Canadians Don't Trust Canada

Sao Paolo, Brazil - 140 people have died in the last two weeks in battles between
police and inner-city gangs. Be hard to be held in lower esteem.

This was an interesting poll in The Globe and Mail this morning. It seems that out of 26 countries in both hemispheres of the Americas, our very own Stephen Harper ranked as the national leader who was least trusted by the population. On top of that Parliament, political parties and the mass media were also not trusted by massive majorities.

The survey found only 16 per cent of Canadians place “a lot of trust” in their Prime Minister, putting Stephen Harper near the bottom among all leaders in the Americas.
“In an international context, Harper has a lower level of trust than almost every other national leader in the hemisphere,” Mr. Neuman said.
The levels of trust are also low for the Canadian Parliament (17 per cent), political parties (10 per cent) and mass media (6 per cent).

It's good to see that the population here hasn't lost their critical faculties after nearly a decade of the Tory rule - mind numbing and dishonest as it is. However, it's not like Harper has gone out of his way to be, you know, trustworthy. He has lied and covered up decisions of his government - from the F-35 boondoggle to handing over Afghans to be tortured. In fact lying seems to come second nature to the Tories. And when challenged on an issue, they throw mud at opponents rather than engage the issues - who can forget "Taliban Jack" that was thrown at NDP Leader Jack Layton for his anti-war position or the slander thrown at present NDP Leader Tom Mulcaire for suggesting that oil producers ought to pay the real cost of the tar sands.

The growing list of public shenanigans has grown quite long - using robocalls to misdirect voters; putting out a pamphlet to caucus members on how to disrupt and derail the work of Parliamentary committees - one can only imagine the kind of behind the scenes dishonesty that hasn't come to light. Harper has Brian Mulroney's arrogance and corruption. With any luck he and his party will suffer the same fate.

What was also interesting in this article though, was the lack of trust in all the main institutions of Canadian life. Not just those listed above but also the military (53 per cent) and the RCMP (36 per cent). Amusingly, the G & M (which suggests that Harper and Parliament aren't trusted because he was forced to endure six years of minority government), spins these numbers as though they represent a strong endorsement.

At the same time, Canadians are holding on to their positive views of the Canadian Forces and the RCMP, an above-average appreciation of their law-and-order institutions.

Given that two of Canada's central symbolic pillars are the Dudley Do-Right Mounties, in their red jackets riding on a horse and the image of Canadian troops as peacekeepers in a conflict-riven world, this is hardly a ringing endorsement. In fact, its even less impressive that it's "above average" when you consider that the survey includes Haiti - run by former death squad leaders who overthrew their democratically elected president with US help - Colombia - which also has a long history of death squads - Honduras - where their elected president was overthrown by a right wing coup - Paraguay - ditto on the coup. The list could go on. If you can't come in above average against these regimes and their police forces, you're in big trouble.

No, what the survey indicates more than anything is that Canadians don't trust the institutions of the country. Stephen Harper and his gang of thieves has a lot to do with that. But they've had help along the way from a lot of other corrupt, unaccountable and out of touch institutions.

China & Canada: It Was Never About Human Rights

There's much foofaraw in the media about the visit by Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird to China. Are we now neglecting human rights in the interests of profit? Have we stopped supporting liberation struggles, like those of Tibet? NDP Foreign Affairs critic Paul Dewar suggested that the Tories lacked "coherence" in their policy, focusing now on profit whereas before it was all human rights. He raised the "constructive engagement" of Richard Nixon as a model. Nixon?!

Well, I think there's a third axis of consideration that the polarity of profit vs human rights fails to take into account that has everything to do with geopolitical considerations that can't be simply reduced to profit.

First off, let's not kid ourselves, human rights have never been of any real consideration when it comes to Canadian trade or foreign policy. We have a free trade agreement with Israel - even as it builds illegal settlements and kills civilians with the same routine effort as a someone mowing their lawn. We traded with Chile during the Pinochet dictatorship. Likewise with the brutal dictatorship of Suharto in Indonesia. We supported the overthrow of the elected government of Aristide in Haiti and help to enforce the suppression of Lavalas, the most popular political party in the country - for what crimes I'm not sure (I guess the crime of not being sufficiently subordinate). We backed Mubarak in Egypt and the Saudi monarchy that won't allow women to drive and kills people with beheading. Hell, until three months ago we were trading and investing with Gaddafi in Libya.

