Progressive Politiks

Against Retribution

2011-07-26T05:30:00.000-07:00

Behind the bars, bullet proof glass, and witness stands of all criminal justice systems there exists a fundamental premise: the world would have been more ideal had a perpetrator not sinned, and because of this our government must respond on our behalf.

Countless philosophical texts have been devoted to trying to understand what this just society would be like. But perhaps the only way we can find what this justice is is by constantly defining what it is not.

The idea of crime is itself an admission that individual actions must be prohibited for the collective good. This evokes various responses within society's structures ranging from extreme retribution to restoration and mediation. In Canada we try combining many philosophical approaches towards how we should deal with crime, and, as I will argue, we largely fail.

Any examination of crime in all societies and cultures must flirtatiously dance around the truth that individual's actions are rooted in the culture they live in. Crime, therefore, is rooted in the way individuals are raised, respected and expected to behave.

Thus, when individuals breach the social contract, it is always questionable to what extent we can blame that individual; though this does not mean we should ignore the tragedy of what they have done. But if we can bring ourselves to admit how they were controlled by events they had no choice in, then to truly prevent crime we must look elsewhere for durable solutions.

Retribution is our most natural response to injustice. This is supported by studies demonstrating how humans instinctively perceive justice as fairness and equal opportunity suggest that our motive for retribution comes from this desire to restore the natural order by pushing a perpetrator down to a victim's level.

However, if we inject the sociological idea that a criminal is already a victim of circumstance the act of retribution becomes pointless, and only harmful to the individual.
In seemingly more morally refined philosophies, punishment is a mistake. Eastern interpretations from Ghandi's observation that “we win justice quickest by rendering justice to the other party” to Western exemplars like when Martin Luther King Junior implored that “Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction....The chain reaction of evil--hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars--must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation,” give a persuasive case that the only way to permanently do away with the evil others have done is to do away with the circumstances that led them to commit it.

This philosophy does not substantially exist in Western criminal justice systems—which use overcrowded prisons and their loving social showers to enforce the law. This costs over $50, 000 dollars a year in the United States, and $87,000 for men (almost double for women) in Canada. These pricey punishments disguise the well known fact that within prisons there is over-crowding, drug abuse, and rape among prisoners. Though not committed by the state, these conditions are unusual, and undoubtedly cruel. If we are to have any moral credibility we should admit that this is the true punishment we sentence prisoners to, and see if it can still be upheld when held against the high standards of our western human rights law.

In this so-called age of fiscal austerity, it seems logical to ask if this is the best possible way for tax payers to earn value for money. With the conservative government building billions of dollars of new prison facilities despite a falling crime rate, this is a question which clearly goes unasked.

For it seems, as the saying goes: we built prisons for those we must protect ourselves from and fill them with those we are mad at. Rather than seeking to wreck greater punishment, governments should aim to correct the underlying causes that made a criminal commit a crime. Moreover, prisons should be seen as a last resort and only be used for those individuals who must actually be separated from society. For example, in cases involving drug addiction, jail terms—to prisons which still have illegally traded drugs—is not an effective policy. Moreover, an addict's ability to make rational decisions is clearly impaired and some form of addiction treatment or therapy is clearly needed in order for there to be successful rehabilitation. These have been proven effective in the United States where nonviolent addicts who went to residential drug treatment programs rather than prison were 87% less likely to return to jail than those given regular sentencing.

A more lasting solution to crime itself must mean the government must become deeply involved in the proper psychological development of its citizens and in promoting the health of its communities. This is not a call for a big society and small state—but for a big society enabled by a benevolently intentioned state. For only the state can create the conditions of economic equality that so many studies have linked to citizen's well-being and only a big society can ensure a proper counterbalance to the a state's potential to abuse its power. Any state that enables its citizens to participate in a healthy society is using its heft for good; and in an era of rapid economic change, increasing mobility, and the breaking of the social bonds that once grounded us we need every tool available to combat our growing atomization.

One needs only walk into a poor neighbourhood to see what the causes of crime are. Children growing up without a sense of community and respect by their fellow citizens will not respect the law. These individuals do not have equal opportunity, and until we correct this, crime and punishment will remain our additional punishment them for the society we abandoned them into.

And Foul is Fair: The Debate on Geoengineering

2011-04-12T15:42:00.000-07:00

“Fair is Foul, and Foul is Fair”

Geoengineering will be used. Countries should accept this and integrate it into a global framework on climate change.

