Margaret Wente doesn't need me to publicize her, but since I haven't bothered to rant about global warming here's an article that comes to close to being where my head is at. Or at the very least represents a calm betwixt storms ideological and before those in the climate that may or may not come.
Andrea Bruce, who readers may remember as the artist who made my banner, started an interesting thread about postmodernist philosophy and its misuse of scientific terminology on her livejournal. I got involved. Others got involved. And I think it makes for interesting, if meandering, reading. Main thread involving me is a little lower down the page and involves KRK (Andrea's LJ name), Anonymous/Sarah, and me. Check the thread out here.
Postmodernist devotees can tell me why I'm full of logocentric hypermasculine metavistic signifiers qua signifiers vis-a-vis significance nee juristic patriarchalist crappydoodoo below in my comments.
This is a bit "inside baseball" but fun (at least for me).
The new Chair of the CRTC is Konrad Von Finckenstein. Konrad used to run the Competition Bureau where I thrice worked. The man is seen there as a force of nature . Big, imposing, brilliant, full of ideas and willing to pursue those ideas to fruition. Aggressively.
The CRTC and the Competition Bureau have, shall we say, mandates based on contrary philosophies. Konrad embodies the Competition Bureau philosohy not the CRTC philosophy.
This move by Harper, Bernier and Oda is best described as "putting the cat among the canaries."
I imagine it's a tough time to work at the CRTC.
I have rashly made a bunch of Oscar predictions over on the Livejournal.
Just for fun. :)
I know that most of my contemporaneous comments on Bush's State of the Union (see below) aren't particularly astute or inspired. They were really just musings of the moment. But here are my closing thoughts.
My first thought is that I always wonder how many of those long term "call upon" the administration actually believes are achievable. Mainly though, I thought the speech was a great reflection of where our neighbor to the south finds itself. Tired. Exhausted even. They feel like they need a break. There's a quote in a little movie called New Waterford Girl that is a propos. "If they are guilty, they fall down." People find it hard to win when they think they are wrong. The US is so introspective - that they kinda want to win. But they kinda want to lose a little too, I think. They are the good guys. They aren't supposed to go to war on false pretenses. They aren't supposed to suspend habeas corpus. This war is killing more than troops. It is killing the myths that make them Americans.
I don't think it had to be this way either. I think it is cost of electing a man who wasnt articulate enough or insightful enough to be a wartime President - a President elected in another era - an era that was like summer camp. The post-cold war era. I've said before - the problem wasn't going to Iraq. There were very good reasons to go to Iraq. The problem was the administrations belief that those reasons weren't good enough. Their impatience. Their duplicity. Their hubris.
History will say that invading Iraq was the mistake. I disagree. It was invading Iraq with the wrong man in charge.
(This is not to be confused with the original Iraq mistake, which was made by George H.W. Bush - not stopping the invasion of Kuwait in the first place. THAT was the real diplomatic blunder.)
And the second: Democrats return the favor: "Not with more government. With more enterprise".
And we're off:
Obvious statement number one. Dick Cheney is right next to Nancy Pelosi. Can you FEEEEL the mutual hatred brothers and sisters?
Still - I never forget how lucky we in the western world are to have this kind of collegial hate. In most times in history and a good plurality of places on the globe today, these two would be commanding militias and plotting each other's execution.
Here they'll ruin your life, but they're not quite as quick to end it.
Hey all,
I am gratified to have received several emails and messages asking me to hurry up and update. Thanks for giving a hoot! I appreciate it. (I should also acknowledge the overprotective person who thinks blogs are "ridiculous", "adolescent" and predicts that this is "going to get me in trouble", I suppose. But sorry, this happy civil servant wants an expressive outlet and this, dear friends, is it - at least for now. ;-) )
The blog is my hobby and, always, work comes first - and right now work is requiring me to stare at a lot of regulations - and I'm putting my focus there. That having been said, I promise never to be gone too long and to announce it if this blog is ever going to end. I won't let it trickle away with a whimper. I also plan on spacing out big rants so don't expect a big one every day - even Cory MacDonald is only so opinionated. Nevetheless, I'll be keeping the short links coming regularly with bigger (imPropErly CapitaLized) rants coming whenever I have a bee in my bonnet - which should still be a VERY regular occurence.
Tonight, time permitting, I'm going to geekily live blog during George W. Bush's State of the Union Address. My prediction (though not only mine): Lots of focus on domestic policy, a shift leftwards and even a renewed commitment to combatting global warming but won't say the word Kyoto. He will acknowledge that Iraq is a struggle and try to appear humble while still being firm.
Finally, I predict camera shots of Hillary Clinton not clapping.
Yes. I am aware that all of these predictions are equivalent to predicting that the sun will rise tomorrow.
For those of you with more beer than common sense I give you: The State of the Union Drinking Game. PLEASE be careful, drink responsibly, and remember that this is a speech by the most unpopular President since Nixon. For some of you that means you need to factor in an increased stomach contents regurgitation potential percentage of at least 30%. For the few George W. fans still left out there, its cool. I figure this last paragraph already made YOU throw up.
Scotland contemplates leaving the country that it runs. Sound familiar Canadian readers?
Public service announcement:
Tonight, Stephen Colbert and Bill O'Reilly will appear as guests on each other's show. It promises to be good television. Colbert is on at 11:30pm on Comedy Central and 12:30pm on CTV.
