect the values of everybody.

The history of human rights, as we all no doubt are aware, has been rocky. There have been countless abuses, unjust imprisonments, unresolved disagreements over how human rights should be understood, and whether legal prosecutions should be the fate of its violaters. For instance, today's Globe and Mail featured an opinion piece by Erna Paris in which she praises the International Criminal Court's first trial next month. In place to prosecute war criminals, the ICC has an obvious appeal. Nevertheless, there has been some understandable criticism of this prosecutorial body. Namely that it doesn't reflect the varying ways in which people around the world settle their disputes. Prosecutitions are, in more places than we might expect, unpracticed - while reconciliation is the norm.

People also differ over the weight they should give to the different kinds of rights. The Declaration is composed of civil and political rights; as well as economic, social and cultural rights. The former consists of things like the right to a fair trial, the right to free movement, religion, conscience, and the like. The latter is made up of rights to food, clothing, medical care, education, clean water, etc. Now, it appears the fault lines of disagreement lie between the developed and the developing world. The former emphasize civil and political rights, while the latter (a majority, in this economically disproportioned world) ephasize economic, social, and cultural rights, or what some call "freedom from want."

In light of the cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe, where more than 500 people have died since August because of a poor sanitation system and a contaminated water supply, I think we in the West must come around to the developing world's emphasis on freedom from want. To make human rights exclusively synonymous with political freedoms would be to condemn many people to certain death.

Update: The cholera numbers are now 775 deaths, with 16,141 cases of the illness.

women, developing countries, climate change

In Poznan, Poland, national representatives, intergovernmental organizations, and various nongovernmental organizations are meeting to discuss strategies to collectively combat climate change. These United Nations-led talks started on December 1 and will last until the 12th.

Interestingly, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has pointed out something we often forget. Climate Change will impact some people quite differently from others. I've blogged before about how the developing world is disportionately affected by climate change. But now the IUCN is saying that the women of developing countries are especially affected.

From their website:

Women are more likely than men to be killed by natural disasters such as cyclones, hurricanes, floods and heat waves, which are on the rise as a result of climate change. A sample of 141 countries from 1981 to 2002 found such disasters kill more women than men or kill women at an earlier age than men.

Girls and women are responsible for collecting water and fuelwood. In the poorest areas of the world, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, women and girls can spend three to four hours a day on these tasks.

Flooding, drought and desertification can extend these burdens geographically, forcing more girls in more communities to abandon their education. Of the 115 million children in the world who do not go to school, three-fifths are girls, and women constitute 75 percent of the world’s illiterate population.

Various bodies are also calling on the international community to consider the ways in which, as well as the reasons for which, women of the developing world can contribute to the fight against climate change. South Africa's deputy minister for environment and tourism, Rejoice Mabudafhasi, said this:

As women, we look for water and firewood -- we understand the environment better. And as women, we believe gender issues must be incorporated in all decision making on climate change.

The suggestion is that the negotiations is Poznan, and all future talks on climate change, should be a lot less "gender-blind", a lot more inclusive of varying perspectives.

Blog THIS: December 5

December 05, 2008
Pirates
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 04:29 PM ET



Piracy off the coast of Somali has become an issue since the hijacking of the Saudi Arabian oil-tanker, the Sirius Star, on November 15. Carrying a $110-million cargo of crude oil (enough to supply New England with fuel for 10 days), this is the most recent event in a string of destabalizing developments. Western states are justifiably worried about the spectre of piracy: the increased risks to oil-tankers are raising insurance premiums; and the resultant rerouting and transport delays are increasing commodity prices. All this in a time of global economic recession.

The solution? According to John S. Burnett, author of Dangerous Waters: Modern Piracy and Terror on the High Seas, in today's New York Times, we must bring back the Islamic Courts Union, a collection of courts that once controlled much of Somalia with Shariah law, maintained loose links to Al Qaeda and consisted of warlords. Since the ICU was replaced in 2006, Somalia has degenerated into lawlessness and rampant piracy. The ICU's restoration, Burnett argues, is the only hope the West has of returning safe routes to oil-tankers.

"If there is movement to talk to the Taliban in Afghanistan, then there should be some effort to talk to the fundamentalists in Somalia. If the Islamists were permitted to form a viable, functioning and effective government, this shattered land might be able to return to the community of nations - and supertankers will be able to deliver oil to the United States without fear of getting hijacked."

Now, I can't help but read this as being extremely Western-centric. Burnett seems to care only about the safety of oil-tankers and the efficient delivery of goods to the United States. What about the proper governance of Somalia? Is the best option really giving Somalia the ICU in return from some relatively-cheap oil?

Blog THIS: December 4

December 04, 2008
What could have been
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 02:32 PM ET

What would the coalition have amounted to if Parliament hadn't been suspended today? According to a report in Embassy, a Canadian foreign policy newsweekly, the coalition would have had an internationalist and multilateral vision; emphasizing human rights. For instance:

"It seems the free trade agreement with Colombia, signed by Mr. Harper last week, could also be dumped in pretty short order. Both the Liberals and NDP have expressed concern over the human rights situation in the country."

But, instead, we have a prorogued Parliament and a freeze on legislative initiatives until the end of January.

Blog THIS: December 2

December 02, 2008
More on the coalition
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 04:14 PM ET

The Liberal-NDP coalition has great support among the countless disillusioned by the Conservative Party. The Conservative's recent proposals for a "three-year ban on the right of civil servants to strike, limits on the ability of women to sue for pay equity and eliminated subsidies for political parties" struck many the wrong way - notwithstanding the party's eventual reversal on their subsidies decision and ban on civil servant strikes.

Yet despite this, there might be at least one sufficient reason to withdraw one's support for the coalition: it's arguably undemocratic. In today's Globe and Mail, Janice MacKinnon, professor of public policy at the University of Saskatchewan and a former NDP finance minister, had this to say about a coaltion she would normally be inclined to support:

"as a Western Canadian, I fear the reaction of most in this region should they awake one morning to find the Conservative Party, which won 72 of 92 seats in the West just weeks ago, replaced by a coalition with a prime minister from the Liberal Party, the party that came third in every province in Western Canada. This would be especially dismaying since the election results weren't even close: The Conservatives won 37 per cent of the vote and 66 more seats than their nearest rivals."

We might want Harper out, and we might even believe the coalition would work, but we should also keep in mind the way everyone voted.

Blog THIS: November 24

November 24, 2008
Book Review: Margaret Atwood's
Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 03:46 PM ET



The economy is on a lot of people's minds as Canadian newspapers warn of recession and the United States deals with its subprime mortgage problem. And so this might be the perfect time to read Margaret Atwood's new book Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth. Consisting of five essays, each presented during this year's Massey lectures, Atwood provides a discursive overview of the history of debt, lending and borrowing, fairness, and its related concepts.

Their common source, Atwood begins, is in our genes. We are fortunate enough to come equipped with a basic sense of fairness and, when it's violated, the feeling that someone is in debt and must do one thing or another to redeem themselves. By way of illustration, she discusses the capuchin monkeys who, in one experiment, were tuaght to trade pebbles for cucumber slices. They were perfectly happy with this rate of exchange. But, when one monkey received a grape (a much more desirable commodity) in exchange for a pebble, the rest of them revolted. They even refused to co-operate in future transcations, throwing their pebbles out in fits of rage. They appeared to have an innate sense of what was fair and of how things should be.

From here, she surveys literary and theological discussions of debt. She notes - with special emphasis - that the Lord's Prayer reads "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors" and that in Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus, the word for "debt" and for "sin" are the same. The once-sinful man, Ebenezer Scrooge, is then given a good hearing. This is a man who made his fortune by lending money with high interest rates and who then retained every penny - at the expense of the well-being of others.

In the end Atwood resolves the mystery of debt, saying everything must in the end come from Nature. Everything, Atwood says, is either taken or traded. The goods to be traded must first be taken from somewhere; and the goods taken can only come from Nature. Atwood describes a scenario starring a revamped version of Scrooge, named "Scrooge Nouveau", and set in a world of rapidly depleting resources. It is a world in which its most intelligent inhabitans (that's us, by the way) have consumed goods beyond their needs at costs exceeding their means. We have, that is, purchased large parts of our globe on credit with high interest rates that we must one day face. Atwood's implied imperative throughout the text: we'd be better off if we recognized this now and worked to strike a genuine balance between our only creditor, Nature, and its debtor, us.

