Daily Musings Feb. 9th

Best laid plans of blogging instead of sharing on FB. . .  but it is so much easier to just hit like and share -- to write this takes takes time and thought - I have been too busy at work to think of anything else -- though I, of course, do think about other things -- but no time to write -- so here is what I am musing about today. . . and for the last few days.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Upworthy published the video, below, with the headline  - Canada makes a great point about the Olympics in thirty seconds, which sounds like it is something the government of Canada did (ie Harper Cons!) .   It is a nice little video but has nothing at all to do with the Canadian Gov't.

Upworthy got it a little wrong -- this is a private sector organization (with a good goal) but private nevertheless, and in the same business as HR and business management consultants, as near as I can determine. . .  still loved the ad. From their website:

The Canadian Institute of Diversity and Inclusion (CIDI) is a made-in-Canada solution designed to help employers, and diversity and inclusion (D&I), Human Rights and Equity (HR&E) and human resources (HR) practitioners effectively address the full picture of diversity, equity and inclusion within the workplace.

And here's the 30 sec clip: 



_______________________________________________________________________________

I wish I could recap what is in the piece by Chantal Hebert about the new bill on elections. .  but it is all important, an easy read, and I couldn't do better -- so please just go and read this piece from The Star.   Harper Cons are striking one more blow against democracy.


And there is another great piece on Global, here, about the NDP trying to filibuster to stop them from ending debate.  Once again the Harper Cons are taking what should be a non-partisan issue that all parties and the people get some say in. . . turn it into a piece of legislation that is very partisan (the people that they are denying the vote to are disadvantaged and generally not likely to vote for them) plus they are taking away rights from Elections Canada. . . like the ability to promote voting. . . and then, there is this -- 

And then yesterday on "the House" with Evan Solomon on CBC radio the Chief electoral Officer called the act an "Affront to Democracy".   More in this CBC website piece which says in part: 

The government's proposed overhaul of the Elections Act includes elements that constitute an affront to democracy, according to Canada's Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand.

 In an interview airing Saturday on CBC Radio's The House, Mayrand said "my reading of the act is that I can no longer speak about democracy in this country."

 "I'm not aware of any electoral bodies around the world who can not talk about democracy," Mayrand told host Evan Solomon.

Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand says the government's proposed Fair Elections Act puts severe restrictions on the information he is able to communicate to the public. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)

Sunday musings

Great article by Antonia Zerbisias about Ottawa's approach to women and the request (I did not hear about this anywhere else) for as she says:

Funding for more than 20 established organizations that have helped women make great strides has been yanked by Status of Women Canada.

Nobody has explained the cuts.

That’s why, next Wednesday, both current minister Rona Ambrose and former minister Helena Guergis have been summoned to a special meeting of the House of Common’s Standing Committee on the Status of Women to explain their funding decisions and criteria.

“The committee does not believe that it has the data it requires to assess whether the department is funding appropriately according to its mandate,” says committee chair Hedy Fry, who was SWC minister in the Chretien government.

Women's groups cuts, equality for women cut as a goal and nobody to do the explaining. . . thank you to the committee for trying to bring some light to this . . .

Zerbisias provides further info about the cuts and what is being funded - bibles, bible colleges - this is scary changes to policy:

Consider the silence from the Conservatives on continued funding by Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) for the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which helps women and girls in 174 countries.

Meanwhile, CIDA announced $357,146 for the Prince Albert, Sask.-based Chakam School of the Bible Inc. to build a school in Sudan.

Then there’s the $495,600 CIDA grant to Wycliffe Bible Translators of Calgary, which works so that aboriginal people in far-flung corners of the world can read the scriptures in their native languages.

“It’s okay to translate the Bible,” says Demers. “But there are aboriginal women here who are dying.”

In fact, adds Demers, groups seeking CIDA funding are being told to leave the phrase “gender equity” out of their grant applications.

______________________________________________________________

Also thinking about Gaza today and the flotilla of ships on their way to hopefully break the seige of Gaza. See this article on Al Jazeera . . . Imagine 1.5 million people trapped in a prison strip of land, with no employment, not enough calories and no way to "escape" and no where to escape to. . . I cannot understand why there is not a huge outcry about Israel's policy of collective punishment of all of the people of Gaza. This piece says in part:

Ultimately Israel is faced with two questions: does it continue its policy of collective punishment and prevent the flotilla from entering Gaza until Gazans succumb to Israeli demands? Or does it allow the aid to enter and attempt to demonstrate to the world that Israel does in fact respect human rights?

Unfortunately neither of these options bode well for the Israelis, option one for the obvious public outcry that will spill out as a result of 800 people stranded in the water. And although option two would be smarter from a public relations perspective, it would be an indirect admission by Israel that its policy of collective punishment and continued siege is flawed, not to mention illegal.

