Destroy the Environment, and You Will Destroy the Economy

An economist with solidly establishment credentials (World Bank, etc.) now makes the same points that have been widely dismissed when made by environmentalists:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096084.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6098124.stm

A BBC report on this makes the point that even Tony Blair, who rushed to endorse this report, pledged not to do anything to hurt business, "confusing business with the economy".

'The problem lies in the unwillingness to recognize that your own terrorism is terrorism'

Chomsky on terrorism. >by Saad Sayeed >Excalibur

Although Chomsky, being an American, is naturally concerned about American terrorism and American-supported terrorism, his point is broader than that. No one is prepared to admit to being a terrorist or to supporting terrorism, but what is terrorism? Who is prepared to operate according to a consistent definition? For too many, terrorism is what "they" do to us and our friends. What we and our friends do to "them" is "self-defence against terrorism". On this blog I've criticised Israel and those who claim to love it for using this logic, but they are sadly very far from being alone in this.

An interesting point- Chomsky notes that this is not the first "War on Terror". In the 1980's, the Reagan administration declared a global "war on terrorism", while committing and supporting horrendous acts of terrorism in central America, among other places. In 1986 (20 years ago- how time flies!) the U.S. carried out bombings of Libya that would have been condemned as acts of terrorism if carried out in the U.S. or Europe (What other differance was there? That the bombs were dropped from planes? Come on!). It's no accident that many of those complicit in the crimes of the Reagan administration are up to their old tricks with Bush the Second.

And what of Canada's role? Well, the Right want us to be right in there in far-away countries destroying the threat posed by "radical Islam", rounding up the usual suspects from the Muslim "fifth column" for indefinate detention to be followed at some point by rendition to torturers in their "home sweet homes", and generally doing our bit in the war for civilization.

The scary thing is, we're already doing a lot of that. But we'll be doing still more if scaremongering articles like Mark Steyn's cover story in this week's (October 23-30, 2006) issue of Maclean's Magazine have enough influence. The magazine cover, as described in Seven Oaks Magazine: "The dark, ominous image features a background mass of people entirely covered in full black face veil. In the foreground, a young pre-teenaged girl -- the only one with her face uncovered -- looks up with a dark menacing stare. The subheading on the cover hints at Steyn's argument: "The Muslim world has youth, numbers and global ambition. The West is old, barren and exhausted." (see more at http://www.sevenoaksmag.com/commentary/macleans.html)

Apparently, among other things, Steyn accuses "Big Government" of weakening popular resolve to fight terrorism- although like many a right-winger he equates Big Government with the welfare state, not with dramatic increases in military spending, nor military operations abroad, nor measures that curb civil liberties. Are military "interventions" abroad less "invasive" and "intrusive" than government interventions in the economy or in society?

Anyway, enough of this. Muslims are not the enemy. The enemy are those who would set us against each other for their own purposes. Some of the enemy are Muslim, but most are not.

People and Other Commodities 5: Have You Heard?

Have you heard? Time is money. But how much money exactly? What’s the monetary value of my time? Does it have to do with my salary? Say I make $ 15 an hour- is that it? But then, some people make a lot more than that. Is their time worth more than my time? Is their time of better quality? And what about the many people who make less than I do? Is it that their time is worth less money than mine, or that their money is worth more time?

How do you like to spend your time? Is it the same way you like to spend your money? You know, money talks and time will tell- I wonder what they’re saying about us.

OK- that’s a bit personal, isn`t it?- a bit intrusive, a bit challenging. I didn`t mean it like that- I was just thinking with my fingers as they caressed the keyboard and…OK, we won’t go there- this isn’t about cybersex.

I mean, well...do you want to hear about how I like to spend my time? And no, it doesn’t involve cybersex. This isn’t that sort of article, I keep telling you. Actually, I like to waste my time, the same way I waste my money- on books, on music, on ideas- on sex too, but I must try to keep my mind off it while I write this. Actually, sometimes what I enjoy most is being able to lose track of time- to lose myself in time, trusting that I`ll find myself in time. I like it when I can spend time thoughtlessly- irresponsibly!