It would be an understatement to call geoengineering contentious. Despite its disastrous potential, it offers much to humanity: extra time to adapt to climate change; more time to lower the earth's carbon dioxide levels; in short, the time to undo past generations' mistakes.
One could even call it tempting.

Recently, at the 10th of the Parties for the Convention on Biodiversity, countries unanimously agreed to a moratorium on geoengineering, a decision which an examination of the issue reveals is seriously misguided.

There are numerous ways humanity can lower the earth's temperature to mitigate climate change. These range from the relatively cheap and direct—launching sulphates into the stratosphere to increase the earth's reflectivity, thus lowering global temperatures—to the costly and fanciful—mutli-trillion-dollar projects using small satellites to block the sun's light (Dyer 203).

However, using geoengineering would involve a change in humanity's role of unintentional acceptance of the earth's climate, to active involvement in regulating it. As weather-related disasters such as floods in Pakistan and forest fires in Russia—that have been linked with rising temperatures (Doyle)—become more frequent, it is clear that climate change is no longer just a problem for future generations, people of the present are suffering. As these problems of the present worsen, geoengineering will become more enticing to afflicted countries.

As many activists point out, there are many potential problems with geoengineering: it is risky and untried; it does not solve all the issues relating to climate change; and it would reduce the incentive for nations to reduce emissions (Robock 14-18).

The risks of geoengineering have to deal with how any application of it would have a planetary scope—thus if anything goes wrong, billions of people could suffer. Also, such direct human intervention in the climate could have unknown consequences—including permanently altering weather patterns people depend on (16). Since many suggested methods of geoengineering would involve reducing the amount of sunlight warming the earth, geoengineering could have damaging consequences to farmers and plant life in general (16). It also appears that if geoengineering is used, the poor would suffer disproportionately more than people in developed countries—though not nearly as much as they would with the expected consequences of global warming (The Economist, Geoengineering). Furthermore, issues dependent on the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, such as ocean acidification, can only be solved by actual emission reductions (Robock 15). Geoengineering is no panacea and cannot replace actual emissions reductions, but by limiting the earth's temperature rise, it might make adaptation far easier.

The issue of whether geoengineering would reduce incentives for countries to act to reduce emissions is serious. The so-called moral-hazard concern is that if geoengineering could offset the effects of climate change, nations would be less concerned with reducing their emissions. Ultimately, the only safe use of geoengineering would be if its purpose were to buy time to reduce emissions, but its application might create an incentive to do just the opposite (Dyer 198-200). Thus, the international community must ensure that a strictly enforced binding global deal on climate change be signed to avoid this.

This report considers the injection of sulphates into the stratosphere the most likely method the international community might use to employ geoengineering for two reasons: it is the cheapest yet proposed, with an estimated annual cost of only $25-50 billion per year (Crutzen 213); and it could be afforded by a rogue state being battered by climate change (Keith 194). As David Keith, a Canada Research Chair in Energy and the Environment at the University of Calgary said:

“Some schemes might be in reach of the richest individuals on the planet; easily within the reach of quite poor national governments. So, in fact, you might find that a national government, like, say, Bangladesh, at some point when they are really going underwater, says I'm not really very interested in all you rich countries moralizing. I just want to turn down the heat and do it now.” (Keith 194)

If the worst predicted realities of climate change do come to pass and runaway climate change begins, nations below sea level face the risk of vanishing into an unstoppable ocean. Can the global community trust states that are mere metres above sea level to not do anything to save themselves? Will their citizens let their land and heritage slip away?

Simply put, when the worst consequences of climate change begin to materialize, it is reasonable to expect developing countries to use whatever solutions are available to them. What's more, if the global community proves itself unwilling to act and lower the temperature, when the technology to do so exists, it will be all too easy for a rogue state to unilaterally launch sulphates into the earth's stratosphere (ibid).

Should a state unilaterally deploy geoengineering technology, it would set a dangerous precedent. Not only might states begin to consider the use of geoengineering for military uses, but it could make geoengineering into a divisive issue rather than a technological aid which a united global community could use with careful monitoring. It may end up being forever thought of as an emergency measure states afflicted by climate change could consider turning to whenever they see fit.

The global community could thus face three varyingly distasteful scenarios: by refusing to use geoengineering it would allow millions across the developing world to suffer; by forbidding the use of geoengineering it would risk seeing a rogue state unilaterally use it anyway; or by treating geoengineering as a technological aid in combating climate change, it could be used to extend the period of time over which nations can reduce their emissions, while having it tightly regulated by an international organization countries recognize as legitimate.