It seems Israel only has a few days left before it is to make up its mind on what could be one of its toughest tests yet. And it is posing these questions that make the Freedom Flotilla so significant.

I have been and supporting the International BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement, boycotting Chapters and MEC (formal boycott's although I am not sure that I agree with the decision to boycott MEC) and informally products made in Israel and O Solo Mio shoes since about half their stock id from Israel. See this new article about the success of the Cultural BDS movement.

__________________________________________________________________

Also musing this morning, about Internet privacy and whether to stay on Facebook. I have started blogging more (here - www.musingsfromtheshore.blogspot.com), tweeting, (ma_mchugh) and emailing people so that I am not so dependent on facebook. I feel like if I remove myself entirely from FB I am going to miss out on knowing about events and even keeping up to date with news outside the mainstream. . . but I do not want to be participating in the data mining (I am not too worried about my own data - go ahead and try to use my Palestinian Solidarity or feminist rants to sell me something personally!) as I am a large FB user - posting and reading other's posts more than once a day.

Lots of links to thoughtful discussion on FB and its challenges and also on Google, who are in trouble for collecting our data though they say they have not used it. I am in kind of future shock especially on what info corporations have on me - the issue is articulated in the Times Online:

Facebook’s privacy policy is now 5,830 words long, more than the US Constitution. “Our online selves are not just stuff for databases, they are part of us. Facebook has no real respect for its customers,” said Milan.

So far the charge has been led by the technorati. Danah Boyd, a Microsoft researcher and top tech blogger, wrote: “The battle that is under way is not a battle over the future of privacy and publicity. It’s a battle over choice and informed consent. It’s unfolding because people are being duped, tricked, coerced and confused into doing things where they don’t understand the consequences.

“Facebook keeps saying that it gives users choices, but that is unfair. It gives users the illusion of choice and hides the details from them ‘for their own good’.”

Other influential techies, including Cory Doctorow, co-editor of the weblog Boing Boing, have already quit Facebook. More worryingly for the firm, the controversy is getting increasing attention in Washington DC.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (Epic), an advocacy group, has asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Facebook changes that have meant more information is made public by default and also shared automatically with other websites.

Lots of other discussions about this. I am looking at torproject.org and chi.mp as replacements although not entirely, of course - they do different things. . . - and of course this blog which will allow me to only post once a day to FB - until I decide whether to get out entirely.

Another interesting article can be found on the Economist site - yup everyone is now worried. . .

As the Economist says:

Facebook’s problem is more fundamental. True, the social network has some of the most extensive privacy controls on the web, but these have now become so complex—and are tweaked so often—that even privacy experts find them bamboozling. The company also has a powerful incentive to push people into revealing more information. Facebook generates most of its revenue from targeted advertisements based on users’ demography and interests, so the more data users share publicly the more money it can mint from ads. It may well be betting that users are now so hooked that they are unlikely to revolt against a gradual loosening of privacy safeguards.

The worst thing is Facebook’s underlying prejudice against privacy. Sign up and it assumes you want to share as much data as possible; if not, you have to change the settings, which can be a fiddly business. The presumption should be exactly the opposite: the default should be tight privacy controls, which users may then loosen if they choose. If Facebook fails to simplify and improve its privacy policy, it will justly risk the wrath of regulators—and many more Facebook suicides.

______________________________________________________________

Lastly I was very impressed with an article on Racism in Nova Scotia found in the Globe and Mail this weekend. . .

Picture from the Globe and mail article linked above. . .

Harper - Cryi-i-i-i-ing over you. . .

Its a dull day, supposed to rain, and the laundry is not on the line but steaming up the house!

I am watching a flock of cormorants dive, and look like they are frolicking in the water, (I don't really know what their emotional state is, but I can project, however useless that may be) and I was feeling pretty happy, . . . and thinking about doing some housework before I go off to a meeting re: a union organizing drive. . . until the CBC radio news came on.


This morning, CBC news reported that Stephen Harper says that all of the opposition parties are running from "the left" leaving the "centre" wide open. The Conservatives, he says, are the only party of the "centre". He also says that Canadians have become more conservative, presumably meaning that the centre has moved right.

I do not believe this to be true and thinking about it literally made me cry.

Do you think that Canadians are more conservative?

I don't see how they can be. . . Politically, I understand conservatives to resist change, to want to leave things the same; to embrace more "traditional" values and to want to downsize government and reduce spending. Economically, conservatives believe in reducing taxes and government spending, reducing social programs and have basically an "every man for himself" philosophy (the women and children of course are attached to "the man" who will help them survive.) - pull yourself up by your own bootstraps or die in a ditch is the tone I hear.