No, human rights has nothing to do with it. It is merely a convenient fig leaf to cover other intentions. After all, who can say no to human rights? And, it's true, in places like China human rights are suppressed in regular and brutal ways. So, there is the ring of truth to such claims. But, as usual, the biggest lies are always dressed up in the brightest colours of truth to hide the ugliness of what's really going on.

Afghanistan is a fine example of this. The official line is that we're there to aid in democracy, defend the rights of women, human rights, development, etc. etc. Yet this doesn't square with our actual policy on the ground, which involves propping up and funding warlords and drug dealers who think human rights means the right of some humans (them) to kill, rape, and rip-off other humans. As was clear from the revelations regarding Canada's cover-up of routine torture of suspects, we happily went along with that conception. But it would also be wrong to think that there is some kind of one to one relationship between what we're doing in Afghanistan and some immediate financial interest. It would be more immediately profitable to run the gas and oil lines from Kazachstan through Iran, which already has pipe infrastructure - but Iran is an "enemy" and so, instead, extra money must be spent to run it through Afghanistan then Pakistan. It's also about "containing" China, which is a neighbour on the other side of Afghanistan. Afghanistan is thus of strategic interest.

Our relationship with China is not dissimilar and reflected our synchrony with US foreign policy on this issue. US pressures on China are about jockeying and geopolitics. It's about the US reminding China who is the boss in subtle ways - and that the relationship between the two countries is not that the US couldn't do without. What has shifted for Canada is the growth in Canadian trade with China, which is sucking up softwood lumber at a ferocious pace. Softwood lumber exports to China are now greater than such exports to the US. China has also become a significant investor in Alberta oil and gas production, as well as mining and smelting. And with the decline in the US dollar relative to the Canadian dollar, our trade with the US has been harmed. After years of running significant trade surpluses, Canada began to run trade deficits starting in 2009. As a trading nation there is pressure to find more markets - and if the US can't be that market, Canadian manufacturers and resource companies need to find one elsewhere. The decline in US/Canada trade reduces the incentive to follow US foreign policy quite so closely, which is why Obama met last week with the Dalai Lama and Harper & Baird didn't mention Tibet once. This shift is, in general, part of the shift to a less stable, multi-polar world. Harper's obsession with Arctic sovereignty and the increase to military spending are also part of this. While the US remains - and likely will for sometime - the pre-eminent world power, with military spending at levels that dwarf any other power, it nonetheless faces challengers, for instance China's move into Africa. It can't simply be assumed that hitching your wagon to the Yanks will get you what you need. Canadian imperialism wants to have a little more freedom of action. Baird's visit and honey-coated words for the Canada/Chinese relationship is part of that. It is just as cynical and corrupt as was our previous relationship.

Calling China an ‘important ally,’ Baird turns cold shoulder to fugitive - The Globe and Mail

Iran slams Canada human rights abuse

Iran slams Canada human rights abuse: "'The use of various violent tools and ways to counter a peaceful rally is by no means justified. The move by the Canadian government is a blatant breach of basic rights of citizens to freedom of expression,' Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said on Tuesday."

It seems only fair that if the Canadian government can be hypocritical bastards towards Iran, that the Iranian government should return the favour. What's more disturbing is that neither Canada nor Iran have a sense of irony about it.