To ensure against upsetting the earth’s climate systems, researchers should be allowed to perform experiments on the globe with the sanction of the United Nations involving the release of increasing amounts of sulphates into the upper stratosphere. There is already reason to believe sulphates are safe—they are naturally emitted during volcanic eruptions, after which they reduce global temperatures without a disastrous effect to the global weather system (Victor et al.)

The only way to be reasonably certain of what the repercussions sulfate injection into the stratosphere will be, is to perform scientific research on the issue—the exact thing the Convention on Biodiversity has imposed a moratorium on. This moratorium is seriously misguided for preventing researchers from testing geoengineering technologies. Research into it should be pursued by a global institution such as the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) which could work towards arranging geoengineering experiments with the consent of all countries. After all, this technology may be able to—for a lack of better words—save the world as we know it.

Moreover, the IPCC predicts that if global temperature changes exceed 4º Celsius, 40-70% of all species around the globe could become extinct (IPCC). It thus seems hypocritical for the Convention on Biodiversity to wholly oppose a technology that aims to stop changes with such catastrophic potential.

Should the world pursue geoengineering, it must be used in a way that earns global consensus and does not subvert nations’ ultimate goals of reducing their own emissions (Victor et al.). To ensure this, negotiations on geoengineering should only be done after, or as part of, a binding global deal on reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Climate scientists predict carbon emissions reductions of 80% below 1990 levels are needed by 2050 to prevent a 2º Celsius increase in the earth’s temperature by 2100—after which runaway global warming becomes a distinct possibility (Parry et al. 68). Negotiations to reduce emissions are held up by a minority of opposing countries, a minority which includes the world's two largest emitters—America and China (The Economist, ClimateDiplomacy). Thus, a global deal appears out of reach for the foreseeable future (The Economist, Cancún). Therefore, if the world's largest emitters will not commit to targets with such severe implications, the international community must find alternatives: the only thing that could be worse for the world than even a weak but binding global deal would be to have no deal at all. Perhaps if geoengineering is able to extend the period of time nations have to lower atmospheric carbon dioxide by 100 years, a binding deal could be made achievable.

The risks of geoengineering are immense, but so too are the threats of climate change. There are no longer win-win scenarios: there are lesser evils. For the risks of geoengineering can only be fairly examined in opposition to the nightmarish risks of runaway climate change. For example, if methane clathrates in the arctic ocean are destabilized by rising temperatures, the earth’s temperatures could surge by over 2º Celsius from the release of methane alone (Schmidt and Shindell).If the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melted, sea-level would begin a slow, inexorable rise of more than 5 metres (Conway). Countries would then be pulled to the brink as agricultural failure could cause hundreds of millions to face starvation across the developing world. Nations close to the sea-level would suffer widespread inundation, forcing hundreds millions of climate refugees to pour into nearby regions (Biermann and Boas). Biodiversity loss would begin at a pace humanity has never witnessed (IPCC). Even, the Amazonian rainforest could face widespread die-back as the climatic consequences spread like a cancer (Malhi et al.). Wars would be more likely to break out due to increasing social tensions and vulnerabilities (Reuveny 658-659). But it needn't be this way.

This is not a future any generation can risk bequeathing to its children. Humanity has done far too little to stop climate change and now must be willing to use whatever technology is available.

God will not come to save us—but geoengineering just might.

In Parliament We Trust

2011-04-01T19:40:00.001-07:00

You can trace this story's beginnings back to 1642.

The English Civil War began because King Charles pursued absolutism in the face of a Parliament that sought to increasingly limit his power. A war over whether the King or Parliament ruled the land, saw Parliament victorious, and in the aspirations of liberals everywhere, the people victorious also.

And this has been the basis of government in Canada. Parliament shall rule. Over time this evolved to the principle that Parliament should be elected by universal suffrage, and be the ultimate source of power in the land. This is because Parliament is the only national body that represents us—we are no more than the sum of our parliament.

We rarely put our Parliament into its political and historical context, and thus some news items go over our heads, but we should not forget tha a contempt of parliament charge is why we are having an election.

So what is a Contempt of Parliament charge? It essentially means the government knowingly lied to parliament about important information.

