The meaning of Remembrance
Forget hockey, snow and the beaver. There is only one “sacred caribou” in Canada that NO ONE can question. No jokes, no smiling, no politicking, no challenging: veterans are awesome.
Jesus is questioned more than veterans in Canada. That's why everybody – especially public figures – pitch in a quarter (you jackasses with the dimes and pennies will burn somewhere, sometime) in the most universal fundraiser since the tithe, to prominently wear a red poppy two full weeks ahead of Remembrance Day. Poor Stephen Harper was chastised after reporters overheard him complaining that the venerable poppy doesn't ever stay on – it doesn't, though! I'm often down a buck-fifty by the end of the Remembrance season.
Some say Remembrance Day glorifies war and should instead be taken to rededicate ourselves as a nation to peace. Others argue that it should act as a reminder that we owe our freedom to the sacrifices of an entire generation. Clearly, our 1945 promise, “Never Again,” has been buried in fields in Cambodia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Guatemala, Srebenica, Rwanda, Congo, Iraq and countless other places. Is war required to bring just peace, or is it never warranted so long as nonviolent means remain? Thankfully, that is a question that Canadians rightfully consider the other 364 days of the year.
Canada unveiled its seventh book of remembrance today: collectively, they contain the names of the 112,182 men and women who have died in military combat since 1867, whatever the cause they believed they were fighting for. With our poppies dangling precariously from our left lapels, we can only reflect on the tragedy that war brings, on the continued elusiveness of universal freedom and justice, on our regret that so many lives have been lost and shattered in this way, and on our eternal determination to remember and to ensure that such sacrifice is not in vain. This is your day, vets and vets' families. Thank you. [e]
If no one else will say it...
The Globe and Mail's John Ibbitson gets a lump in his throat when he realizes “it,” and as much as Ibbitson wants to convince the world that he's not Liberal PM hopeful John Manley in an elaborate disguise, he can't bring himself to say “it.”
None of his fellow pundits in the mainstream media can comprehend “it” or anything that disproves their inalterable worldview programming of pro-growth, anti-tax, neo-conservative economics and the unquestionable eternal rule of the infallible Liberal Party. They can shrug off masses of anti-globalization protesters as idealistic youth. They can ignore scientific evidence of climate change because the oil companies have a flashy video that says otherwise. They can even chalk up entire societies of cooperative, communal, egalitarian economic structures – from Europe to Cuba and indeed most of Latin America – as uncivilized and undeveloped.
But “this”... “this” does not compute. And the garbled nonsense in the mainstream columns and editorial pages reflects that they may be on the verge of melting down over “it.” What's causing all of this confusion? Has Paul Martin moved his massive shipping empire from tax-haven Bermuda back to Canada so he can pay Canadian taxes? Of course not. However, one novel development in Canadian politics has everyone shaking their heads harder than Mr. Hooper when he met the supposedly imaginative Mr. Snuffleupagus on Sesame Street:
Jack Layton is brilliant.
He has taken over Parliament, captured the media's unwilling attention, and displayed the tactical genius of former PM Jean Chrétien without choking or pepper spraying anyone, or siphoning public funds to any of his friends. Chrétien had his mastermind in Warren Kinsella, and Layton has Jamey Heath and a team who have "kicked ass" in Canadian politics for a whole year – from the NDP budget to this week's compromise election timing plan.
Why haven't we heard of this shift in brainpower to the left? Ibbitson and gang have been trying to play it down. Stephen Harper has remained unenthused, but no one knows if that's just his perpetual catatonic state. Simply put, in the grand, unofficial conspiracy to swindle Canadians with the growth myth (prosperity depends on cutting taxes, cutting social programs, attracting investment, being more competitive, and privatization), the NDP must be sidelined. Their platform – to protect the environment, to make public goods like university, health care and housing more equally accessible, to tackle poverty, and to oppose free trade and tax cuts for wealthy individuals and big corporations – must be mocked, marginalized and dismissed as naïve and dangerous to Canada's competitiveness and future prosperity. Call it the NDP “agenda.” Throw the word “socialist” in there, to spook people into fearing that all business will flee Canada and we'll be stuck with only one brand of ketchup.
Jack Layton is undoubtedly the only federal leader with vision. The only one to accomplish anything for Canadians this year. Partisanship aside, think about it: what has the Liberal government done with their 100,000-person bureaucracy since January? They've thrown a tantrum about softwood lumber, handed out cash to needy families for their huge energy bills (against which the Liberals refuse to stand up to their corporate buddies about), and passed same-sex marriage – oh, no, that last one only happened because the NDP and Bloc agreed to vote for it. Stephen Harper has done absolutely nothing except get made fun of. His mistrust of Layton is tantamount to a teenager pouting in the corner because his friend chose to go volunteering at a soup kitchen instead of with him to the mall.