Germany: Afghan Air Strike Brings Down Army Chief & Govt. Minister

SCANDALS RELATING TO THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN ARE ROCKING KEY NATO COUNTRIES. Canada's role in facilitating the torture of suspects - many of them likely innocent - has become a central public issue here. In Britain the revelation that MI6 supported torture against British citizens in Pakistan has become a major issue. And, now in Germany, where anti-war sentiment is very high, the prosecution of the war is causing deep political damage.
Today the Labour Minister, formerly Defense Minister, Franz Josef Jung was forced to sign his own walking papers after it was revealed by the tabloid Bild that he knew about the killing of numerous civilians resulting from a Kunduz airstrike in September. The German army called in NATO fighters to bomb two fuel tankers that had been seized by the Taliban, even though there were numerous civilians taking advantage of the free fuel being provided to them. Jung had originally stated that he didn't know there were civilians killed but it has since been discovered that he was told on the day that the bombing took place and that he received a top secret video showing that the carnage included children. The German military's chief of staff in Afghanistan has also been a casualty of this cover-up, resigning earlier this week.
Germany, which has 4,250 troops in Afghanistan has faced significant opposition at home to the deployment. This will, hopefully, further weaken the hand of the government to keep its troops there. All of these scandals are simply proof that the occupation of Afghanistan is a criminal operation that involves dehumanizing the locals to the point that bombing civilians, including children, is seen as nothing more than potential bad press that needs to be covered up. Same for torture, as we're seeing so vividly here in Canada. It's time to stop the killing by bringing the troops home.

Looming Defeat In Afghanistan?

IT'S HARD TO SEE THE PRESENT SITUATION IN AFGHANISTAN as anything other than a disaster for the occupiers. They are more hated, more attacked, more vulnerable than ever. Their supply lines are attacked, whether they originate from Pakistan or through allied Caucasian republics - like the fuel tankers that were stolen and then bombed by ISAF in Kunduz, in the north. As they try to fight against the insurgency, they end up killing civilians, making even more people hate the US-led occupation and the corrupt Kabul government.
While the insurgency - derisively called the Taliban but, in reality a much more complex, decentralized movement - is growing stronger, deeper roots, the Americans and their allies are in pretty serious retreat. The new strategy by the US - with a resonance in Britain - of shoring up bases of military and political support in the cities is a major retreat and a surrender of rural areas.
It also smells a lot like the Soviet's failed strategy: "Moscow's original intention was to secure the major cities and lines of communications, while stiffening the morale of the DRA forces. The Soviets apparently hoped that the DRA would do most of the counter-insurgency fighting... The Soviets soon found that the Kabul army was unreliable and often loath to fight. If serious fighting were to be done, the Soviets had to do it."
The Soviets with a nominal Afghan army of 300,000, plus 100,000 of their own troops under a single command structure were defeated. The present occupation has about 100,000 nominal Afghan troops and just over the same number of ISAF and US troops. The foreign component is made up of troops from 42 countries, formally under two command structures, making it much more vulnerable politically than the Soviet military. If one of the big contributors - like the UK or Germany - pulls out under the varying domestic political pressures they face, it could easily lead to a domino effect. With the current round of retreats, the ISAF alliance will be made even more unstable.
Already, there is a minor kerfuffle in Canada about the legislated end-date for the Afghanistan combat mission of July, 2011. The Tories have been successful, in the face of a complicit Liberal opposition, in playing a shellgame to avoid the political consequences of an unpopular war. They have extended the end dates more than once, moved Canadian troops back into their bases to avoid combat - and thus casualties - they have bullied the opposition with calls to "support the troops". But they have failed miserably at generating any lasting mass sentiment in favour of continuing Canadian involvement in the war, with a constantly rising popular opposition to the war: "A poll conducted over the summer showed 54% of Canadians opposed the Afghanistan mission. That number was only 20% in 2002 when Canada first started sending troops."