I guess the last time I had like that- I was out in the countryside, out there in nature, just absorbing it and being absorbed by it. I`m not romanticizing nature, mind you- I know it`s not all benevolent. The laws of nature can be harsh and unforgiving, like the laws of the global economy. Have you heard?- the economy is the new nature, our second nature. Like the original nature it has vibrancy and growth, but this new and improved nature boasts infinite and exponential growth, and provides for all- or it will in the fullness of time, just needs to keep on growing I suppose.

And some people say we must focus most of our energies on nurturing this new nature to keep it growing. But I don`t think that way of looking at things is very balanced, and we should always seek a good balance. And by the way, I really hope you don`t get the wrong idea just because I keep mentioning political issues, that I`m some sort of raving radical or something. Heavens, no- I believe in moderation and compromise in all things.

That`s why I like the idea of sustainable development- a compromise balancing the needs of the environment and the needs of the economy. It’s a very popular idea- everyone’s in favour of it- in theory at least. You see, I'm not the only one who believes in balance. Everyone thinks there should be some kind of balance- a realistic balance, of course. Some people say that there’ll be no healthy economy without a healthy environment, but others say that those people are unbalanced. Governments of course need to balance competing interests- like the interest of oil companies to get rich quick from the tar sands of Alberta versus the interest of my generation and future generations to not be subjected to catastrophic climate changes.

Have you heard? Canada’s New Government doesn’t like the Kyoto Protocol on climate change because it was made in Japan and they want something made in Canada. I guess certain types of globalisation are better than others. We can buy our products from halfway around the world, but there can be no global response to global warming.

But of course this doesn’t mean that Canada's New Government doesn’t want to act to rein in our greenhouse gas emissions, just that they’re very patriotic. O Canada! And now they’ve just come out with their “Made in Canada” strategy which commits this great country of ours- O Canada!- to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half- by 2050. Oh…Canada.

Well, best to look on the bright side. The ice caps may melt, the seas may rise, lowlands and islands may be flooded out, and the prairies may be turned to desert, but all the while I'll be comforted by the thought that when I'm in my dotage, we'll be contributing only half as much to these catastrophes as we were 47 years earlier. A gift from this government to me in my old age.

Mind you, the people behind this exceedingly long-term policy will likely not even be around to see the fruits of their plan, 44 years from now. What a shame that is. What a shame that despite such long-term thinking Canada's New Government won't even last 44 months, let alone 44 years. Well, all that means is that they don't have to make themselves accountable for actually achieving anything. They don't have to do anything that would require them to commit to shorter term targets- let someone else take care of it. Later. Oh dear, I feel an attack of cynicism coming on. Stop.....breathe deeply, and embrace sincerity. There, that's better....

So what do we do now? Where are the ideals that could lift politics above the level of crass political calculation and ideological insensitivity? Where`s the vision? Where`s the leadership? Where are the leaders who`ll have the vision to make us do what needs to be done? I don’t know. Maybe there aren`t any. Maybe.....maybe it`s going to be up to the followers to lead, and the leaders to follow so as not to be left behind. Not that I`m advocating anything like that, but…hmmm…maybe I should have written about sex after all. Oh well. Maybe next time.

(Fat chance- if I ever do succeed in writing something convincingly dirty, it’s going straight to “Lickety Split ”. But most likely Amber has no need to worry about that possibility)

People and Other Commodities 4: Living Beyond the Earth's Means

The World Wildlife Fund has just released a report (“Living Planet Report 2006”) according to which humanity is using natural resources at a rate that ‘s 25% faster than the rate of replenishment of those resources. (Canada is listed among the worst offenders). If true, this means that our current lifestyle is not only ecologically but economically unsustainable. After all, if we chop down all the forests, at a certain point they will be gone, and then whatever economic benefits we may have gotten from the forests will be gone. When you add the fact that deforestation tends to lead to either chronic flooding or desertification, there are further economic impacts- and by that I mean impacts on people’s ability to make any kind of living at all.