In times of great economic prosperity, it is likely that Canadians would be more "conservative" - if you are doing well who wants to change things? But, lets face it. . . Canadians except for the top 10% of income earners -- are not better off. They are either in the same economic state (income) or worse off than they were 25-30 years ago (see www.growinggap.ca) and we are headed into an economic slump. So why would Canadians be growing more conservative?

They are not more conservative, but the growing numbers of those who do not vote indicate that they are feeling alienated from voting and from any kind of citizen engagement. Even in this election when the New Democrats came out swinging -- strong ads, and demanding Layton for Prime Minister, the media just covers the election as a two horse race. even with polls showing the New Democrats at 30% in BC and the Maritimes. . . For 25 years people have told me -- there is no point in voting for the New Democrats, "they won't win." I don;t know why Canadians feel like they have to vote for a winner - but they seem to and it is particularly a problem in Toronto. . . Imagine, if all of those people went to the polls and voted with their honest opinion and self interest, I believe that the New Democrats would win many more seats and even form government.

People are not more conservative but they are jaded about politics. The Liberals and Conservatives across this country have so consistently made promises that they have not kept that everyone believes that is just the case with politicians. Now the Liberals are by far the worst at it - but I also think it IS the case with the current Conservative government and with Harper. On his "broken promises", Cambridge resident Geoffrey Stevens, an author, former Ottawa columnist and managing editor of the Globe and Mail, itemized some of the broken promises:

For example, in the wake of the Liberals' sponsorship scandal, Harper promised that a Conservative government would be open and accountable. Yet he introduced an Accountability Act that amended the Access to Information Act so as to make it harder, not easier, for citizens to find out what their government is up to. He gagged his ministers; he threw up new barriers to journalists trying to do their jobs; he centralized information control in his office. He ordered Conservative MPs to obstruct parliamentary committees that try to probe government activities.

He promised to curb patronage by creating an independent commission to vet senior public appointments. He made one half-hearted effort before abandoning that promise. He promised not to tax income trusts, then taxed them anyway. He promised fixed election dates and introduced a law to that effect. Yesterday, he broke that promise and the law.

The broken promises help to explain why 41 percent of Canadians and 50 percent of Ontarians (according to a new Ipsos Reid poll) think Harper has a hidden agenda. It's why voters tell pollsters they anticipate another minority government. See: Straight Goods for the whole article.

If one looks at Harper's previous record and positions, he is hiding them now, and yet he has never disavowed anything he said before, or said it was no longer his view (someone correct me if I am wrong, please -I'll sleep better. )

Harper quit is seat in 1997 and became Vice President of the National Citizen's Coalition. (NCC) According to Harperindex . . . NCC has campaigned prominently on many libertarian, anti-worker and anti-public service issues over the years including:

campaigns to "de-unionize" the workforce;

opposition to fair tax reform;

privatization and/or elimination of public sector services;

discredit any activity carried out through the public sector such as education or health care;

court challenges to social unionism;

"closed shop" provisions in Canadian labour law;

lobbying campaign to have "right-to-work" legislation implemented in Alberta;

legal and advertising support for challenges to Canadian Wheat Board;

court challenge to annul election of BC NDP government, advertising campaigns against targeted politicians and parties;

media campaign attacking MP pensions;

court challenges to electoral laws that would limit third party spending;

media campaign attacking grants for the arts, advocacy organizations, and social science research;

attacks on public funding for what it calls "interest groups" such as human rights or women's groups.

Do you really want to vote for this man and his policies? Think about it. . .


So - Are Canadians more conservative? I don't think so. . . Do they believe the statements above to be true and/or a way to proceed to improve things for "average" Canadians - I don't think so. . .

Are they going to realize that the only way to change direction and their lives is to engage in electoral politics and vote in their own best interest? I wish I knew the answer was yes. I will keep fighting for that and trying to inform people. . . but I wish the media was not so class based and biased. . . when you, like my daughter-in-law and son have two jobs, two children, low income and no car, it is hard to take the time to be engaged in an election, to work in it, or even to vote (although I know that they will!)

Go and work in the election, put up a sign, attend debates, be engaged and spread the word - vote for working people and families, green jobs, consumer protection from price gouging, fairness and equity. I'm working for Jack Layton and the New Democrats.

A blast at Stephen Harper

I don't have a lot of time - only 32 (I think) days to go . . . gotta get to work.

I picked these up from www.departmentofculture.ca They describe themselves as: "The Department of Culture is a loose group of artists and art-related workers who will collaborate to unseat vulnerable Conservatives in swing ridings across Canada." Check it out!






If you live in the 905 this is especially for you. (Although if you are a non- Harper supporter west of Winnipeg prepare especially to be offended!)