Afghanistan: Best Corrupt Election C$18 Billion Can Buy

Perhaps not many people remember the estimate from earlier this year that Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan will eventually cost a whopping $18 billion. That’s about $1,500 per household.
To put it in perspective, depending on estimates – whether it’s fully funded, full-time or part-time, etc. – a national daycare plan would cost between $5 billion and $17 billion. However, unlike military spending, much of which happens outside of the country, a daycare program would reap a multiplier effect – by providing domestic employment to childcare providers, by allowing more women to enter the labour force, etc. According to Childcare Canada: “The benefits from such a program would have provided about $2 in new benefits for every $1 in new government expenditure (costs would be shared in some way between the federal and provincial governments).”
But, it’s not about childcare vs warfare, say the Tories – it’s about keeping us and our children safe, stopping the growth of terrorism, etc. However, this begs the question: what is more likely to create recruits for terrorism: strategies which make people feel enraged, abused and oppressed – or actions that make them feel empowered, respected and free? Assuming that we’re not the only rational people on the planet, I’d say it is clearly the latter that will reduce the potential for terrorism.
Does Afghanistan meet that criteria?
By their own estimates, Afghanistan is a very corrupt place. The election that was supposed to confer legitimacy not only on the ostensible government of Afghanistan (ostensible because it doesn’t really have any power outside of Kabul). It was also supposed to confer credibility on the whole operation. It was a total flop, with growing reports of widespread and systematic ballot stuffing, intimidation, bribery – just the kind of thing you would expect in a Florida election under Jeb Bush.
Of course, it’s no surprise that incumbent presidential candidate Hamid Karzai’s methods tend towards the criminally dubious end of the spectrum. Look at who he’s surrounded himself with:
“In his bid for re-election, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan has surrounded himself with checkered figures who could bring him votes: warlords suspected of war crimes, corruption and trafficking in the country’s lucrative poppy crop. But none is as influential as Marshal Fahim, his running mate, whose trajectory in and out of power, and American favor, says much about the struggle the United States has had in dealing with corruption in Afghanistan.”
But Karzai’s advisors and supporters, propped up through a system of bribery and racketeering, extend beyond warlords from the Northern Alliance. It includes his half-brother, who has been a lightning rod of criticism in recent years because of his alleged involvement in the heroin trade and also in fixing the present election.
And it hasn’t only been the Americans who have come to realize that the edifice that they have created, and which they are defending with blood and treasure is a corrupt, murderous one. Canada’s ambassador to Afghanistan, it was revealed last year, pushed Hamid Karzai to dump the governor of Kandahar, where Canadian troops are stationed, because he was so corrupt.
Canadians need to ask themselves, as the corrupt regime of our making exposes itself and the occupation unravels – as even US and UK generals admit – is this fiasco really worth the cost of a national day care plan? Is it really worth the loss of lives in Afghanistan – to both Canadian troops and Afghan civilians? As the present recession ravages our jobs and economy, could we really not find a better way to spend $18 billion – more than half of what the Tories have pledged for stimulus measures? Surely, if we wanted to buy an election, we could have bought one for much cheaper. Apparently Jeb Bush only paid $4 million. That’s a much better price to end up with a corrupt president!

Afghanistan: “Serious and Deteriorating”

It was no surprise to see former Deputy PM John Manley once again stumping for the occupation of Afghanistan. He’s made it his favourite past-time to promote this particular Canadian adventure in killing people.

I can’t decide whether he’s the Tories’ fifth column in the Liberal Party, or the Liberals’ fifth column in the Tory party. It’s a particularly tough call because, let’s face it, Iggy is just Stephen Harper with more letters after his name.
More interesting than Manley's career-boosting was the response of the international media to the presidential elections in Afghanistan. Even Rosie DiManno, who usually writes like as though she were competing for the job of DND spokesperson with her pal Christie Blatchford, wrote an article that began with an account of the levels of corruption in this election.
“What the observers saw: Underage voters, illiterates being told who to mark their ballots for, monitors ejected from polling centres, men acting as proxy voters for women and, in at least one case, somebody hauling a pre-stuffed ballot box into a polling station.”
Over in the New York Times, rather than a laudatory article about what great progress the present elections represent, we instead had a piece about Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chariman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – America’s highest ranking military honcho – on CNN running down the state of the occupation. “Things are serious and deteriorating,” he says. It doesn’t help that a majority of Americans now oppose “Obama’s war”.
Somebody should remind Obama what happened to Lyndon Johnson. Especially since, as the NYT article points out, it is likely that US generals will be asking to ramp up American troop numbers even further than the 17,000 to which Obama already gave the thumbs up.
Over in Afghanistan, the stuffed ballot boxes weren’t even cold when one crook who ran for president and lost, Abdullah Abdullah, was already calling another crook who ran for president and won, Hamid Karzai, a, well, a crook. The real purpose of the election was laid out by Malalai Joya who has opposed the corruption and tyranny of Karzai’s government and for her efforts was not only expelled from the Afghan parliament but is now in hiding, had this to say:
“We Afghans know that this election will change nothing and it is only part of a show of democracy put on by, and for, the West, to legitimise its future puppet in Afghanistan. It seems we are doomed to see the continuation of this failed, mafia-like, corrupt government for another term.”
It’s almost sad that the charade of this election has fallen apart before we even have the official results. Well, it would be sad if the charade weren’t about justifying NATO troops, including Canadians, killing Afghans to prop up a government of warlords, drug lords, misogynists and human rights abusers.