Unfortunately, capitalist markets as classically understood (remember “supply and demand”?) are not going to help. You would think that the sensible solution to the fact that a resource is dwindling would be to reduce use of that resource. But “supply and demand” doesn’t work like that. Remember how it’s supposed to work: as the supply of good or service x goes down, the price of x goes up. Selling x becomes more profitable, so more people go into selling x, the supply of x goes up, and the price starts going down again. The market achieves equilibrium- in theory anyway.

But what happens when x is a non-renewable resource like oil? The price goes up, so more people go into the business of extracting and selling oil. The Alberta tar sands, for instance, suddenly become attractive to investors. Since it costs a lot of money to extract oil from the tar sands, it only makes economic sense to do so when the price of oil is high.

So the market reaction to the scarcity of oil is not to cut back on oil use, but to hone in on whatever oil resources are left, and so we continue with our oil fix until the wells are so close to running dry that the price of oil soars beyond the reach of just about everyone.

Clearly, then, we can’t rely on the “free market” to rein in our ecological profligacy, even if we take its claims at face value.

People and Other Commodities 3: Left Behind?

Bob Rae says that the Ontario and federal NDP are "wedded to a culture of opposition and protest", "have great difficulty embracing the lessons of the postwar world about the relationship between markets, society and government",and "cannot escape a knee-jerk reaction to business entrepreneurship and wealth creation".

That's funny. The NDP aren't even really a socialist party- they don't envisage nationalizing anything. The old CCF would have difficulty recognizing them. If one were to ask the NDP why they don't push for the (re-)nationalization of industries and utilities, they would likely say that the tools that worked in the past don't necessarily work now. Like the other parties, the NDP agrees with the idea of a "mixed economy"- the debate is over what sort of mix it should be, and even that debate is fairly limited in scope.

As for the "lessons of the postwar world", let's look at what policies were being put in place during the period of greatest economic growth after the Second World War. This was the period from about 1950 to about 1973. In most countries the role of government in the economy increased, often dramatically so. New social programs were introduced and consolidated. Government debts, which were huge at the end of the Second World War, were not "paid back" but were allowed to decline over time relative to rapidly growing economies. International trade expanded dramatically, but capital flows were subject to controls that seem almost unthinkable now. Unemployment rates generally remained low in North America and even lower in the United Kingdom and many other European countries- lower than they are now, by the way. Low interest rates? Interest rates were low then too, rarely going above 5%.


This relatively rosy picture began to unravel in the mid-1970s with the first oil crisis, bringing in inflation, rising unemployment, and rising government deficits, just as capital markets were starting to be "liberated" from controls. Pretty soon people like Reagan, Thatcher and Mulroney came along to bring in their "free market" solutions to these problems- and the rest is history.

So, when Rae accuses the NDP of not learning the lessons of the postwar years, are they the lessons that these pioneers of neo-liberalism preached to us in the 1980's? Are they the lessons that have become dogma ever since?

Rae has, for instance, embraced the neo-liberal idea that "competitive tax rates" for business are a "precondition to prosperity". If only it were true. "Competitive tax rates" do not in themselves create prosperity (except for the rich). They do not add to global economic growth (unless we assume that corporate taxes are inherently bad for growth- an unproven assertion). A country's tax rates can only be "competitive" in comparison with another's- so "competitive tax rates" may boost one country's growth at another's expense. A country may gain from moving its rates lower than that of a "competitor"- until its competitor follows suit.This erases any competitive advantage, but it does leave corporations with more money.