Blog THIS: November 20

November 20, 2008
World Philosophy Day!
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 02:00 PM ET

November 20th, 2008, is World Philosophy Day, an annual celebration initiated by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). This year, in Palermo, Italy, a set of philosophers will gather for talks under the theme "Rights and Power", and with titles like "Human dignity, civil community and public authority", "From the Mediterranean to the Pacific: new spaces of power and cradles of civilization", and "Sciences and Power". There will also be a symposium, "Psychoanalysis, Rights, Knowledge", in Paris, France. The symposium will consist of conferences and debates on the significance of the "recognition or non-recognition of the 'human being' announced in the Universal Declaration for Human Rights". This is all very esoteric, I know, but it could also be increadibly illuminating. So, if you have the time, share in the celebration and flex your theoretical mind.

Blog THIS: November 19

November 19, 2008
Margaret Wente, the race thinker
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 05:31 PM ET

Margaret Wente has now covered race and its discontents in two consecutive issues of The Globe and Mail. Yesterday in her opinion piece, "Testing, testing, bigot 1-2-3", she described an outwardly, and unabashedly, prejudiced aunt - a woman who would often have a nasty thing to say about the black people she called "coloureds". This personal sketch then led itself to a discussion of the implicit racism nearly all people in the modern world betray, at least now and again, and the role it plays in the violence and social dysfunction we can find in some communities. Her piece for today's issue follows yesterday's easily and naturally. "Discrimination eats away at you - and increases your chance of mental illness" consists of an interview she conducted with British psychiatrist, Kwame McKenzie. The title, however, is only a partial summary of the their discussion since McKenzie notes a range of issues. He spoke of the fact that people of different ethnicities and cultures may describe mental illnesses differently and how physicians might work to recognize these ways; and the prevalance of certain illness in some communities. The effects of perceived discrimation (racial or otherwise), McKenzie described as being pronounced and even debilitating with various mood disorders potentially arising.

We need a more flexible health-care system consisting of insightful professionals capable of adjusting their methods to suit the needs of their patients. The one-size-fits-all approach will not work in a country as diverse as ours.

Blog THIS: November 13

November 13, 2008
Review: Thomas L. Friedman's
Hot, Flat, and Crowded
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 12:52 AM ET



Thomas L. Friedman, Foreign Affairs columnist of The New York Times, has written a new book called Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution - and How It Can Renew America. This is Friedman's contribution to the growing literature on environmental issues, and it's an ambitious one.

The first few sections of the text do an admirable job of laying out the problem. The world is getting hot, warming at unexpectedly exponential rates. Some of the consequences will include what he calls "Global Weirding". Not only will the globe become intolerably warm; but even the smallest of atmospheric changes will bring with it strange occurrences and unpredictably bizarre events.

The world is proverbially flat because of the rise of the middle-class in places like India and China. A greater percentage of people in the world are becoming affluent. Crowded, naturally, refers to the incredible population growth around the world and, once again, places like India and China.

In his story, Friedman's primary culprits are what he calls "Dirty Fuels". Coal, oil, and other "fuels from hell", as he puts it. The world is getting hot because of the carbon they emit. The growing wealth of India and China's middle-class, and their accompanying consumption needs, are increasing demand for dirty fuels. And the growing global population is increasing this demand even further. So, not only are things very bad, but they can get much worse if we don't act.

We must, Friedman argues, develop our Energy Technology. Advocating strong state intervention, Friedman says we need a complete re-structuring of our energy system. We need funding for innovation; tax breaks for alternative energy producers; as well as carbon taxes and price floors for oil (if the price gets too low, there will be no real incentive for finding clean alternatives). In one evocative section, Friedman paints a picture of a future Energy Internet of perfect efficiency and synchronization between our energy needs and their supply.

Friedman's one contentious argument is that the leader of this new movement must be America. Speaking, it seems, directly to his American audience, Friedman warns that if they do not re-organize with clean-energy, other countries will. And if those other countries, like China, do so before America, well, they'll develop more efficiently, make more money and become more powerful. I can't help but think: so what? His unabashed Americanism was just a little bit annoying considering the critical condition of the environment.

America should become a participant in the creation of clean-energy. And it should do so, not for a sense of global dominance, but because of the danger we collectively find ourselves in.

Blog THIS: October 31

October 31, 2008
Strike at York University?
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 04:41 PM ET

York University may find itself embroiled in a strike next week. The strike may be the last resort for teaching assistants, graduate assistants, research assistants, and contract faculty, if negotiations regarding wage increases and job security, among other things, do not prove fruitful. Sadly, the media, with its poor research and resultant inaccuracies, has not been helping the situation.

The Globe and Mail published an article today covering this development but omitted some key facts and, frankly, got others completely wrong. The article says that the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the representative and organizing body for the teaching assistants, graduate assistants, research assistants, and contract faculty, "is seeking a 30-per-cent wage increase".

Yet from a third-party, I obtained an email from the union's Chief Steward, Tyler Shipley, and he wrote this about their wage demands: "we have been clear with the employer that our wage demand - currently 15.6% - is flexible and subject to change". That was 15.6% - not 30. How did the Globe get this wrong? Couldn't they have spoken with any one of the union's representatives for some accurate numbers? The article ends with the line "Union officials did not respond to calls"; perhaps this serves as an answer?

Well, unfortunately, that is simply untrue. Tyler Shipley, in the same email, writes this: "I got a message at 10:00 this morning from the Globe and Mail asking for a comment on negotiations. When I called back at 12:00, no one answered the phone. At 12:15, I noticed this article". Continuing, he says "the union did respond, I phoned the individual reporter myself, but...the Globe and Mail chose not to answer the phone."

Blog THIS: October 30

October 30, 2008
Obama and NAFTA
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 05:16 PM ET

The American Presidential election is coming to a close next tuesday, November 4. Canadians might be watching this election as if it were a tv show - amused, entertained, titillated, yet ultimately detached. But let's not forget just how much our future is wrapped up in the dealings of those south of the border.

Case in point, our economies are very much intertwined at the moment. With the signing of the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993, Canada, the United States, and Mexico, forged a special trade relationship comprising lowered tariffs and, since 1998, the elemination of all tariffs on qualifying goods traded between Canada and the United States. Some of the effects of the agreement include relaxed restrictions on the mobility of workers from the three states; the strengthened role of foreign corporations in domestic affairs; and weakened environmental regulations; and weakened workers unions.

So in light of our growing integration with the United States, and the current election, Paul Cellucci, American ambassador to Canada, thought he would tell us what a Barack Obama administration would mean. He said that if Obama wins, there will be pressure on him "to . . . open up NAFTA and make significant changes. I don't think that's in U.S. interest; I don't think that's in Canadian interest." This would be a "danger" to Canada in Cellucci's view.

What Cellucci fails to understand, or conveniently forgets to mention, is that Canada is deeply apprehensive about NAFTA-as-it-currently-stands. The agreement is still seen as doing more for the United States than for Canada, and a good majority of Canadians feel the agreement should be renegotiated. The kind of renegotiation Cellucci warns of should not be seen as a "danger" to Canada. It's quite obviously an oppurtunity.

Blog THIS: October 29

October 29, 2008
Obama and socialism
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 04:13 PM ET

McCain, Palin, and their Republican acolytes have recently taken to calling Barack Obama a socialist. In making that "charge" (apparently socialism is a very bad thing in the States) they point to Obama's progressive, or punitive, depending on how you look at it, income-tax plan. In his plan, people making more than $250,000 will face increased tax rates. The rest will experience tax cuts. The McCain campaign calls this redistributionist and, therefore, socialist.

There are a few things to keep in mind at this point: graduated taxation is not necessarily socialism. It is, at best, only one of the conditions for socialism. The United States is now and has been for quite a while a country with a graduated income-tax rate. Obama merely wants to increase the top marginal income-tax rate from 35 to 39.6, amounting to an incremental progression from an existing income-tax plan - not a major shift into a totally different economic system.

Finally, McCain and Palin should not be throwing stones. Palin, as Alaska's governor, did nothing but redistribute wealth. Here is the New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg on Palin's hypocrisy:

"She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government's activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year's check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269."

And when asked in 2000 why people are being penalized for making more money and if this was socialism, McCain responded: "Here's what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."