So what did the Canadian government do? The sacred contract of the government to be beholden to the will of our elected electors was disrespected. The Harper Government hid over $25 Billion in spending from Parliament saying that the information was not relevant to whether they should pass the budget. $15 Billion was from the Parliamentary Budget Officer saying the F-35s were going to cost twice the government's $16-billion prediction; and $10-billion was from spending on an unreported crime Bill that would move Canada closer to the 'lock everyone up, even if it's ridiculously expensive' model of the United States.

This amounts to roughly over $1000 in spending per Canadian family that the government chose not to disclose to parliament. Parliament was, in essence, being asked to vote on a budget in which spending information that would make the government look bad (because Canadians do not admire the American penal-justice system, as they largely opposed the wasteful spending on jet-fighters) was not included so as to make the government look good.

So, the picture's clear: the government lied by omission to the Canadian people to control it's image. The representatives we sent to parliament to make our decisions were not even allowed to know what they would be voting on when there was no legitimate reason for the information to be kept hidden.

Thus the executive branch, like a King that didn't respect the power of Parliament, was ruling as it wanted.

This is contempt for Canadians, and this is worth fighting the election over.

We have the right for our representatives to know how our government is spending our money. The government should not selectively control information, because in a democracy the only truly important selection should be of the sort we are to make on May 2nd.

It is a lesson for the government to remember. When you lie to Parliament, you lie to all of us; when you disrespect parliament, you disrespect us all.

We should not forgive the Conservatives for this trespass. They have shown themselves unwilling to face our knowledge and our wrath. This is not a government that deserves to be reinstated. We have the right to make our government remember we want our parliament, not an unelected cabinet, in control of our destinies.

For if the government is not accountable to Parliament, it is accountable to no one at all. And when someone has that sort of power, you might as well call them a king.

Make it a CANcun, not a COP-out

2010-08-17T10:19:00.001-07:00

Seen by the public as scientific bickering, the Climate Crisis is in fact the biggest moral crisis humanity has ever faced. As Andrew Weaver said at the Climate Change Conference in Toronto, “it is scientific in the way a drowning man's situation is scientific—but the question still is what do you do?”.

The science of the climate crisis is straightforward: C02 that built up the bodies of plants and dinosaurs, now dead, that has been buried underground and chemically transformed into fossil fuels; by burning this fuel, we are putting carbon into the atmosphere that is warming it.

The costs are terrifying, and I feel no need to add to the mounds of literature on this subject. Suffice to say: 60% of species will go extinct in a best case scenario, 80% in an excellent scenario; and god help us if we only do a good job. We are facing genocides spreading through the developing world, rampant ecosystem collapse, deathly heatwaves, droughts, and storms.

International progress has been virtually non-existent. The Copenhagen Conference, which many saw as our last hope for an international deal, was a miserable failure. Scientists, Environmentalists, and Civil Society demanded global governments produce a fair, ambitious and binding document, but what they got was unjust, tepid, and optional.

We cannot give up hope. Speaking about this at the Climate Change Conference, Elizabeth May impressed upon me how critical it is that we ensure the Cancun Summit goes well. The Cancun summit is the next place the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) will be meeting. Our leaders have failed us, but if we let them continue to do so, we are no better.

Dear reader, I assume you understand how bad things are and care. But what are you going to do?

For if you have children, if you have ever cared for the future, if you have nephews, nieces, or plan on being a parent one day, you have the moral obligation to join the movement to stop the climate crisis.

We do not have the luxury of despair. We need to get out on the streets demanding decisive action. No contribution too small. If you can give money or vote for green-minded politicians, do so. But especially do something that involves a time commitment. People won't act unless if they see that people like you are getting involved.

We don't have alternatives. Our house of commons is perilously unresponsive, but we have the rights and freedoms to go out and change public opinion. In the next few months global civil society will be mobilizing to make sure Cancun isn't another COP-out.

The world can't have another Copenhagen.

These are ways you can get involved: give up some time, and take action:

http://tcktcktck.org/events/major-moments/global-work-party
http://www.350.org/about/blogs/getting-work-2010-our-new-plans
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/10-10-10
http://www.ourclimate.ca/wordpress/projects-campaigns/101010-global-work-party/

In Defense of Protectionism

2010-08-12T06:58:00.000-07:00

I'm not arguing for all out protectionism. Trade and the markets promote efficiency; my problem lies with the "free trade—always" arguement that economists shove down people's throats. Because reality is never simple enough for any "one size fits all" solution.

I'm going to argue in this post, that limited industry-specific protectionism that can, in certain cases, be prudent.