The problem for those wishing to sit out this race to the bottom is that not playing the game may hurt a national economy in the globalized marketplace. However, that is largely due to the "free trade" agreements which have ushered in "globalization", allowing investors to move their capital in and out of countries as they see fit, not having to commit to anything or meet any conditions. If social democratic parties were really interested in doing so, they could push for substantive changes to these agreements, such that capital flows could be regulated by countries in the public interest. But this idea is anathema to the "pragmatism" Rae is pushing. Except...if an idea is anathema to it, is it really that pragmatic? Just because it's accepted by the powers that be doesn't make it non-ideological.

As for Rae's suggestion that the NDP should have followed the lead of Britain's New Labour- who's he kidding? Do we really need two federal Liberal parties? Surely one is enough, and it is now good enough for Rae. He's found his new home- hope he's happy- but why shouldn't points of view outside of the neo-liberal consensus have major parties to represent them? The worst thing about New Labour is that it's a denial of the hope that there can be anything better than what was set in motion by Thatcherism- and anyone who still has that hope is now consigned to the sidelines of British politics.

If anything, the trouble is that the NDP aren't forceful enough in saying that there are alternatives. They're actually rather conservative, in my opinion. By the way, this is where Rae is correct in saying that they're just into opposition and protest. They're fighting a rearguard action against neo-liberalism, without even being very forceful in questioning neo-liberalism's assumptions. I think they need to learn to be bold again. Once their ideas were at the forefront- ideas like Medicare, the Canadian Pension Plan, and Unemployment Insurance. If they could present bold ideas again, they could avoid just clinging on to what's left to salvage of social democracy in Canada and actually enunciate what a social democracy of the 21rst century could look like in Canada.

Just a thought.

People and Other Commodities 2: The Depersonalized Economy

"Have you heard? The government doesn't like the Kyoto Protocol because it was made in Japan, and they want something that's "made in Canada". Funny- we can buy products from halfway around the world, but there can be no global answer to global warming."- a Montreal Paul, "Have You Heard?"

A couple of months ago I was having technical problems with my computer, so I called the technical support line. When I got through to someone, I had tremendous difficulties communicating with him at first. Then it dawned on me- Indian accent- I'm probably talking to someone in India! You know, one of those outsourced Indian technical support call centres that are all the rage in the global economy. Well, why not? Many if not most of the componants of my computer are made in China:

La la la la la la la la lala la

It's all made in China

La la la la la la la la lala la

They must be rich in China...

A couple of years ago my brother, having just completed training to work in technical support, had the rug pulled out from under him when outsourcing became the "in" thing for companies to do. What could he do? Emigrate to India? He went back to the drawing board.

On the other hand, I suppose outsourcing has been good news to the Indians who have the requiredbackground and expertise- they've got jobs, and while they're paid a fraction of what people would be paid here, it's still much more than most other people in India would be making. Whether on balance this is the solution to India's problems with poverty is less clear. How does this helpthe impoverished farmers in the countryside? Will they all have to migrate to the cities to find any kind of opportunity?

In the end, such issues are of little concern to the people and corporations who are behind outsourcing and other wonders of "globalization". They're just into safeguarding their own positions in the economic system, which is so depersonalized that it is easy for all of usto deny responsibility for the consequences of our economic decisions. In fact, it takes real effort to take responsibility. This, I suspect, is a strongly seductive aspect of this system. You don't have to take responsibility, and should twinges of concern lead you in the direction of doing so, the system actually discourages you from going too far in that direction. In this system, the lives of most people are incidental- the bottom line is the bottom line- or more accurately, the bottomline is what allows the people in charge of companies to accumulate more and more wealth and power.

People say that capitalist globalization is efficient. It is efficient at seeing to the "bottom line" as defined above, but not when it comes to assuring a good quality of life for most people. In fact, it often seems to be making more and more demands of people- worklonger hours to be worthy of decent pay! Factor in these human costs, and then factor in the costs to the environment, and it doesn't look so efficient after all.