That indeed might be what he really feels. Now why can't he bring himself to let the truth out? He knows Obama is not a socialist and, ultimately, he sort of agrees with Obama's plan, if not the specifics. Where's the "Straight Talk Express" now?

Blog THIS: October 29

October 29, 2008
The presidential election is only six days away!
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 11:18 AM ET

Six days from now, on November 4th, America will decide its president. They will either choose the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, or the Republican, John McCain. But what would choosing either amount to? Many of us know what the candidates have said they will do as president, but, of course, what one says and what one does are often two different things.

Michael Walzer, the political philosopher and co-editor of Dissent, composed a very helpful list of what, at least, a Barack Obama presidency would mean to international affairs. No more unilateralism; a more pronounced approach to global warming; the probable shut-down of Guantanamo Bay; and European cooperation on common security issues, among other things.

undecided minds

The New Yorker's David Sedaris wrote an amusing piece for the current issue. It's about undecided voters and the American presidential election. Sedaris, naturally, is a liberal and a supporter of Obama, so on this topic and in the context of a race between an obviously superior candidate, Obama, and the woeful McCain, Sedaris writes:

To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”

To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.

Funny, but is this the way we should look at undecided voters? Are they really this dumb; this incapable of seeing the great and relevant distinctions between Obama and McCain? Well, two neuroscientists want to say that undecideds "may be more willing than others to take their time — or else just unaware that they have essentially already made a choice." Although they may "require a higher degree of confidence before they commit", they might nevertheless betray a preference, an inclination, for one choice over the other. "In psychological studies, people who describe themselves as undecided often reveal a pronounced preference when they are forced to choose. When someone reports being only “moderately sure” of a decision like whether to accept a new job, his eventual choice is all but certain."

If this is true, many self-identifying undecided voters might, after all, be staunch supporters of one or the other (preferebly Obama). And the question Sedaris asks, "I mean, really, what’s to be confused about?", might after all be meant for no one.

Chavez and human rights

A little over two months ago, a pair of researchers for Human Rights Watch released a report on Hugo Chavez's Venezuela and its human rights violations. That night they were expelled. Read their account here: including the helping hand offered by Venezuelen officials who broke into the researchers' room to pre-pack their bags.

Key passage:

In the more than twenty years that Human Rights Watch has worked in Latin America, no government has ever expelled our representatives for our work, not even the right-wing dictatorships guilty of far more egregious abuses than those committed by Chávez. Presumably they knew better. After all, Chávez's decision to expel us merely served to confirm the central message of our report and ensure that it received extensive coverage around the globe.

Why did Chávez do it? One Brazilian on the plane on which we were forced to leave Venezuela offered a view that is increasingly widespread throughout Latin America: "Chávez is crazy." But the human rights defenders we work with in Venezuela have drawn a far more sobering conclusion. Chávez, in their view, was sending a deliberate message to his fellow countrymen: he will not allow human rights guarantees to get in his way, no matter what the rest of the world may think.

Blog THIS: October 27

October 27, 2008
soldiers and terrorists atwitter
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 03:33 PM ET

The global War on Terror has a new front: Twitter! The American military has now taken up the idea of tracking the Twitter accounts of terrorists in the hopes they can intercept their moves and whereabouts. Of course, this tactic could just as easily backfire, proving to be counter-productive and a great waste of time. For one, Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists hepfully points out that if the American military has the time and resources to track Twitter accounts, they probably aren't facing too much danger. Check out the three potential consequences of this move, with special attention to the last one (Scenario 3):

"Scenario 1: Terrorist operative "A" uses Twitter with… a cell phone camera/video function to send back messages, and to receive messages, from the rest of his [group]... Other members of his [group] receive near real time updates (similar to the movement updates that were sent by activists at the RNC) on how, where, and the number of troops that are moving in order to conduct an ambush.

Scenario 2: Terrorist operative "A" has a mobile phone for Tweet messaging and for taking images. Operative "A" also has a separate mobile phone that is actually an explosive device and/or a suicide vest for remote detonation. Terrorist operative "B" has the detonator and a mobile to view "A's" Tweets and images. This may allow "B" to select the precise moment of remote detonation based on near real time movement and imagery that is being sent by "A."

Scenario 3: Cyber Terrorist operative "A" finds U.S. [soldier] Smith's Twitter account. Operative "A" joins Smith's Tweets and begins to elicit information from Smith. This information is then used for... identity theft, hacking, and/or physical [attacks]. This scenario... has already been discussed for other social networking sites, such as My Space and/or Face Book."

Blog THIS: October 24

October 24, 2008
Suzuki is still green
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 04:40 PM ET

A National Post columnist characterized David Suzuki as saying the Green Party should no longer exist - basing this on some of Suzuki's remarks. On Tuesday, Suzuki spoke to students of Lakehead University and said, it's true, there should be no Green party. But, if we simply read the statement in context, the paradox that Suzuki would oppose the Green party should be resolved. Suzuki later explained:

"The article is a grotesque version of what I said," said Dr. Suzuki. "I said I look forward to the day when there is no Green Party because as long as there is one, the environment is a political football when it should be the basis of every party's platform. But until that time, I said I was glad there was a Green Party and that Elizabeth May got into the leaders' debates. I did not 'rebuke' Greens. I wish these reporters would listen and report, not hear what they want to hear."

Now, I know the National Post can be fairly conservative, but since when did that mean insulting their readers' intelligence?

Human beings deserve better than this

This afternoon, a female volunteer for the McCain campaign confessed to making up a story about being mugged by an African-American man near an ATM. In the fabrication, this phantom-man, angered by her support for McCain, attacked and etched the letter "B" in her cheek. The letter, of course, was scratched backwards...

How high up does this hoax go? Was McCain's inner circle it's author? If so, McCain deserves to both lose this presidential race and be held up on the national stage as a profoundly awful man. To use existing racial tensions and fears for political gain is ignoble, short-sighted, and tantamount to advancing some people at the expense of others. To fabricate a story like this is increadibly unjust and criminal. Black males have been characterized-to-death already. They don't need a fresh, topical, and politically-relevant description of who they are. The McCain camp needs to know that African-Americans are Americans too. They do not deserve to be the go-to scapegoats. No one does.

Blog THIS: October 23

October 23, 2008
The torture of three Muslim-Canadians
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 04:59 PM ET

The news has come out that Canadian officials indirectly contributed to the arrests and torture of three Muslim-Canadians. This revalation followed an inquiry by retired Supreme Court Judge, Frank Iacobucci into the separate, but thematically linked, cases of Ahmad El Maati, Muayyed Nureddin and Abdullah Almalki. The RCMP, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and the department of Foreign Affairs, all did things that had the unintended consequence of having the three men imprisoned and tortured in Syria. The CSIS and the RCMP shared information, leading to Nureddin's torture. The RCMP, Iacobucci's inquiry reveals, received, from outside foreign agencies, information and accusations the men were "Islamic extremists". They then shared this information with Syria before checking the validity of the claims for themselves. It should be noted that they were never officially charged with any crimes.

In today's Globe and Mail, Wesley Warm, a security specialist, would not let us forget the importance of intelligence sharing. Although we must be careful to protect the civil rights of citizens, intelligence sharing is a critical step on the road to global security, he argues. The last line of his piece:

"Judicially inspired degrees of caution about the sharing of intelligence might save some Canadians from harm; it might also expose many Canadians to harm."

This sounds very callous. It amounts to justifying the mistreatment of the three men because such acts are essential aspects of a system (intelligence sharing) that will prevent potential harm. But can't we have both: intelligence sharing with rigorous fact-checking and oversight, thus maintaining our status as a part of the global network without indirectly throwing your own citizens under the bus?

Foreign Policy Magazine compiled two informative lists: one with Barack Obama's 10 worst ideas and another with John McCain's.

Blog THIS: October 17

October 17, 2008
Canada in the world
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 12:21 AM ET

Embassy, a foreign policy newsweekly and division of The Hill Times, published a report on Canada's current place in foreign development yesterday. This report consisted of articles written by journalists and professors on what Canada has done, might do in light of the Tory win this Tuesday, and probably should do.