Another favourite mainstream media phrase is “prop up.” The NDP did NOT “prop up” the Liberal government: they forced the Liberal government to substitute corporate tax cuts with investment in badly needed social policy areas. They voted ONE time alone with the government – far fewer times than the Conservatives did. Jack Layton made a deal, not to push his own agenda, but to coerce the government into doing its job and helping people. He did more in two months than Paul Martin has done as Prime Minister, and arguably more than the Liberals have done in twelve years.
If you still believe that individuals making over $100,000 a year and corporations making $ billions in profit need tax cuts, vote for someone else. This is not partisanship, folks – this is objective fact. Any progressive Canadian in her right mind would be ridiculous to fall for Liberal promises again.
Because no matter how hard the mainstream media tries, they can no longer dismiss Jack Layton as too radical to be Prime Minister. He has a leading economist running for the NDP, calling his economic platform the most practical, sustainable plan for Canada's future prosperity. He has based all of his plans on sound economic, no-deficit planning. He's the leader most Canadians would trust to return their lost wallet. And now he is a brilliant politician who makes things happen and gets tangible results. Over the past week, he has left Harper, Duceppe, Martin, and even Ibbitson with little say but the same repeated babble.
The fleece over Canada's eyes is thinning. The growth myth is dying. The market is no longer God. A new voice grows stronger. And he's the only one Canadians have been proud of all year.
Cover your eyes, Mr. Ibbitson: Prime Minister Layton is no longer a long shot. [e]
The height of arrogance
I had an uncomfortable epiphany last night: I decided I would prefer a Conservative majority to another Liberal government of any type. That's how much Liberals disgust me.
Of course, I would prefer a Conservative-NDP minority or an NDP majority even more. But Liberal arrogance has grown to such appalling proportion that I need to watch Paul Martin cry. Badly.
The final straw came as I read that this week, the Liberal government will deliver an economic update. It's supposed to be a mid-term check-in on progress from the last budget, with some minor adjustments if necessary. However, as Liberals do, they plan to deceptively make this one into a mini-budget, with more candies than the house that gives out six-packs of whole chocolate bars and X-Box video games for Hallowe'en. “The stores started putting up Christmas decorations in September this year,” thought the Liberals, “so we figured we'd bring Santa in a month early.”
Three times now, the Liberals have made gaudy promises about new programs and new spending just before an election – like they hadn't though of it before now. They do it to trick us into believing that they will automatically remain the government after the election. That's beyond cocky. That's you-need-a-really-hard-kick-in-the-butt cocky.
It's NOT to convince Canadians that they are nice and worthy of governing – we're not that stupid. Rather, it's to bribe us for our votes. They're saying, “We know we've sinned, but if you don't vote for us, we won't be around to bring in a 'billion-dollars-for-everyone' program, or an 'everybody must eat chocolate' week.” What they don't say is that they won't do it anyway. You see, they will announce spending in the billions with “over X years” deceptively tagged on, to make it seem really huge. But they will conveniently forget when they return after an election – new Throne Speech, new direction, another wake of broken promises for us to holler and whine about.
This week, there will be goodies to tempt everyone, except the really poor and Alberta, because they never vote Liberal. For some reason beyond all realms of logic, everybody else just might vote Liberal again, and to you I issue this plea:
Refuse the temptation, Canada. We have been fooled before, and each time it gets worse. You'd think the 1993 Red Book was one line long: “Promise everything and don't do squat. Except steal money and give it to our friends.” NO ONE could be worse than the Liberals, not even Monte Solberg as Finance Minister. It'll only be six months and then we can know for sure that the Conservatives suck as bad as the Liberals do.
Even better, elect an NDP minority – then we can all know once and for all if they're really concerned about people and the environment or just a pack of kooky communists. Only six months won't hurt, come on! Either way, we all know it's a lesson that both we Canadians and those smirky, arrogant Liberal bastards need to learn. [e]
Poor Paris
As if it weren't bad enough that Charlemagne's rise as King of the Franks prompted the Carolingians to move their capital away from Paris to Aix-la-Chappelle in 786, that King Henri IV was assassinated in the middle of town by a deranged Jesuit in 1610, or that tourism was hampered for several years in the late 18th century because it was too hard to walk in between the 2,800 severed heads lying around on the street, the capital of France fell victim yet again to violent revolt. Ethnic tension exacerbated by poverty and social exclusion (and one would assume the overconsumption of a fine rosé Burgundy) stirred the long-suppressed resentment of disaffected poor youth in its suburbs. Fortunately, the few remaining members of the revolutionary Jacobin faction became confused when they enthusiastically stormed the store-lined square where the Bastille prison once stood, laid down their muskets and went for baguettes and cheese at the local épicerie.