It seems strange that so many of our products must now be transported long distances- across giant oceans, across continents- at tremendous cost (especially to the environment). But it's profitable for the right people, so it's "more efficient" than making products more locally.

Once we consider definitions of "efficiency" beyond "that which most efficiently produces private profit',we may see things differantly. If we think in terms of quality of life, rather than just maximizing economic activity (which is what "economic growth" means), we might want to consider what sort of economic relations would be most to our common advantage. We might want to have them on a more human level, a more personal level.

I guess that over time, we shall see if we're still capable of thinking in such terms.

The Politics of Division

An American journalist's view of Harper

"As an American journalist visiting my wife's relatives in Canada, I've always been struck by how ardently the country's political discourse focused on substance — the budget, health care, schools, roads — with little of the cheap theatrics and angry divisiveness of U.S. politics and punditry. But in my visit this past summer, I noticed that the tone of Canada suddenly had changed." >by Richard Fricker
http://www.rabble.ca/politics.shtml?sh_itm=96ea8d831f53196ffbf2b536241afe53&rXn=1

Telling. That's the neo-can strategy (also practiced by Mike Harris in Ontario)- identify the parts of the electorate who could buy into your policies and promote conflict between them and and those groups who won't buy into your policies, and who can become the 'enemy', targeted by government rhetoric and governmrnt policy. The Lebanon conflict is a clear example. The government's position was designed to pit the Jewish community and non-Jews who buy into the "clash of civilizations" view of Islam v.s. the world, against Muslims who may, at the drop of a hat, be suspected of supporting terrorism or even being terrorists, and against "anti-Israel" leftists. Thus, if Lebanese-Canadians protested their country being turned into rubble, it couldn't be just that. Oh, no. For you, see, Lebanon was being turned into rubble "in self-defence" against terrorism. Terrorism, by the way, is what is done "by a known terrorist group" (e.g. Hezbollah), according to Harper. This explains why governments never commit terrorism. So, to oppose what Israel was doing "against terrorism" was to support terrorism.

We need to resist such polarizing policies. Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that everyone has the right to peace, security and dignity? I mean, everyone- so let's resist the siren song of those who'd play some of us against the rest of us- it musn't be seen as a matter of "either-or". Why say- "we support Israel, therefore we don't lose sleep over Lebanese civilians", or "the bombings of Lebanon are an outrage, therefore the Israelis will get what's coming to them". My main criticism of Hezbollah is not that it's a "known terrorist group" (compare its actions with those of Israel during the war, with those of the Syria that tortured Arar, with the U.S. that tortures detainees and razed Fallujah in Iraq, with the armed followers of the main government parties in "democratic Iraq", or the Palestinian groups that have committed suicide bombings in Israel- oh wait, we recognize them as terrorist- must be 'cos they're too Muslim for us). No, my problem with it is that it does the "either-or" dance just as Israel does, just as Harper does.

Things Fall Apart

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1904962.ece
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article1904932.ece

It is so depressing to read the news out of Iraq. Things are even worse than most critics of the war predicted. What’s happening there goes beyond insurgency- it is the disintegration of the basic trust that’s necessary for communities and countries to hold together and function.

Why the death squads in Iraq? The Shi’ite death squads target Sunnis, suspecting them to be "terrorists", while Sunni terrorists target Sh’ites. Interestingly enough, a couple of years ago American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh wrote an article alleging that certain people with the American occupation forces were encouraging the formation of death squads to counter the mainly Sunni insurgency. After all, that strategy had worked in Central America in the 1980's. Remember also that a couple of years ago the occupation forces had a close call when Sh’ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s militia briefly rose up against occupation forces following the razing of the mainly Sunni town of Fullujah, raising the prospect of a united Sunni/Shi'ite uprising against the occupation. Occupation forces reeled against the onslaught and it was soon recognized that Sadr would have to be placated to keep the insurgency mostly Sunni. Today, Sadr’s army commits some of the worst sectarian atrocities with virtual impunity.