Stephen Brown (page 17), professor of political science at the University of Ottawa, insisted Canada provide more aid to developing countries. We have not, he points out, lived up to our promise to devote 0.7 per cent of the gross national product (GNP) to foreign aid - not by a long-shot if we only look at Stephen Harper's 0.28 per cent allotment last year. He urges us not to use the financial crisis as an excuse to cut funding because developing countries will be hurt by it as well, and this, of all times, is not when we should be frugal. He also criticizes the Harper government for endorsing the concept of "aid effectiveness". This is the practice of only spending money on countries, and on specific sectors of society, that will benefit the most. Now, this sounds like a perfectly fine thing: all things being equal, efficiency should be sought. But, in practice, "the policy implies focusing on middle-income countries that already have the capacity to transform outside financing into economic growth. However, the poorest countries often require assistance to create a growth-friendly environment." It is the poorest countries, the ones that lack the kind of infrastructure and social institutions to benefit most effectively from aid, that happen to need it the most.

Nipa Banerjee (page 18), professor of international development at the University of Ottawa, wrote about the primacy of aid effectiveness, contra Stephen Brown.

Jeff Davis (page 19) discusses the effect the financial crisis will have on the developing world, noting that foreign direct investment will drop; developing world exporters will have fewer buyers; and developing countries that subsist on the money from luxury goods exports will suffer.

Hugh Segal (page 20), a conservative senator, wrote about making the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) less mired in bureaucracy and, by dispersing it from its central location, Hull, make it more responsive to the realities of/in the developing countries it's supposed to assist. As such, he supports Bill C-293 because it "calls for a new consultative relationship between CIDA and our NGOs, many of whom are better situated in aid recipient countries than CIDA itself."

Lee Berthiaume (also page 20) discusses the role and future of democracy-promotion, ie. helping developing countries become more democratic. He writes of the Tory proposal to create a separate agency for democracy-promotion, and the complexities involved in this task.

Read the full report to fill my summaries out. It might be helpful considering that foreign policy was an issue almost nobody discussed this past election.

Blog THIS: October 15

October 15, 2008
Harper's Economics 101
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 02:56 PM ET

In the wake of Stephen Harper's and the Conservative Party's win last night, the leader has drawn a six-point economic plan. He spoke today of holding a conference with first ministers; issuing a fiscal update by the end of November; and forging an expanded relationship with the European Union. This last one involves freer trade based on a prospective bilateral agreement between Canada and the EU.

Interestingly, this happens the same day the Globe and Mail publishes a commentary by Roy MacLaren, co-chairman of the Canada-Europe Roundtable for Business. He endorses the idea of eliminating tariffs and increasing bilateral trade.

This leaves us wondering if liberalization and deregulation are, in fact, part of the solution to this economic problem; and why Harper failed to discuss this plan earlier. Why did he wait until the day after he'd won the election to unveil this plan? Transparency is an essential aspect of both elected and potential governments alike, and Harper seems to have stumbled his way through the gate.

Blog THIS: October 14

October 14, 2008
A final hearing
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 05:07 PM ET | Comments (0)

The Toronto Star today published short pieces written by four of the national leaders: Stephen Harper, Stephane Dion, Jack Layton, and Elizabeth May. There essays included specific proposals, broadsides against other leaders, and some evocative language.

Both Harper and Dion used the word "strong" in one form or another, and often. Harper used it three times, saying "Canada now has the strongest economy in the G7"; insisting on your vote because of his "strong support for families"; and concluding that he will ensure Canada remains "strong, united, independent and free." In his first sentence, Dion asks if Canada has "grown stronger under the Harper Conservatives?". He also litters one sentence with the word, saying: "Only the Liberal Party offers the combination of a strong record as economic managers, a strong team of experienced men and women ready to take action on Day 1, and a strong plan for Canada's future."

Layton surprised me when he used the word not once. But he did use another one of his catch-phrases: evoking the mythical "kitchen-table" and asserting that Harper does not care about the concerns of people who make their decisions there.

May was increadibly vague and lofty in her essay. She wrote of representative democracy's history in North America and the moral obligation to political engagement, only mentioning her actual proposals in the penultimate paragraph. She doesn't exactly have Barack Obama's gift for expression, so I suggest she sticks to more concrete discussions in the future.

Harper wrote of his party's economic prudence. He wants to convince us he can do a good job of handling the current economic situation. For that end, he criticized Dion's carbon tax for being expensive and, therefore, very untimely. Dion, in turn, did not forget to include Harper's comment that the economic downdraft was the right time to buy stocks, effectively painting Harper as insensitive and unprepared to handle the problem. Naturally, Layton criticized Harper, but he also had some words for Dion. He called the carbon tax unfair and pointed out the fact that Dion voted along with the Conservatives 43 times as Opposition leader. Layton wants us to believe that he, unlike Dion, can truly fulfill the obligations of the official Opposition party's leader. If not the government's leader.

And that's what we all want to know. Who will best fulfill the role of Prime Minister today? We will not have a conclusive answer to that question anytime soon, but we will know who the nation elected to be Prime Minister by the end of this evening.

Blog THIS: October 8

October 08, 2008
Can the Conservatives be defeated by a coaltion of parties? Doubt it.
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 05:10 PM ET

Judy Rebick's piece in today's Globe and Mail raises the troubling possibility that this election will not be democratic. For it to be democratic, the thoughts and feelings of Canadians would have to be represented by their government. "More than two-thirds of Canadians", Rebick says, support "strong action on climate change; government intervention to create jobs and defend ordinary Canadians against the impact of the global economic crisis; an end to the war in Afghanistan; public support for the arts; implementation of at least the Kelowna Accord to raise the standard of living for aboriginal people; and a national child-care program that includes the creation of thousands of new child-care spaces." And still, the Conservatives may just eke out a win, even a majority. How representative would that be?

Her suggestion is that the Liberal Party, the NDP, the Green Party, and the Bloc Quebecois establish an alliance in the event of a Conservative minority government. As a majority-of-minorities they can overwhelm the Conservatives with their concerted effort to push progressive policies.

I like the sentiment behind this proposed tactic: it would be nice to see our representatives cast differences aside for the greater good. But things might not work out as smoothly as Rebick hopes. She describes the events unfolding like this: "With such agreement, they can defeat the government and go to the Governor-General with an offer to form a new government. They don't have to agree on everything, and they don't need to form a full coalition government. They just have to agree on some key points, and whoever has the most seats can form the government with a written promise to bring in the policies agreed on."

Well and good. But I can't help but think this is a little idealistic. This sounds a lot like the power-sharing of proportional representation and we've seen how that's worked in other countries. In Italy, for example, the Prime Minister's office has been occupied 37 times, sometimes by the same man, like the the current PM, Silvio Berlusconi, who is serving his third and inconsecutive term. It's the constant coaltion-building and power-sharing that causes all this instability. Alliances of parties that are still, let's not forget, in competition with one another are inherently unstable. The various parties in Italy simply realized they have as good a reason to dissent from even the most noble coaltion as they do to cooperate.

Canadian political parties are not above all that, in my opinion.

On the possibility of racism without racists

The New Yorker has shed its garb of journalistic neutrality to support Barack Obama in this election. Anything else would be irresponsible.

Blog THIS: October 1

October 01, 2008
enviro-friendly debate
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 03:51 PM ET

For all you environmentally conscious types who believe the problems facing our rapidly weakening ecosystem can be tackled by government regulation and coordination, check out this piece from the CBC. It streamlines the deluge of information we have been getting from our federal parties into a simple assessment of what their environmental proposals are, how they plan to achieve them (the most important part, in my opinion), and suggested questions to ask these parties.

Let's hope enough time is spent discussing this during tonight's debate so people can make informed (read: correct) decisions.

Is the juggernaut to the south, the world's sole superpower, the global hegemony, falling down? Read John Gray's piece arguing that indeed it is.

Blog THIS: September 29

September 29, 2008
A compass for the road to the general election
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 05:30 PM ET | Comments (1)

We often use the old left-right spectrum while describing political sympathies. You are on the right if you favour the free market, limited government intervention, and, often, social conservatism. You are on the left if you favour economic safety nets, or progressivism, and social inclusiveness. Simple. Neat. Inadequate.

The Political Compass tries to lend us a few more tools for this endeavour. We can now use the concepts of Authoritarianism and Libertarianism to draw a more detailed description of our political leanings; therefore allowing for more discriminating analysis. For example, both Stalin and Gandhi were leftists because they favoured the coordination of the economy by government bodies. But they obviously were very different as well. One viewed citizens as mere things to be pushed around and controlled by the state; while the other assumed the intrinsic worth of every individual and therefore gave great importance to the notion of personal choice - Gandhi would not force anything on you. So, Stalin is a leftist-authoritarian while Gandhi is a leftist-libertarian. Simple. Neat. A little less inadequate.