If Canada and NATO are so interested in democracy, perhaps they’ll let the people of Afghanistan vote on whether they want them to leave. And maybe they’ll act on the democratic sentiments of the clear majority in NATO countries and bring the troops home.
Sadly, with Iggy and Harper acting as two cheeks of the same belligerent ass (pardon the mental image) that change isn’t likely to happen at our ballot box any more than it will in Afghanistan.

N. American Workers Starving To Death

There is much discussion in the first decade of the new century about the “obesity problem”. And there’s no doubt that it is a problem that is growing fast. According to statistics more than a third of Canadians and Americans are overweight or obese. Break this down further and it looks even more grim:
* 58% of men aged 20-34 are overweight in the US 1999-2000
* 67.6% of men aged 35-44 are overweight in the US 1999-2000
* 71.3% of men aged 45-54 are overweight in the US 1999-2000)
* 72.5% of men aged 55-64 are overweight in the US 1999-2000
* 77.2% of men aged 65-74 are overweight in the US 1999-2000
* 66.4% of men aged over 75 are overweight in the US 1999-2000
Overweight prevalence statistics for women in the USA:
* 51.5% of women aged 20-34 are overweight in the US 1999-2000
* 63.6% of women aged 35-44 are overweight in the US 1999-2000
* 64.7% of women aged 45-54 are overweight in the US 1999-2000
* 73.1% of women aged 55-64 are overweight in the US 1999-2000
* 70.1% of women aged 65-74 are overweight in the US 1999-2000
* 59.6% of women aged over 75 are overweight in the US 1999-2000
50% of women aged 20 to 74 are overweight or obese in the US.

These numbers are frankly staggering and there is no doubt that the costs of this epidemic of bad health in human, emotional and financial terms is heavy indeed. It is, in fact, a peculiar example of human unconsciousness that we can normalize this deadly act of self-destruction. Someday, I am convinced, we will look back upon this moment in history and the overweight/obesity problem will be seen as an obscenity and a further condemnation of our death-loving culture.
However, there is a myth that our collective weight problem is one of over-eating; that it is a symptom of our prosperity. We North Americans, so the argument goes, and increasingly the whole planet are gorging ourselves on our wealth. It is another version of the old “humans are greedy by nature” argument that is used as an ideological prop for capitalism. It is also bunk.
The problem of obesity must, in fact, be understood as a nutritional problem rooted in economics. That is, there is a lack of nutritional value in the diet of the average US worker because they cannot afford it – and this has been confirmed by a recent study at the University of Washington.
According to researcher Adam Drewnowski, director of the Center for Public Health nutrition, "The gap between what we say people should eat and what they can afford is becoming unacceptably wide. If grains, sugars and fats are the only affordable foods left, how are we to handle the obesity epidemic?"
Why is this happening? Because it is cheaper and more profitable to feed US workers the 21st century equivalent of saw dust. Processed food is jam-packed with nutritionless, cheap energy: literally, garbage. It is death and people eat it because they work too much and have neither the time, the money, the education nor the energy to prepare or purchase quality, healthful meals.
It is also a feature of the suburbanization of America, which forces everyone to get around via automobile - even to buy a candybar from the store, which is probably 5 kilometres away in a big box mall.
US workers drive to work - where they get no exercise or perform body deforming repetitive exercise - and then they drive home again where they eat the shit that is offered as food. Even the US government admits that the majority of the population are sedentary:
“The majority of persons in the United States do not engage in physical activities consistent with the recommendation of a minimum of 30 minutes of moderate-intensity activity on most days of the week. In 2001, a total of 54.6% of persons were not active enough to meet these recommendations.”
Some put it even higher: "Almost three-quarters of adults aren't active enough physically, according to the federal government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
US workers are increasingly overweight and obese because they are literally starving to death.