It was no St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, when 3,000 protestants were strangled, stabbed and their corpses thrown into the Seine River in 1572. Nor was it another “Week of Blood,” when 20,000 Parisians died during the suppression of the revolutionary socialist Paris Commune in 1871. It was more like the 1961 “Secret Massacre” of 200 civil rights protesters, except initial reports indicate no corpses have turned up in the Seine this time.
It remains to be seen whether French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy will follow in the tradition of Paris' great defender Comte Eudes, or that of Joan of Arc, who tried in vain to regain Paris from the English during the Hundred Years' War and ended up burned at the stake. French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin is, however, toying with the idea of proclaiming himself Emperor Napoleon VI, and retiring to Louis XIV's Palais de Versailles on the other side of town.
One thing is for sure: Paris is a survivor. It was invaded by rebel princes during the Fronde of 1648, by Nazis in 1940, and by Disneyland in 1992. It has always roared back. And yes, I am psyched I found an old essay from fourth-year 18th-century European History.
One last thought on Paris: when London was rocked by terrorist bombings this summer, the American and Canadian media immediately, fear-mongeringly asked, “Could this happen to us?” Funny how two weeks into the Paris riots, no one is asking whether the same could happen in poor, ghettoized communities of marginalized youth on this side of Atlantic. We just shake our head and say, “That silly Paris. Always revolting,” instead of, “Could this happen in Scarborough, East Vancouver, the Bronx, Atlanta, Detroit, or LA?” So many plans and billions of dollars spent to ward off terrorism – so little public outcry and so few resources dedicated to alleviate poverty. I guess affordable housing isn't as sexy as military intelligence. [e]
One small victory
The Tuesday after the first Monday of November is Election Day in the United States. Every four years, the whole world watches as its new Emperor is appointed by the oligarchy of American voters. Right in the middle, people who follow American politics watch as one-third of the Senate, the whole House of Representatives, and several Governors are elected. The results of these “mid-term” elections determine whether the President will have an easy ride for the last half of his term (if both houses of Congress are controlled by a majority of members of the President's party), or if he will get mired in partisan scandal (if one or both houses are controlled by bitter and energized ankle-biters from the other party, and if he is doin' it with an intern – 1998 – or a hopeless fool – hopefully 2006).
In the years between the “mid-terms,” only American political nerds and readers of edSpective watch to look for a swing in popularity between the parties in minor governor and mayoral races, and to see what messed up citizen initiatives Americas can come up with. This year, the Democrats claimed a small victory, winning Governor races in New Jersey and normally-Republican Virginia. But more excitingly, Arnold Schwarzenegger had no cheesy lines left from his movies after all four of his “ballot initiatives” were rejected, including ones that restrict the political voice of public service unions, give him greater unilateral budget-cutting powers, and require parental consent for abortion. His opponents feared he would shed his artificial skin to reveal his android endoskeleton and start kicking butt like in the first Terminator movie in which, for the last time until his stint as Governor of California, Schwarzenegger played a bad guy. Perhaps this is a turning point in American politics, moving away from blind faith in famous movie stars and standing up to them when they're being jackasses. Twenty-five years too late, friends.
Elsewhere, the great state of Texas reminded us why Canadians and Americans are different, becoming the 19th state to enact a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Maine, meanwhile, rejected such a giant step back into the twentieth century by voting against repealing its gay-rights legislation. The point here is not that Canadians are more tolerant than Americans, but rather that our federal government doesn't let our provinces tarnish our national mythology by having a say in controversial issues. “Darn you, Maine,” said President Bush. “The world was just coming to know what we're all about here in the land of the free. Why can't you be like the good folks of White Settlement?”*
* You know Bush didn't say this because it's mildly coherent. But it IS based on fact: the town of White Settlement, Texas, voted this week to maintain its name instead of change it to West Settlement. Its name was adopted in the 1840s because it was the lone settlement of white folks amongst several Indian encampments in the region. The ballot victors rejected notions that their town name has racist connotations, arguing that by “holding onto their heritage,” White Settlement would be able to attract investment from big companies like WalMart and Home Depot, neither of whom could possibly so stupid as to now open any stores there at all. [e]
Today's Puzzle: Deadly or Not Quite so Deadly?