Now look below for where the Canadian federal parties place during this election season. I was surprised by the Green party.

Blog THIS: September 26

September 26, 2008
On vetting your candidates: try googling their names
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 03:23 PM ET

Before a political party settles on a candidate to run in an election they engage in the immensely important process of vetting. This is simply the examination of and research into the candidate in question: findout out about their personal history; their legislative or executive record; and everything else about the person so they don't unwittingly choose a candidate with skeletons in their closet.

Naturally, no amount of research will uncover every slip-up made by potential candidates. Some candidates will pass through, undetected by their party's elders and run their campaigns, only to be found out later (if at all). Some, however, are so bad you're left wondering how it's possible they weren't found out earlier. This election has its example: Julian West, the NDP candidate for MP in the Saanich-Gulf Islands riding, recently dropped out for going nude in front of minors, some 12 years ago. In the United States, John McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, is obviously the product of poor vetting. This is as certain as anything after her pathetic display of vacuity in the Katie Couric interview.

Why weren't these two unelectables discovered earlier? Could the people making the final decision on who runs be forgiven: they are, in fact, mere humans. We all make mistakes. And I'm sure they put at their disposal every single research tool to uncover all the relevant details. Well, sadly this is an assumption I should purge myself of. When the leader of the NDP, Jack Layton, was asked how thoroughly the party vetts its portential candidates, he assured us they would take more stringent measures in the future. As he put it:

"We thought it had been adequate. Evidently not . . . We're reviewing it, no question about that. In this era of Googles and everything else there's obviously new techniques we may be able to employ."
First, why did he call it "Googles"? Second, they didn't do a google search in vetting Julian West? The party passed up a chance to find something that could hurt them because they couldn't squeeze five minutes of basic internet browsing into their jam-packed day? Every high school student knows they can google something if it has been reported in the past, and the NDP can't google one of their potential candidates for Member of Parliament? The Republican Party couldn't spend more time researching Palin's credentials and capacities?

The state of our presumptive representatives is appaling. They are increasingly anti-intellectual, and now anti-information - hopefully it's only to their own detriment.

Blog THIS: September 25

September 25, 2008
We need more intellectuals to run for office.
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 12:14 PM ET

The Liberal Party is imploding, with Stephane Dion as unpopular as ever and left-leaning people increasingly shifting to the NDP, or even the Green Party. This is not the Liberal Party's year. But aren't they so very lucky to have Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal MP and deputy leader, as a member of their club? Yesterday, The New Republic, a very influential publication out of the United States, published a book review written by Ignatieff. The book he reviewed was Freedom's Battle: The Origins of Humanitarian Intervention, by Gary J. Bass.

It's a history of the intensely debated idea of humanitarian intervention, and Ignatieff displays a genuine understanding. Which is not very surprsing considering that in the past he has been a professor of history; a journalist; director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University; a writer of books on nation-building and human rights; and even a writer of novels. Humanitarian intervention has been a point of great focus and research time for him.

We can't really say the same thing about other politicians. Their grasp of issues are usually superficial and glib. More of our representatives need to be like Ignatieff. We need more people like him in the room when foreign policy issues call for subtle and deep thinking. I hope the party to lead at the end of this election has someone this smart around, because it just doesn't look like it'll be the Liberals.

Blog THIS: September 24

September 24, 2008
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 05:34 PM ET

In this election, and in most others, strong words are common and as plentiful as the air we breathe. Stephane Dion has been pegged an effete, weak-chinned, intellectual; Jack Layton, a crude Barack Obama imitation; and Stephen Harper, stone-hearted and disengaged. Well now Harper can add "genocidal" to the list. Dr. Julio Montaner, a researcher on HIV/AIDS, accused the Harper government, on monday, of practicing the worst of all criminal activities due to their support of closing down Vancouver's supervised drug injection facility, known also as InSite.

Montaner's problem with this is that InSite, as some studies have shown, has done quite a bit to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS in the downtown Eastside of Vancouver, with nurses providing clean needles.

I understand the intuition behind the Conservative's position. It's something like this: all things being equal, we should not assist others in their acts of self-harm. But, of course, the real world is messy and complex, and it forces us to do things we might not like for the benefit of greater goods. And there is a greater good with InSite. The drug addict is better off with this alternative to sharing needles and risking transmitting diseases.

If you feel the same way, you have an alternative as well. From the Globe and Mail, Layton this monday on InSite: "All of the evidence indicates that this is a way that we can help people, and it is tragic that the federal government is not providing that support," he said at a campaign stop in Montreal. "It saves lives."

make it better

I think this, an article on the urgency and importance of economic change, is excellent.

Blog THIS: September 23

September 23, 2008
Layton, Harper, and the Arts
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 11:50 AM ET

So far, the Conservative Party has made a real push for votes in Quebec. Harper recently asked Quebecers to ignore the Bloc Quebecois, saying the party would do nothing but come "empty-handed". And the Conservatives were doing quite well in the polls — beating the traditional favourites, the Bloc, infused with the sense that this was a sign of even more good to come. But all things are liable to change. Harper's proposal for a $45-million cut in arts funding has not been well-received (read: hated) by the average Quebecer. Who could have guessed it?

Well, perhaps the NDP's Jack Layton. Glimpsing the Zeitgeist, he swooped into Quebec with plans to reverse the Conservatives' proposed cuts. Fleshing out the details, he said he would expand to the rest of the country the common Quebec practice of income-averaging for artitsts; and he would provide tax exemptions to those earning income from copyright and residuals; among other, artistically-conscious, things. He also played the guitar and sang for the press.

I must say I enjoy this kind of instant-democracy. One party proposes a plan that does little more than anger people, and another comes along to provide its opposite. It might have been better to get it right from the beginning; or to not have to rely on public outrage to find out what the people want, but this is the way it goes - for better or worse. Our political system is a lot like what a scientist might call a kludge: a clumsy and inelegant, yet surprisingly efficient, solution to a problem.

Blog THIS, September 22

September 22, 2008
The carbon-tax is a plan, but where is it taking us?
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 11:25 AM ET

The Liberal and the Green party share at least one thing in common this election: they both have carbon-tax plans. The specifics, of reducing income taxes and increasing taxes on fuel and other carbon emitters, are almost exactly alike. Well, except for Elizabeth May's superior presentation. Speaking of Stephane Dion, she says: "I can explain it better than he can."

But we should not forget that carbon-taxes have been implemented before, primarily in European countries. And we would do well to survey the various incarnations of this globe-trotting plan; forming an evaulation of the Liberal/Green proposal(s) in this light.

So, to begin, Finland started this eco-conscious trend in 1990 with its carbon-tax plan. As of January 2008, Finland has increased its tax by about 9.8% and exempted taxes on biofuel. In the UK, after including a Fuel Price Escalator, by which the tax would gradually, but inexorably, increase, there were public revolts. People were simply paying too much. The increases have since ended. British Columbia already has a carbon-tax plan and Stephane Dion, for one, has stated he would not exempt it from his national plan: effectively taxing its residents twice.

Questions also arise concerning how efficient carbon-taxes are, assuming people can even afford them. Is it true they require heavy government subsidies? How does it remain a self-sustaining way of taxing the bad things in our environment if these subsidies must be made?

I for one believe our environmental problems can be solved, in part at least, through economic means. The carrot and stick of economic incentives are quite persuasive. I just wonder if our national leaders have found the precise way of getting us on the right track.

Blog THIS, September 19

September 19, 2008
Where have all the rational voters gone?
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 11:27 AM ET

Although a lot of us would hate to admit this, myself included, we are, in at least some very significant ways, determined by our genes. We are open to new experiences; dogmatic; and open-minded, among other personality traits, because of genetic inclinations. But what's more, researchers are now saying these traits affect our political orientation. So, my genes indirectly, but surely, affect my voting preferences! Some people just can't help but be conservative, while others liberal. Also, a study being published today says our physiological tendencies affect our views on specific policies.

From today's Globe and Mail:

"The researchers examined 46 individuals with strong political attitudes and found that those with "measurably lower physical sensitivities to sudden noises and threatening visual images were more likely to support foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism and gun control."
On the other hand, "individuals displaying measurably higher physiological reactions to those same stimuli were more likely to favour defence spending, capital punishment, patriotism and the Iraq war.""