It seems likely that what is now a civil war is the consequence of U.S. "divide and conquer" tactics. Recently it’s often been reported that occupation forces and Iraqi army units stand by while death squads go into neighbourhoods. Briefly, the sectarian violence provided an argument for the occupation, but now that it’s clearly out of control the U.S. policy, if that’s what it was, has backfired, and very, very few people see the occupation forces accomplishing anything positive.

Those responsible (Bush, Blair and co.) may now say that tactics need to be revisited, but who will be held accountable for the breakdown of a society?

To be fair, it was a society already under heavy strain before the 2003 invasion. Saddam Hussein long favoured the Sunnis over the Sh’ites, brutally suppressed Kurdish and Sh’ite uprisings, and got Iraq into ruinous wars, while the United Nations gave its blessing to the U.S., U.K., Canada and other countries as they first demolished Iraq’s infrastructure, then subjected its people to ruinous sanctions. There is plenty of blame to go around, but few will be held accountable, although Saddam will likely be hanged or shot or otherwise disposed of. After all, when the game is imperialism, it’s never the imperial masters who bear the brunt of any violence- it’s those on the recieving end of imperial policies. Plus ca change...

Naive or Delusional

In this article:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/afghan_cda_mackay
our foreign minister, Peter MacKay, claims that to take of withdrawing from Afghanistan "demoralises our troops" and makes insurgents bolder.

In other words, to have an open debate about our presence in Afghanistan is bad for the war effort.

I'm sorry, Mr. MacKay, but this is not acceptable. This assumes that we should all just accept that our troops should be there, even though it has never been clearly explained what expect to achieve there and how.

No doubt it would be naive to simply assume the insurency can be wished away. But it looks like assuming that it can simply be bombed and shot away is almost as delusional.

Perhaps it is naive to call for peace talks with the Taliban. After all, these are not nice people. On the other hand, sometimes one must talk to people who aren't nice. In fact, we are already. Many of the folks we're doing business with right now in Afghanistan are scarcely any better than the Taliban. Many Taliban-style laws have been re-imposed by our allies there, and education for girls is now on the decline following a brief post-Taliban renaissence.

There are no easy answers here. But "stay the course" is just a slogan, not a plan.

The Tories' Green Gift For My Old Age, And For Future Generations

OTTAWA (CP) - The Conservatives released the centrepiece of their "made-in-Canada" environment agenda Thursday - a Clean Air Act that would cut greenhouse gas emissions in half, but not until 2050.

The bill, aimed at dispelling the notion that Tories are soft on the environment, sets no short-term targets for cutting greenhouse emissions. In the long term, it says the government will seek to cut emissions by 45 to 65 per cent by 2050.

So, I have this to look forward to in my old age. The ice caps may melt, the seas may rise, lowlands and islands may be flooded out, and the prairies may be turned to desert, but all the while I'll be comforted by the thought that when I am in my dotage, we'll be contributing only half as much to these catastrophes as we were 44 years earlier.

The idea that this government can make a commitment to targets 44 years down the road without making any shorter-term ones is any case totally preposterous. In fact, it amounts to no real commitment at all. This government can't make promises about how things will be in 44 years if it can't commit to any specific targeted actions now. What this in fact appears to amount to is the hope that sometime, someone will get around to tackling this seriously. "Just not us, and not now."

People and Other Commodities 1: Why Bother Catching Up?

"Unions defend Quebecers' work ethic after Bouchard comments"
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2006/10/18/bouchard-quebecworkethic.html

It seems that our former premier is telling us that we’re “falling behind” Ontario and the United States because we work fewer hours.