Washington's Environmental Working Group has rated the pesticide levels in fruits and vegetables commonly sold in grocery stores, based on data from the Agriculture Department and Food and Drug Administration. You guess if the following fruits and veggies are in the Top 12 most heavily pesticided or Top 12 least heavily pesticided:
1. asparagus 2. avocados 3. bananas 4. broccoli 5. cauliflower 6. sweet corn
7. kiwi 8. mangoes 9. onions 10. papaya 11. pineapples 12. sweet peas
13. apples 14. bell peppers 15. celery 16. cherries 17. grapes 18. nectarines
19. peaches 20. pears 21. potatoes 22. raspberries 23. spinach 24. strawberries
25. organic ANYTHING
Code: 1 to 12 are the least heavily pesticided; 13 to 24 the most; and 25 is the foolproof plan to not ingest poison with your food. Notice any other trends that make you wish you lived farther south, or that the Canadian government were more supportive of organic agriculture? [e]
Ed Musing
The first two weeks writing edSpective have been exhilarating. I crack up at my own jokes as I write them. I get to vent my cynicism and frustration without boring my wife and housemates. I get to read about creative ideas and hopeful developments that make me realize the world is going to be alright once we pull our collective head out of our butt, start living the change we wish for our world, and start devising collaborative solutions to the problems we face.
Probably the coolest part about it so far has been the feedback I've received. Lots of greatly needed affirmation and support from family, friends, and people I've not yet met. It's a big plunge to put myself and my ideas out there for people to react and respond to. I especially appreciate the constructive input and assertive feedback(not aggressive but not standing down). I thoroughly enjoy hearing divergent perspectives that inform my own. Thanks to all for stickin' it to me – keep it coming.
I received some especially honest and detailed feedback from two very special people who know who they are. They reminded me why Conservatives are so frustrating. But they also reminded me of one of my primordial beliefs: that politics should ideally be about devising creative solutions that incorporate everybody's perspective and fulfill everybody's needs. Just like any relationship, especially those that include sex, confrontation and posturing rarely lead to feelings of mutual satisfaction.
This theory is not easy in practice. Most of us believe our positions are our needs, and are inflexible in our perspectives. This condition is a product of our warped, realist, competition-based surroundings. Never let 'em see you sweat. Don't give anything away or you'll get screwed. Some folks benefit from these surroundings – economists base their entire discipline on this fundamentally flawed view of human nature. But for the 99% of us who would like to see a world less polluted, with healthier food and better health care, we need to come together and figure stuff out. Debate is fun, but all it does is refine and harden our personal positions, drawing us further from recognizing and understanding the needs that lie underneath and represent the true foundations of collaborative solutions. Without delving further into my masters thesis, let's just say that if Paul, Stephen, Jack and Gilles would just shut up and listen – to each other and to Canadians – instead of trying to convince Canadians of what they believe, we'd probably be far better off.
And so edSpective will take charge and begin adding constructive, new ideas to the big debates of the day. It will attempt to skim past the bullshit that our political leaders and our media feed us, and move on to proposing ways to find NOT middle ground, but instead whole new, crazy creative ideas that might just work.
Of course, politicians and the media provide us with so much fodder to ridicule that we'll continue to make fun, for sure. It often takes several swipes of the edSpective machete to cut through the thick forest of poo in front of our eyes. But our pledge is to come out of it with some great Action Items, some great Good News Stories, and some novel proposals for bridging the gaps that divide us and solving the problems that bind us. Somebody around here has to. [e]
Solutions: Trade
Last weekend's anticipated heavyweight thumb-wrestling match – Bush versus Chavez – at the Summit of the Americas was a bit of a dud. The United States and Venezuela would normally be seated next to each other, but like seating squabbling ex-romantic partners at a dinner party, the Argentinians thought fast and reorganized.
John Nichols at The Nation beat me to a quick, astute assessment of Bush's “peddling discredited proposals for progress in Latin America.” Check it out.
The mainstream media in the U.S. proclaimed the event a moderate success, with Bush charming almost every Latin America into accepting a Free Trade Area of the Americas, with the exception of Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Uruguay and Paraguay. “29 versus 5 is a big victory,” said U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Thomas Shannon. When the 5 includes the two largest economies south of Mexico and the world's 5th largest oil producer, that's a solid opposition. The school bully may be able to push around the pipsqueaks and his next door neighbours, but now he has run across a small group of slightly bigger kids who aren't going to take his shit any more.