All of this raises doubts about our claim to being rational decision makers during election time. The majority of us will be voting on the basis of genetic predispositions; heritable ideological outlooks; and just plain knee-jerk reactions. So what's the point of debating the policy promises of Harper, Dion, Layton, May, and Duceppe?

Well, despite all this research, I think there is a point. Our genes might affect our minds, let's grant that, but our minds are perfectly capable of clearing genetic hurdles. It might be difficult for our dogmatic friends, but they can learn to be a little more humble in their opinions. The open-minded soul can become narrow and rigid, xenophobic even. And the easily frightened defence-spender may become bold and fearless. Anything is possible. But only with constant engagement and effort. So, on with the debates, party leaders. We'll try to listen for a change.

Blog THIS, September 18

September 18, 2008
Stephane Dion is not a leader? Is Harper either?
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 10:34 AM ET

I once remember Andrew Sullivan, that tireless blogger and commentator on American politics, distinguishing government from politicts in a very interesting way. Government, he said, is an incremental process involving detailed legislation and backroom negotiation. Politics, on the other hand, is something more theatrical and personality-driven. It is about convincing people to share in a certain vision for the country, province, state, or town, and moving them to action. This is usually accomplished with a combination of rhetorical sensibility, admirable character, and a healthy balance of populism and independence of thought. The master of Politics is what we might call a leader.

This brings us to our current election, where the Prime Minister has the reputation of being a strong leader. The Conservative Party continues to brand Stephane Dion as not up to the task of leading, while describing Stephen Harper as being unquestionably prepared for it. And a large part of the country seems to agree. Andrew Coyne of Maclean's had something to say about this in a recent column and in a blog post:

"But is that all there is to it? What do we mean by a strong leader? Strong in what sense? Leader in what sense? The word "leader" suggests someone who will lead us to something or somewhere. Yet Harper's whole time in office has been spent reassuring the public he has no plans to lead them anywhere, that under a Conservative government nothing much would change — they would govern much like the Liberals, only without the corruption. His message so far in the campaign has been much the same. There's been little sense of where he would take the country if re-elected, and little likelihood of one emerging. Indeed, he is at pains to emphasize his belief that the election will probably return another minority Parliament — the very one whose dissolution he had lately demanded."

So why do we persist in accepting this definition of Harper? Could it be the lack of real competitors to the title; our low standards; a dispiriting mix of the two?

Blog THIS, September 17

September 17, 2008
David Miller says "Vote Toronto" (read: "Greens")
Posted by Daniel Tseghay at 02:00 PM ET

David Miller indirectly endorsed the Green party yesterday when he praised their national transit plan and their promise to increase funding for municipal infrastructure. Although he did not officially endorse the party, he did say it had the best plan for cities in a radio interview yesterday.

He also contrasted this thinly-veiled endorsement with some strong words for Stephen Harper, due, no doubt, to the latter's tendency to leave cities in the care of their respective provinces without a second glance.

"The prime minister always says cities are not of national importance," said Miller. "They are. And all of the parties should be speaking to that."

Although David Miller seems to be alone among mayors who opine on the federal election, perhaps the rest should take his example. It would be nice to have more democratically elected officials give their constituents an honest opinion.

Why the novelist Michael Chabon likes Obama:

For one thing the guy can write. He's a really good writer and that means a lot to me and is not true of almost anyone else who's ever run for office since I've been voting. I know that might seem silly, but that means something to me. But it's not just that he can write, it's that his writing, especially when he writes about America and American history, displays this sense of complete ambivalence. Of being fully conscious of both what's great and what's terrible about America and American history. The ills, the evils, the massacres, the injustices that have been done, and at the same time a sense of pride and faith and optimism that's coupled with a totally clear-eyed sense of the grimness that's there as well.

This is a recurring point of attraction for many artists and intellectuals.

secular mysticism

From Albert Einstein’s The World as I see It:

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery – even if mixed with fear – that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms – it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.

To do

Vote Michael Byers.

Obama's convention speech

Barack Obama has been described in some very unflattering ways. They have called him elitist. A supporter of black liberation theology. An overly intellectual pontificator. The Other. A celebrity. Out of touch with the average working-class American. Inexperienced and ill-prepared to lead. A secret Muslim. A man of oratorical gifts with little substance or concrete ideas. They have said all these things in a span of less than one year. But with his convention speech on August 28th, he effectively silenced these presumptive narrators of his story.

This was a less lyrical speech than past efforts, intent as he was in defining his specific plans and countering the meme that he is nothing by a rhetorician. He would shift tax breaks away from corporations and towards the poor and the middle-class. Well and good. He would develop a sorely needed health insurance system that would ensure affordable medical care for those that need it but cannot manage its costs. He assured America that, unlike McCain, he does not support the privatization of Social Security. He laid out an intuitive criticism of the trickle-down economic theory McCain has often espoused. “For over two decades," said Obama, "he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own.” He criticized McCain for voting in favor of Bush policies about 90 percent of the time in the Senate; and of agreeing to go into Iraq when they should have stayed and invested more in the fight in Afghanistan. These plans and words of censure are of the times, and he articulated the mood well. The people were with him.

Now, naturally there were things he said I could not agree with. For one, he advocated energy independence. This is a shame in the light of this idea’s history and the specifics of his plan. The proposal of energy independence has been around since Nixon and it’s for good reason it hasn’t gotten off the ground. There are, as yet, no good replacements for foreign oil. Obama still defends the creation of fuel from food, or biofuel of the corn-based variety. But biofuel is a nonstarter. For one, it contains much less energy per quantity than oil. It also takes much more energy to produce biofuel (the vast amounts of fresh water, and the cleared forests, let alone the seemingly limitless corn) than might be expected, making the energy “investment” greater than the energy gained. In the near future they may discover something as efficient as oil, but biofuel is not it, and Obama would do well to realize this sooner than later. Also, even assuming a good fuel alternative, it would take a lot of time and, yes, energy to replace the existing infrastructure. This would take even more foreign oil. So, the idea for now cannot be energy independence.

Nevertheless, this is all a good start. Obama has made his goals clear. Time and a healthy dose of pragmatism will flesh these ideas out and, hopefully, improve them.

With this speech Obama made the case that Democrats are as patriotic as Republicans and as prepared and capable of defending their country as any. He laid the claim that America is as much about the self-reliance Republicans praise so much as the collective responsibility they praise not enough. More than any Democrat of late, he has set an ambitious course. This moving speech is a dream beginning its realization.

Obama's tactic

I played basketball in high school and there was one thing a coach of mine said that's stayed with me over the years. He pointed to a player on our team that was tall and, with his impressive leaping ability, could block a great number of shots. Our coach said to him: "look small, crouch, keep your arms low, anything to let the other team think they have free reign to shoot and drive to the hoop. And when they do, block every one of their shots." This was an important point. If you have something on your opponent, keep it hidden. Let them think they have the upper-hand. Let them think they've got you in their crosshairs. Let them think they are about to win. Then knock 'em down.

This is exactly what Obama did to McCain with his convention speech yesterday. From Andrew Sullivan's blog:

The McCain campaign set Obama up as a celebrity airhead, a Paris Hilton of wealth and elitism. And he let them portray him that way, and let them over-reach, and let them punch him again and again ... and then he turned around and destroyed them. If the Rove Republicans thought they were playing with a patsy, they just got a reality check.

This is not a tactic of humiliation. It's about letting your opponent reveal, or betray, their smallness of vision, of ability, and of foresight. It is a supremely smart move by a man that is not only great, but immensely practical.

Read this interesting reappraisal of George W. Bush's administration. Could his foreign policy have been smart and apt after all?

amor fati

I've been reading quite a bit of Nietzsche lately. I can't say I understand all of what he writes so far, but I am currently going through what may be his greatest work, Beyond Good and Evil, and I get the impression it is, at least in part, an extended meditation on what it means to be noble, or great-souled. I'd like to quote a passage from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics in which Aristotle speaks of the noble person because Nietzsche's ideas were influenced by Aristotle's description, and because it works as a tentative summary.