Sounds like the mentality of someone for whom “productivity” is all. But what is productivity for? What do we gain by more productivity? Possibly more money to pour into the health care system to treat those who haven’t been taking care of themselves ‘cos they’ve been too busy making money. More economic activity does not automatically translate into a better quality of life. Some forms of economic activity do the opposite. If we really want to be efficient, let's have "efficient" growth- growth that does not increase our toll upon the planet, that does not make unreasonable demands on the time and energy of people, and that actually makes for a better quality of life in our communities.

Can't Please Everyone II

Seems Ignatieff is now saying again that Israel did commit war crimes, but has added that Hezbollah did too. This statement is actually in line with what reputed human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have been saying, although of course Israel routinely dismisses any criticism of its human rights record by these groups.

However, he also said that Israel has the right to defend himself. Well, I’m not going to argue against that in principle, but what does this principle have to do with Israel’s sustained and massive attack on Lebanon last summer? Did the Israelis have the “right” to do that? But then, did anyone in Lebanon have the right to resist being attacked? Or does the right to self-defence apply to some but not to others?

When Ignatieff said that he “wasn’t losing sleep” over civilian deaths, he was doing so in a context in which he was clearly defending Israel’s bombing of Qena, implicitly denying that it was anything like a war crime. So he’s changed his mind since then. Now, changing one’s mind can be a good thing- but why has he changed it? And why did he change it when talking to a Quebec TV audience? Forgive my cynicism, but I imagine he thought he might get more votes in Quebec by “clarifying” his position in this way. It’s unfortunate that he didn’t speak out against the atrocities when they were happening.

Farming is bad for health?

Breast cancer more common in farm workers: study
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/10/12/breastcancer-farm.html

"Women who had worked on farms were 2.8 times more likely to develop breast cancer than non-farmers randomly selected from the region's population, according to the study in Thursday's issue of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences"

and

"Exposure to pesticides or other farm contaminants such as diesel fumes or growth hormones may explain the increased risk, said study author James Brophy, executive director of the Occupational Health Clinic for Ontario Workers in Windsor."

Brophy and his colleagues factored out traditional breast cancer risk factors such as genetics, smoking, age, number of children and use of hormone replacement therapies.

Consider that this is where the food we eat is grown, and that the toxins that are probably responsible are spread far and wide- into the water table, in residues on foods- although their effect on farmworkers is no doubt far more concentrated.

This reminds me of a book I'm reading where someone, asked to provide an example of irony, answers "the fact that we 'clean' our homes with substances that are identified as poisons on the containers they come in- with skulls and crossbones no less."

You Can't Please Everyone

Thornhill MP Susan Kadis withdrew her support for Michael Ignatieff over he called the massacre of civilians by Israeli bombs a "war crime" on a French-language TV program.

He was explaining away his ealier comment about Qana, in which he said he "wasn't losing any sleep" over civilian deaths in Lebanon- a remark he later said was a "mistake". That comment apparently didn't offend Ms. Kadis, but it offended other people (like me, for example). And now that he has offended the Zionist lobby, he insists he's a "lifelong friend of Israel" (from the cradle to the grave!)- and "clarifies" his position yet again by calling ithe Qana massacre an "unjustified' and "terrible" human tragedy- of the sort that happened to both sides.

Come off it,"Iggy"! You're starting to remind us of Paul Martin!

Yes, there was tragedy on both sides. People on both sides were murdered and terrorized. But not quite to the same extent. Trying to be "balanced" in assessing a fundamentally unbalanced situation is itself unbalanced.

As for Ms. Kadis, she said she found Ignatieff's earlier "unprovoked comments" "very troubling," given that Israel's attack on Qana was a response to the "brazen kidnapping" of Israeli soldiers and missile attacks by Lebanese-based Hezbollah guerrillas.

"This was an attack intended to root out a recognized terrorist group who were raining down thousands of missiles on Israel," she said.

— which were themselves attacks in response to:
— tens or hundreds of thousands of bombs raining on Lebanon in response to:
— the "brazen" kidnapping of two, yes two, soldiers, in response to:
— Israel holding thousands of detainees held indefinitely without charge.