The technical name for this theory is "infant-industry protection". The analogy is apt. It is the protecting, by a government, of an industry via subsidies and tarrifs, and then lowering these trade barriers when the industry is dynamic enough to compete internationally – in other words, when it grows up.

Let's use a car firm as an example. Let's imagine there's a new Canadian car firm that just incorporated. A bigger car company may see its facilities, buy it out, and use it as a subsidiary to manufacture some parts. Could the company have had more potential? What would have happened if the government sheltered it for 20 years or so, until it could compete internationally—which is asking what would happen if we did what the Japanese did to make Toyota as strong as it is now? Could it have become an industry giant?

Rather than a guaranteed road to failure, countries used this to shelter companies (like Nokia—the world's largest cellphone-maker). This policy was essentially used by almost every country that is today a rich country to become rich. Hundreds of years ago, to fostered the British textile industry, it was pivotal in creating the conditions for the industrial revolution. What's more, these policies coincided with incredible economic growth. Like South Korea, which grew by 8.7%/year from 1960-1989 when protectionism was in full force. From the days of the Civil War to the Great War, the US had two things: the fastest growing economy, and tariffs between 40-50%. Statistically, during the days when this policy was in economic vogue, the growth rates of industrializing countries were double today's. If this policy leads failure, these facts would have been impossible.

Today employment is collapsing throughout the developed world, and manufacturing jobs that could provide average people with decent, livable incomes are drying up. From green jobs to software and electronics, our governments could shelter our industries until they are internationally competitive, and only then drop the barriers to trade. They could ensure future jobs, and increase our ability to lead, by not chaining infant-industries to short-termist market obsessions.

Developing countries especially should look to using these theories. The counter-argument to this statement is that countries like China prove it's not true. China, to be blunt, is far away from being an beacon of free trade. China uses incredible amounts of protection through subsidies and the undervalued Yuan. China in effect, is still sheltering its exploding manufacturing sector from true economic competition with other countries, and the result has been the greatest lifting of people out of poverty in history.

The obvious critique is that in the short-term we'd pay higher prices for some goods and services. This is undeniable. But on whole, who wouldn't say the economic benefit of Toyota or Nokia is worth the small costs the Japanese and Swedes paid in the past? If today's governments focus on getting things right, and the people hold them accountable, we can generate jobs and become international leaders.

We just have to realize that becoming an international leader means our industries needs to be able to stand on their two feet before international competition tries to kill them.

Keep Learning AND PLEASE COMMENT
“Infant-industry argument” Economy Watch, http://www.economywatch.com/world-industries/infant-industry-argument.html
“What is Infant-industry Protectionism?” Wise Geek, http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-infant-industry-argument.htm
“Infant Industry Argument” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_industry_argument
“Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism” Ha-Joon Chang

Canada Tempting BP-Style Disaster

2010-08-09T17:41:00.000-07:00

Money and morality never mix very well.

Someone once said “every time history repeats itself, the price goes up”. Canadians should bear this in mind when Chevron begins deep-water oil drilling 2.6 kilometres below the water's surface—over a kilometer deeper than the DeepWater Horizon oil spill—off the coast of Newfoundland.

The problem with drilling at such depths is that it's all but impossible to stop a spill so far underwater, and not before irreparable harm befalls the surrounding environment.

In short, a spill that could make BP's look like child's play is being risked only 400km off our shores.

[picture depicts BP Oil Slick]

I would like to approach this from a moral perspective. Profit, employment, and growth are desirable—to a point—but there are some risks which it is simply immoral to take.

If an almost uncontrollable spill occurs, and spills from the perforated seafloor into a fragile ecosystem, the damage could be inconceivable. The nearest rigs can only operate in 1525m of water, not nearly enough to put a hasty end to any disasters. This means a relief well would have to be dug, and a deep-water rig ordered, made, and transported. The notion that this can be done in a timely fashion is frankly laughable.

Canadians should look to history, yet again, when considering the demons this Pandora's box might unleash. Namely, Industry's ceaseless drive to deregulate laws protecting people and the environment suggest our laws could ride an oiled toboggan down an all-too-slippery slope. Already, under the Conservatives—of course—the laws have been changed so that it is no longer necessary to drill an accompanying relief well. Given how politicians seem to always fall prey to the serpentine lobbying of the energy industry, if only the act of drilling seems bad now—the future looks to be far worse.

There are two significant policy changes, I would humbly suggest you, dear reader, consider supporting: companies should not be allowed to drill in waters deeper than they have the capacity to quickly plug; and oil companies should be forced to foot the bill for any and all clean up costs. This would make all offshore drilling financially perilous.