So, Aristotle on the noble person:

He is fond of conferring benefits, but ashamed to receive them, because the former is a mark of superiority and the latter of inferiority...It is also charateristic of the great-souled men never to ask help from others, or only with reluctance, but to render aid willingly; and to be haughty towards men of position and fortune, but courteous towards those of moderate station...He must be open both in love and in hate, since concealment shows timidity; and care more for the truth than for what people will think;...he is outspoken and frank, except when speaking with ironical self-depreciation, as he does to common people...He does not bear a grudge , for it is not a mark of greatness of soul to recall things against people, especially the wrongs they have done you, but rather to overlook them. He is...not given to speaking evil himself, even of his enemies, except when he deliberately intends to give offence...Such then being the great-souled man, the corresponding character on the side of deficiency is the small-souled man... (Book IV, Chapter 3)

How much of this can we recognize as the modern version of a noble, great-souled, human being? If very little, what does that say about us and our times? Have we fallen in with what Nietzsche calls the herd morality, as characterized by its small-souled denizens? Nietzsche would probably say as much.

Hitchens, an immersive journalist

Christopher Hitchens let himself be waterboarded. Here's the video and here's his article describing it.

Google, my boondoggle, and why the revolution will be summarized

There’s a very interesting article in the current Atlantic Monthly written by Nicholas Carr called, and asking, “Is Google making us stupid?” The author, and, presumably, we the reader, could once wade through large pieces of writing, from novels to long-form articles with ease. Concentration was a virtue and a captured commodity. But we have lost our way. Google, Yahoo, the Internet, etc., have made undivided focus frustratingly difficult. To be sure, it has made some things go a lot smoother as well.

Research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes. A few Google searches, some quick clicks on hyperlinks, and I’ve got the telltale fact or pithy quote I was after.

We’ve gained something, it’s undeniable. But we’ve lost another. Carr on brain plasticity:

The human brain is almost infinitely malleable. People used to think that our mental meshwork, the dense connections formed among the 100 billion or so neurons inside our skulls, was largely fixed by the time we reached adulthood. But brain researchers have discovered that that’s not the case. James Olds, a professor of neuroscience who directs the Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study at George Mason University, says that even the adult mind “is very plastic.” Nerve cells routinely break old connections and form new ones. “The brain,” according to Olds, “has the ability to reprogram itself on the fly, altering the way it functions.”

It has the ability to reprogram itself, and become reprogrammed within altered environments. Evolution. We spend a considerable amount of time in an information network that values efficiency and immediacy above depth. This will have an effect on us, our minds.

Carr intimates a relationship among concentration, deep thinking, and, even, humanity. Can the way we read, play, chat, and become distracted, online really erode all that?

From The Beatles’ “I’m only Sleeping”:

Everybody seems to think I'm lazy
I don't mind, I think they're crazy
Running everywhere at such a speed
Till they find, there's no need

I'll describe myself, thank you very much.

I was looking through some old books of mine, when I found Richard Rorty's Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. I haven't read philosophy in a while, so it was refreshing to read a few chapters from that book. Here's a passage I liked, and found particularly moving:

The drama of an individual life, or of the history of humanity as a whole, is not one in which a preexistent goal is triumphantly reached or tragically not reached. Neither a constant external reality nor an unfailing interior source of inspiration forms a background for such dramas. Instead, to see one’s life, or the life of one’s community, as a dramatic narrative is to see it as a process of Nietzschean self-overcoming. The paradigm of such a narrative is the life of the genius who can say of the relevant portion of the past, “Thus I willed it,” because she has found a way to describe the past which the past never knew, and thereby found a self to be which her precursors never knew was possible.*

In this Nietzschean view, the impulse to think, to inquire, to reweave oneself ever more thoroughly, is not wonder but terror. It is, once again, Bloom’s “horror of finding oneself to be only a copy or replica.” The wonder in which Aristotle believed philosophy to begin was wonder at finding oneself in a world larger, stronger, nobler than oneself. The fear in which Bloom’s poets begin is the fear that one might end one’s days in such a world, a world one never made, an inherited world. The hope of such a poet is that what the past tried to do to her she will succeed in doing to the past: to make the past itself, including those very causal processes which blindly impressed all her own behaving, bear her impress. Success in that enterprise – the enterprise of saying “Thus I willed it” to the past – is success in what Bloom calls “giving birth to oneself.”

*When he writes “because she has found a way to describe the past which the past never knew was possible”, he refers to the individual’s creation of a new language, a new set of metaphors, to describe, or re-describe, the past. Freedom and autonomy find their elbow room with that task.

on silence

By Pico Iyer

Silence, then, could be said to be the ultimate province of trust: it is the place where we trust ourselves to be alone; where we trust others to understand the things we do not say; where we trust a higher harmony to assert itself. We all know how treacherous are words, and how often we use them to paper over embarrassment, or emptiness, or fear of the larger spaces that silence brings. "Words, words, words" commit us to positions we do not really hold, the imperatives of chatter; words are what we use for lies, false promises and gossip. We babble with strangers; with intimates we can be silent. We "make conversation" when we are at a loss; we unmake it when we are alone, or with those so close to us that we can afford to be alone with them.

In love, we are speechless; in awe, we say, words fail us.

Here's an article on war; on whether or not it is caused by innate drives; how we can overcome a pugnacious past; and what may lie in wait to prevent this flight to Brotherhood.

A crucial first step toward ending war is to reject fatalism, in ourselves and in our political leaders. That is the view of the Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson, who is renowned for his conservation efforts as well as for his emphasis on the genetic underpinnings of social behavior. A rangy man with a raptor’s long, narrow nose and sharp-eyed gaze, Wilson has not budged from his long-standing position that the propensity for group aggression, including war, is deeply ingrained in our history and nature. He notes, however, that group aggression is highly “labile,” taking many different forms and even vanishing under certain circumstances.

He is therefore confident that we will find ways to cease making war on nature as well as on each other, but it is a race against time and human destructiveness. “I’m optimistic about saving a large part of biodiversity,” he says, “but how much depends on what we do right now. And I think that once we face the problems underlying the origins of tribalism and religious extremism—face them frankly and look for the roots—then we’ll find a solution to those, too, in terms of an informed international negotiation system.” Wilson pauses and adds, “We have no option but optimism.”

Speaking of Naomi Klein, here's her report of China's surveillance culture, "The Golden Shield".

Here's a strong criticism of the limits of a work I admire greatly: Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine.

Stripping down politics to the profit motive will get you a long way in this world. It can be an especially useful corrective when the “crusade against communism” and “battling terrorism” are constantly invoked as noble motives, and when nothing so crass as economic interests are ever admitted. But, needless to say, the move is reductionist.

Klein’s depiction of a monolithic class of politico-corporate elites is not tailored for every political situation. It is not particularly helpful for recognizing and exploiting the differences between Clintonian “free traders,” Republican realists, and neocon fundamentalists. It provides little guidance for understanding what to make of it when the Weekly Standard opposes permanent normal trade relations with China, a key goal of corporate globalists, on human rights grounds. Nor does it allow for distinctions between different sectors of capital—recognizing, for example, that the interests of the vast tourism industry (which is currently furious about how Bush’s War on Terror has adversely affected its business) may not be the same as those of Halliburton. Finally, it denies out of hand that religious conviction or nationalism, independent of commerce, might be forces in influencing Bush administration policy.

the devil's in the details

The global warming expert, Tim Flannery, thinks we are approaching a time when cutting greenhouse gas emissions, closing down coal-burning plants, and replacing them with alternate sources of energy, are not enough in themselves. We need to do something more drastic. Injecting the atmosphere with sulphur, therefore changing the colour of our blue skies, may be as necessary as anything if we hope to survive, says Flannery. This global dimming plan would effectively shield us where our ozone could no longer. Yet, tellingly, Flannery admits "The consequences of doing that are unknown". They're probably more than just unknown, I think. They would probably be disasterous, since you can't make radical changes, especially in the environment, and expect all other variables to remain the same. The changes would be pronounced and harsh. Any other ideas?

Our waters will rise, with global warming melting polar ice sheets and higher temperatures causing our seas to expand. People will lose their lives, their livelihoods and homes through dislocation. What are we to do? Build barriers and wait it out.

Bowman and collaborator Douglas Hill have spent seven years shopping around a proposal to build enormous retractable storm surge barriers in three locations around New York, including one straddling the Verrazano Narrows, and another at Throgs Neck, where Long Island Sound meets the East River. Such barriers, rising fifteen metres above sea level, would effectively wall off New York Harbor if a major hurricane sent tsunami-like waves toward the city. “This would be one of the biggest engineering projects in the history of the United States,” Bowman states.