The unprecedented rally against the U.S. has James Monroe – the fifth American President, who started this whole “the western hemisphere is my own personal fiefdom” attitude that his successors refuse to grow out of – rolling yet again in his grave (he was none too pleased about the whole Emancipation Proclamation thing, and likely not too happy about women getting to vote). However, the struggle for trade justice is only beginning. Mexican President and former head of Coca Cola in Latin America, Vicente Fox, somehow ignoring the devastating impact of NAFTA on his own country, acted as an informal translator for Bush, pushing his fellow Latin American leaders to jump on board the train to Colonyville. The U.S. tactic of divide and conquer continues, as Bush is reportedly courting Brazil by promising to legalize Lambada, the “forbidden dance,” and Uruguay by banning the episode of the Simpsons in which Homer mistakes its name for “You Are Gay.”
Meanwhile, the tar and feathers have come out in Washington again, as its incredibly bullshit rhetoric about “democracy” takes aims at Venezuela's President Chavez: the seemingly people-loving ring leader of the revolt whose idea of freedom mistakenly doesn't include American corporations annihilating Venezuela's domestic industries and stripping it of its resources. “Sure, his people have an inalienable right to drinking water. It's just that Coca Cola has the God-given right to own that water and sell it for an exorbitant price. Everybody knows that God-given rights trump inalienable ones,” argued somebody in the U.S. Administration to himself.
What is most depressing for Canadians is that our progressive Prime Minister stood in lock-step with Bush during the Summit, force-feeding an outdated, disproven formula of faulty free trade to the people who have suffered most under those flawed programs. Here's the e-mail I sent to the Prime Minister today:
Re: Free Trade Must Be Fair Trade
Mr. Prime Minister:
I am sure this e-mail is one of many you will receive expressing deep disappointment with your performance at the Summit of the Americas last weekend.
Canadians cherish our reputation for being progressive voices for peace and justice in the world. You promised to give the world more of the Canada that it so desperately needs. Last weekend, your peddling of free trade as a cure for poverty was an utter embarrassment, not simply because it is demonstrably untrue and in fact has clearly harmed the poor in so many circumstances, but also because it and other neo-liberal strategies like privatization and structural adjustment have been disproven by the experience of the very Latin American countries to whom you were speaking.
The brand of free trade being pushed through the WTO and the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas is NOT free. It is skewed trade that patently favours wealthy and powerful countries. It forces the poor and weak to abandon protection of their vulnerable nascent industries, while exempting continued subsidization of key industries in the wealthy countries like agriculture. It is applied and enforced selectively to suit the interests of the powerful, who bully the weak into compliance but ignore its tenets as it pleases. You of all people should know.
A few weeks ago you traveled to New York to publicly register your displeasure with the U.S. position on the softwood lumber dispute. You argued that “free trade must be fair trade.” Surely you must be aware those two terms are, in practice, diametrically opposite.
Fair trade would help to reduce the appalling gap between rich and poor in the hemisphere and the world. It would favour poor countries with weaker economies in need of protection so that their industries may develop and become more competitive. It would recognize that the wealthy and powerful nations have plenty, and that such plenty has been accumulated in large part by exploiting the labour and resources of the poor and weak ones. To argue that rising waters allow all boats to rise assumes that all boats are the same size, and that 10% of the world's population isn't hogging the cruise ship having thrown the other 90% into the rubber dingies without life jackets.
Canadians know very well that while NAFTA has boosted our GDP and the income of the top 20% of Canadian households, it has done nothing for the middle 60% and measurably reduced the income of the bottom 20%. Talk of creating new jobs is cheap when part-time, contract, cookie-cutter jobs with no benefits are rapidly replacing traditional, dependable ones, and when our once proud auto and manufacturing industries have sprung a job leak. NAFTA has clearly served to exacerbate inequality between and within the U.S., Canada and Mexico, creating new divisions of labour in which Mexicans manufacture goods, and Canadians and Americans profit from and consume those goods; and in which Canada provides cheap energy and resources, Mexicans provide cheap labour, and American provide the branding experts, CEOs and stockholders. Jobs are lost or shipped somewhere cheaper with lower environmental standards, and corporations reap record profits. Most appallingly, the NAFTA brand of free trade doesn't include agriculture, allowing Canada and the U.S. to boldly dump its subsidized wheat, beans and corn into Mexico unabated, flooding local markets there and forcing families off their farms and into the cities to work in the maquiladora sweatshops and make our cell phones and suitcases. I have seen it with my own eyes, Mr. Martin. There is a fifteen-foot wall lining parts of the U.S.-Mexico border, mockingly splitting two entirely different ways of life. On the same day NAFTA came into effect, the U.S. drastically increased its border control budget. If free trade indeed helps the poor, sir, there would be no wall.