When we started bombing Yugoslavia while they were "rooting out" the terrorist KLA from Kosovo, arguments such as the one made by Ms. Kadis cut little ice. Was it that the Serbs didn't have enough "lifelong friends" in Canada? In any case, Slobodan Milosovic, who ordered this "rooting out", recently died in a cell in the Hague during his war crimes trial.

But of course, we don't put our "lifelong friends" on trial, do we?

If At First You Don't Succeed....Give Up?

I heard the minister of human resources on CBC radio just now say that the cuts to literacy programs are justified because these programs are ineffective. She said something like "Since 1994, one million more canadians have literacy challenges- this has got to stop."

What has got to stop? The increase in low-literacy adults, or trying to help them? If the latter, the cuts are justified. If the former, how cutting the programs helping them is going to "stop" it is unclear.

If the government believes that these programs don't provide value for money, that's one thing. But they're not offering any alternative ways of helping low-literacy adults. Unless they believe that helping low-literacy adults is inherently a waste of money, as implied earlier by Treasury Board Secretary John Baird, then it seems to me that the focus should be on offering programs that are more effective, not less. It is not as though people in the field are unaware of the limitations of these programs- they reach only a fraction of those who could benefit from them, for example. Also, there could be more training and professional development in the interest of quality control. But those things would take more money, not less. We in the literacy field would have to show that more money could actually result in more value for money. But if we did, would the government even listen? There's the rub.

Experience and Ideology

I'm not Jewish, but I grew up in a Jewish neighbourhood. We were "goyim", but we weren'ttreated as outsiders. I went to nursery school at the Jewish Y. That was the only timethat we celebrated Jewish holidays. I still remember lighting a menorah that I'd made atthe nursery school. Oh yes, and I went to a day camp at the Jewish Y. When we had medical problems, there was the Jewish General Hospital at our disposal.

Having grown up among Jews, and given that Israel is a democracy, a westernised "oasis"in the frighteningly foreign territory that is the Middle East, a place whose peoplesare associated with images of violence, I should be identifying with Israel rather thanwith the Palestinians and the Lebanese, right?

When the war in Lebanon was raging on, I was just imagining- would some of the Jewish peopleI've known, who've accepted me as friends at various times- would they hate me if they knewwhat I really thought of what Israel was doing?

I know of Jews who, needless to say, feel this sort of thing far more strongly. The Jewish community is admirable in many ways because it really is a community, so well organizedin taking care of each other (and even of non-Jews!)- but that organization has another side.Those who go against the institutional (Zionist) view of the Jewish community risk being treatedas traitors. I heard of Jews being called "self-hating Jews". A Jewish friend told me thatan she was at a meeting where an anti-Zionist Jew was called a "dirty Jew" by a right-wing Zionist.

I was heartbroken to see the community I'd grown up in mobilizing in favour of atrocities. It shows how nationalism (and other ideologies) can bring out the worst in otherwise decent people. I love people, but not their ideologies. Ideologies are used to hurt people. They distortnoble ideals, turning them into cruel jokes.

Zionism is an ideology. Some of the ideals that were in Zionism were good, but they've been distorted by the requirements of an ideology of people with the power to oppress other people. Even when modern Israel was founded, the flip side was the disposession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians- refugees to this day.

I don't believe that there will be a two-state solution. They may talk in Israel about"disengagement", but Israel won't stop trying to rule over the Palestinians in one way oranother. After all, Israeli troops continue to ravage the Gaza strip. The Palestinians are not allowed to elect their own government without interference. Israel can't leave the Palestinians alone, because its very existance is predicated on the denial of the existance of a Palestinian people with rights comparable to those of the Jews- or at least that's how Zionists seem to feel deep down. But eventually, I believe that Israel in its current form will be- not destroyed, but transformed. Everything now is pointing to a one-state solution- and it's not people who are "anti-Israel" who'll be the cause.