And yet:

given the alarming but ultimately unpredictable acceleration of climate change, there’s no telling how long a given barrier would afford the necessary protection (even if it were properly maintained), and therefore such structures create a false sense of security and a heightened risk for those who depend on them.

Is this not just a feeble attempt to appear hard at work on the environment, its protection, and ours in the event it fails? There are better avenues: more efficient use of energy (in our homes, for one), better public transportation, alternative fuels (cellulosic ethanol seems a worthy candidate)...etc. Barriers should, at best, be considered a sort of last-ditch effort.

smile

I feel these two characters make up the internal landscape of the bipolar, at least in part. A sense of despair in the face of impossible goals lends itself to courage and hope, the feeling that it can be done.

Here's a very interesting article on fame, charisma, and the divide between the public image and the "true" selves of some of the talented folks.

Foreign Policy Magazine's top 100 public intellectuals.

I think most of us have heard the reports on the havoc wrecked by cyclone Nargis in Burma. The official death count is now at 22,464. But, with 41,054 missing and large areas, usually the hardest hit, yet to be researched and accounted for, some estimate 100,000 may have lost their lives. Over 1 million people will be profoundly affected by this disaster, their sources of food disappearing with the coastline. As survivors mingle with the bodies floating in the now murky villages and towns, water sanitation and disease are becoming real threats on the lives of many more people. To make matters worse, the military dictatorship of Burma (to the junta it's Myanmar) has closed their borders to most foreign aid agencies and foreign governments looking to lend a hand.

From the New Yorker: The junta wants the money and supplies, but it doesn’t want the foreigners with their helicopters and expertise, for the same reason that it doesn’t allow journalists to enter Burma: the regime survives by smothering the truth, from its own people and from the outside world. Its sense of threat from the population is so great that the military is refusing to allow monks to shelter refugees in monasteries, fearing a repetition of last September’s peaceful demonstrations.

Some have invoked the UN "responsibility to protect" mandate, which justifies what we might call a humanitarian intervention in the event the local government is either unwilling to defend the basic rights of their citizens, or is the cause of its violation. This, however, is being met by criticism from countries close to Burma, like China (obviously, because if it allows the precedent of humanitarian intervention, it would have to answer for its own abuses) and Indonesia.

One course of action is suggested at the end of the New Yorker article I cited:

Both the Burmese government restrictions and U.S. economic sanctions make it very difficult to give money to local N.G.O.s directly, but it is possible to support their work by donating to the international groups that have longstanding partnerships with local N.G.O.s and community-based organizations (including churches and monasteries).

The expatriate’s list of organizations includes ADRA, CARE, Project HOPE, Save the Children, UNICEF, World Concern, and World Vision.

Beatles in my feet

As a Beatles fanatic since 2002 I thought I'd direct you, whoever that is, to this interesting article on them, written by a professor of psychology and music, Daniel J Levitin.

Paul McCartney may be the closest thing our generation has produced to Schubert - a master of melody, writing songs that seem to have been there all along. Most people don't realize that the well-known tunes Ave Maria and Serenade were written by Schubert (or that his Moment Musical in F so resembles Martha My Dear). McCartney writes with similar universality. His Yesterday has been recorded by more musicians than any other song in history. Its stepwise melody is deceptively complex, drawing from outside the diatonic scale so smoothly that anyone can sing it, yet few can explain what it is that McCartney has done. (And the odd seven-bar phrases hark back to an old Haydn trick of asymmetric phrases in his minuets.)

Obama in the world

Barack Obama's internationalist foreign policy inspires hope in a better future when compared to Bush's shoot-'em-up approach to the world abroad. Obama seems to genuinely want a more cooperative international order.

From the NY Times:
A post-post-9/11 strategy must harness the forces of globalization while honestly addressing the growing “perception of unfairness” around the world; must actively promote, not just democracy, but “a world of liberty under law”; and must renew multilateral instruments like the United Nations. In mainstream foreign-policy circles, Barack Obama is seen as the true bearer of this vision. “There are maybe 200 people on the Democratic side who think about foreign policy for a living,” as one such figure, himself unaffiliated with a campaign, estimates. “The vast majority have thrown in their lot with Obama.”

Yet, there are still conceivable problems with Obama's foreign policy which should be addressed. Read here to see how Obama may still believe in something like America's moral superiority - an untrue and unpragmatic belief.

Don't rain on my parade

I think China has control issues. There's Taiwan, Tibet, their silencing of all human rights activists, the baleful record on press and religious freedom, and now an attempt to make the opening ceremonies of the Olympic games rain-free by pre-draining the clouds.

babelfish will give us nothing but babble

Read here about someone's idea to creat a universal translator in the event we're visited by extraterrestrials. I can't help but think it's premise, that there is a universal structure underlying the existing languages on earth and beyond, is false.

George Clooney's historical analysis/determinism

Almost Hegelian in a way.

“My father and I were saying that we’ve been lucky as a country historically. When we needed a constitution – something which has to be really well-handled – we had Thomas Jefferson. Then we had a civil war, which could have destroyed the country, and there was Lincoln. With the Depression, we had Roosevelt. The Cuban missile crisis was the closest we’ve ever come to a nuclear holocaust and there was Kennedy. These are some of the greatest leaders of our time, and then we had 2001 and got unlucky. And, listen, I can’t believe that Bush is an evil man – I just think he wasn’t equipped. But maybe 2001 or September 11 wasn’t that moment – although they were two of the biggest moments in our country’s history – but now that our economy is in the tank, our face across the world is probably at its most blemished, our country has been assailed, the fact that we don’t necessarily adhere to the Geneva Convention… maybe in terms of that moment when you absolutely need someone to lead, not manage the country, maybe it’s now.

“Because here’s the thing that’s sort of astonishing. Even at the time of the civil rights movement or Vietnam – when kids actually had something to lose – they still didn’t show up at the polls. But you know what? They’re voting right now like you cannot believe. So maybe this is that moment where, for the first time in our history, kids are going to understand that they have to take the reins of our country and that may be why Barack Obama is around right now.”

notes on food crisis

As the food crisis continues, it's a good idea to find the causes and possible solutions. Most will lay the blame squarely on the governments of some developed states. The subsidies to produce ethanol, rather than food, that they grant their farmers has lowered the supply, increased the demand, and raised the global price of food. Jean Ziegler, UN special rapporteur on the right to food, has blamed such policies for creating mass starvation and has said they amount to "silent mass murder". Canada is very involved in this process, to be sure, because "Canada's Conservative government, playing to the farm lobby and a coterie of rent-seeking corporations, has showered millions on the biofuels market."

Of course, like most things, this is not a simple issue. Taking biofuels out of the equation will not necessarily solve this problem. Some say monocrops (the mass production of a single food in a given environment) is the real cause of the current food crisis...but not too many people have been talking about that.

Anyways, we should only hope this food crisis will be resolved immediately and lead to clear and practical reforms for a more equitable and just future.

William James: “Man can alter his life by altering his thinking.”

Embodied Cognition is the thesis that: "Cognition evolved to guide real bodies in the real world...Our thoughts are constrained and influenced by the details of our flesh. How you move your arm or leg actually shapes the way you perceive, think and remember. " To put it differently, thought is a tool for the purpose of more effective action. We should not think of thought as an end-in-itself, but as something useful only in properly guiding us as social beings with practical, not abstract, problems to solve.

This may explain why young students have so much trouble with algebra: that paragon of abstract and detached (read: disembodied) thought.

conservation refugees

Here's an interesting article on what the writer calls "conservation refugees" - indigenous groups in India, although the term applies to groups throughout the world, as well, who are evicted from their homes and the regions they normally farm, hunt, or gather in, for the expressed purpose of conserving the environment and/or a specific species of wildlife. This alone is wrong. But to make matters worse, conservation is rarely the actual practice:

While the alleged purpose of the evictions was wildlife conservation, teak and eucalyptus plantations eventually replaced more than 40 of the evacuated hamlets. As it has in Botswana, Kenya and elsewhere, conservation in India has become a convenient and respectable cover for less savory motives when the very same national government that removes native people from their land in the name of conservation has no compunctions about giving up ecologically sensitive areas to large-scale development projects.