With NAFTA's disgraced legacy in tow, you traveled to Argentina to join President George Bush's advocacy for a Free Trade Area of the Americas. The American media said the reception was warm, but we Canadians know better: Argentinians know that structural adjustment is economically destructive, Bolivians know that privatizing public services like water is socially regressive and very harmful to the most vulnerable in society, Brazilians know that the North American idea of free trade means trade on the U.S.' terms, and Nicaraguans know that the open market on commodities like coffee is a cruel and debilitating monster that does not solve poverty: it exploits poverty.
The people of Latin America want el comercio justo: fair trade that genuinely recognizes the gargantuan inequality in this hemisphere, and that fairly seeks to eliminate that inequality by privileging the poor and enabling them to become competitive for eventual free trade. That is not the package you and Mr. Bush are selling.
As a Canadian citizen, I insist that you represent Canadian values of fairness and justice when you represent this country. I believe that Canada has a lot to give, and can give without losing jobs or drastically decreasing our standard of living. It will require creativity and courage – I believe you have the capacity for both within you, and I ask you to finally display them by respectfully and progressively negotiating for a FAIR trade deal in the Americas, at the WTO and around the world. Make us proud. [e]
Action Items
E-Mail:
(1) John Ibbitson (jibbitson@globeandmail.ca) – tell him to admit it: Jack Layton is brilliant!
(2)Jack Layton (laytoj@ndp.ca) – tell him he's brilliant!
(3) Finance Minister Ralph Goodale (goodar@parl.gc.ca) – tell him we don't want his stale candies in the “economic update” this week. Don't try any of this $100 billion over 35 years bullshit – we're on to you! So suck it up and let's have an election in February.
(4) Prime Minister Paul Martin (pm@pm.gc.ca) with your own version of my letter above.
Vote with your 'tude:
(1) Salute a veteran, or call one you know or are related to and say Thanks. Then find a safety pin to keep that poppy on!
(2) Ask your local stores, restaurants and coffee shops to begin carrying FAIR trade coffee, tea, chocolate, sugar, bananas, and more! (www.transfairusa.org/do/whereToBuy) (www.fairtradetoronto.com) [e]
Good News Stories of the Week
(1) [From my uber-cool roomie Lori Waller in Ottawa] The best chance yet for the oil industry to pry open the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to drilling was repelled Wednesday, as moderate Republicans revolted against over-the-top social program cuts to food stamps, Medicaid and student loan subsidies. Also rejected was a provision to allow states to lift a moratorium on oil drilling of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Drilling in the Arctic has been turned back in the U.S. Senate for two decades by filibusters that require a 60% vote to overcome. It was pushed through last March by a 51-49 vote and withstood a Democratic amendment in the Senate last week, but it required a majority win in the House and go to the President, who has made Arctic drilling his top energy / “fucking the environment” priority. The victory is temporary of course, but it provides hope that some Republicans have grown consciences. Plus, rumours being spilled across Ottawa maintain that considerable, targeted Canadian diplomatic pressure had some effect in the outcome. They say it's all about the caribou herds and the Gwich'in nation in Yukon who depend on those herds. So as to not be mistaken for caring about the environment, they added that exploring Alberta's oil sands could cover the energy needs foregone by not drilling in Alaska...
(2) [From my fantastic grammar police and proofreader Lori Waller in Ottawa] The Native Wind project (www.nativewind.org) unites wind energy experts with native tribal leaders in the U.S. to build wind farms on tribal lands. Two wind facilities have already been built in North Dakota, with two more to come! Seems like it's the white man who needs to be civilized now...
(3) [From Dani “D-Block” Hoegy at Trent U.] Even Peterborough's gone green! Check especially the green shopping guide at www.peterboroughreuses.com [e]
** E-Mail me your town's recycling and green shopping sites and other Good News Stories!**
** E-Mail me to be added to the Weekly “edSpective is up!” e-mail ListServe or to receive edSpective: UnCut, with all the original swears I shouldn't show my Grandma, my Mom, or the person seeking a new column for their national newspaper ** edspective@yahoo.ca
No comments:
Post a Comment