And that goes against their morality.

Whether the risks are worthwhile is similar to the hazards of nuclear proliferation. Most of the time, everything goes according to plan. But we've gotten lucky. The world came within one intercepted message of all-out nuclear war back in the Cuban missile crisis. Fortunately we lived to threaten the earth another day.

However, luck is like oil—at some point the supply dries up.

Keep Learning AND PLEASE COMMENT!

“Planned oil well off Newfoundland lacks safeguards to avert disaster,” Globe and Mail, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/planned-oil-well-off-newfoundland-lacks-safeguards-to-avert-disaster/article1558396/

“Deep drilling starts off Newfoundland” CBC News, http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2010/05/10/nl-chevron-deepwell-510.html

“Feds watered down regulations governing East Coast offshore drilling” Andrew Mayeda, http://www.canada.com/technology/feds+watered+down+regulations+governing+east+coast+offshore+drilling/3108766/story.html

To the Contrary, Canada DID Bail Out Her Banks

2010-08-08T15:27:00.000-07:00

Canada bailed out its banks.

What!?, you say. Us? But we have 'regulated banks'; and didn't Mr. Harper say that we didn't have to “bail out the banks?”

He said it alright. It's also true that we have no bill passed in parliament that is comparable to TARP.

So how did we do it?

$75 billion in government allocated money went to the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) to purchase mortgages from the banks in the fall of 2008. The CMHC is a crown corporation akin in purpose and function to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The allocations increased government borrowing to $89.5 billion in 2008-2009 (compared to $13.6 billion in 2007-2008)

What's more, the CMHC increasingly insures high-risk mortgages with money borrowed from the banks themselves—meaning the taxpayer takes all the risk by way of the CMHC. Combining mortgage insurance and mortgage backed securities owned by the CMHC (fancy terms meaning if the people find themselves unable to pay en masse, the government would have to pay for the crown corp's shortfall) rings up to over—wait for it—$500 billion. This is substantially up from the CMHC's $100 billion in securitization back in 2006.

Other significant actions by the CMHC in recent years have been to reduce the required down payment to 0%, and increase amortization (how long one has to repay a mortgage) to 40 years! This makes it far easier for people to purchase houses they simply won't be able to afford.

So what really happened dear reader? We effectively bailed out our banks by purchasing mortgages through a crown corp. What's worse: the foundations have been laid for a future crisis to be even worse.

I feel it's crucial you know and understand these fac ts. This is what is going on under the Conservatives. The crisis that should have been the death bell for unsustainable real estate finance seems more like its C-section birth.

Further Your Knowledge AND PLEASE COMMENT!:

“Canada's Good Bank Myth”, Murray Dobbin, The CCPA Monitor Volume 17 No. 3, July/August 2010

“CMHC Growth Fuels Worry Over Risk” By Boyd Erman and Tara Perkins, The Globe and Mail, October 16, 2009

“CMHC Annual Report” http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/corp/about/anrecopl/upload/CMHC_AR2009.pdf

“Canada's $75 Billion Bank Bailout” by Michel Chossudovsky, Centre for Research on Globalization, January 25, 2009 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12007

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Mortgage_and_Housing_Corporation

Wall Virginity Stolen

2010-08-08T06:17:00.000-07:00

Every blog has its first post.

No one is probably ever going to read this, because, if this blog ever does get established, I doubt people will care enough to read it all the way back.

If you are reading it, please comment. I'd be interested in knowing who reads this =)

This is going to be my 2nd major attempt to set up a blog. I will post on politics, social justice philosophy, history, economics, and world events. I hope I can help inform people by doing this.

I will aim to post (as of now) 2-3 times a week, and have posts hopefully around 200 words, but within the 150-500 word range. I'll try not to make things too long, and be as succinct as possible. succinct.

I hope I can learn from my readership, and we can be a part of the global movement to undo the inequities of modern authoritarian capitalism.

I hope this works. Last time I tried making a blog, I was financially concerned and thought it could act as a part-time income supplement. Needless to say, blogs aren't a get-rich-quick hobby, and less than a month of zero profits led me to apathy.

But money shouldn't be the focal point of a blog: content should be king. I will do this out of intrinsic motivation. I will have links on the side, but these are excellent books I strongly feel people should read (and I think people reading books instead of watching TV is as sure a mark of a civilized society as the rule of law).

without further ado,

Godspeed