Fox News is hard to come by but does exist WAAAAAAAAAAAY up on some digital cable packages. 8pm and 11pm eastern.
For those of you who don't know why this will be fun - Stephen Colbert makes his living by lampooing the kind of TV show that Bill O'Reilly pioneered. There is no love lost between the two men.
The last time I saw Bill O'Reilly appear on the daily show he called Jon Stewart a pinhead.
Christopher Hitchens on the Iraq surge and why he thinks it's silliness.
Andrew Coyne on The Conservatives and the environment file. As I've said before, Kyoto isn't a plan. It's a religion. Worship it or thou art (painted as) a blasphemer!!
Hey all. I'll rant again very shortly. Just wanted to leave that Dauphin post up top for a little while - and honestly in the last 2 days the biggest policy problem I've been thinking about is how frustrating it must be for Jack Bauer to work with a President who makes such consistently stupid decisions. It's like I say, Just cuz he's David Palmer's brother...
In the meantime, there's frivolous non-politics over on Cicero's Livejournal for those who care about that sorta thing.
...And so, the March to the PMO for the Dauphin begins. The Dauphin was the heir apparent to the throne of France under the Valois and Bourbon dynasties. The first French prince called Le Dauphin was Charles V. The title is roughly equivalent to the English title Prince of Wales. It is also my Cicero In Pants copyrighted term for heirs apparent in the modern day. Like that guy above. No. Not the Dalai Llama. The OTHER heir apparent. Our very own Canadian Prince.
I, and many other people, get very uncomfortable whenever one of these Dauphins shows up. We worked for a long time to banish primogenitor as a justification for succession to power. I, for one, am not thrilled at seeing it slowly wander back.
Justin Trudeau has been getting his picture taken for as long as he can remember. He's also been asked to be Prime Minister for as long as he can remember. I'm not surprised. Look at the guy. Not only is he the son of Pierre Trudeau, but he's got looks and charm that his father couldn't come close to. He's clearly not as cerebral as his father, but he glows! His entire aura is such that it's damn hard to dislike the guy. Heck, I met Justin a few times in university through university debating and liked him. I was annoyed that he dropped me in a round at novice, but whatever. Still seemed like a genuinely decent guy to me.
So my beef isn't with him. Justin's cool. He's making his way in the world trying to do the best he can and achieve as much as he can using the opportunities and advantages at his disposal. Most people would.
My beef is with the rest of us.
Yes...us. We that would contemplate buying a newspaper because Justin's picture - or Belinda's picture - is on the front page. And don't dare blame the media. This ain't supply side economics time you wily little Friedmans. These folks - Belinda, Ben, Justin, Alexandre (Sasha), Catherine - definitely get more than they've earned because of the accomplishments of their parents.
But only because we want them to.
And look, to an extent I accept this. In entertainment it's fairly harmless. If Ben Mulroney gets extra fame because of Brian ...whatever. Nepotism is a part of life and like it or not it's never going away. But when it gets near my government, I get nervous. In Canada, the biggest "Hollywood" we really have is Parliament Hill. Canadian Dauphins don't just go the Paris Hilton route. Who in their right mind cares if they get a Genie award anyway? But Parliament! Why there you get all the fame along with some power. An Order of Canada and a seat on the CIBC Board beats a Genie any day.
Unfortunately, government is where real life and death decisions get made, and it is becoming increasingly clear that we should be very careful before we let such Dauphins ascend. What, you disagree? Yeah - well I have two arguments for you.
Tell the truth - Neither of those experiments were QUITE the success people might have hoped for. And it's no accident. Voters vote for the Dauphin because they believe the success of the father may run in the blood of the son. But we all know genetics doesn't play out that way consistently. And we often end up burned that way.
Performers like Harper and Chretien got into the PMO on their own pure resolve and talent - and performed well as a result. When they got into the chair they could handle being the leader. That's not the case with Dauphins. They've been elevated as symbols. Their job isn't to lead. It's to be a figurehead for the advisors hiding behind them. Advisors that swear they gravitate to the dauphin because he is something special as a leader and thinker, but who more often than not think - "this guy can win". Later, they can convince themselves of his substantive greatness, but that's not the true motivation.
A typical scenario often develops when the titular head is a symbol rather than a leader. First, his followers start going at each other with sabres to try to curry his favor and to become the most trusted advisor. Internal power struggles abound. Ultimately, the Symbol actually starts taking the decisions, as is his right. He's the actual boss after all. But he doesn't have the necessary judgement for that - the battle tested mettle - and he doesn't know it. So policy goes hurky jerky crazy and things start to go badly because NOBODY COMPETENT IS DRIVING THE DAMN BOAT!
In addition to the danger of that happening, the Dauphin has another big problem - the one that dogged Paul Martin Junior. One that causes dangerous second-guessing: "W.W.D.D" - What Would Daddy Do? Remember how Paul Martin Junior was a Business Liberal until he took the mantle of leadership. Then he felt the need to declare that he was his father's son, as he ran sprinting to the left? Just imagine the baggage that the Son of PET will carry. If he does become my Prime Minister, I hope he has the strength of character to paraphrase Aristotle and say "I love Daddy dearly but I love truth more."
The frustrating part for me is how inevitable this all feels. Justin Trudeau will run and win his MP seat. Then he will start organising to be Liberal leader - he isn't running for parliament so he can be a backbencher. He has a VERY strong team behind him that plan on running a PMO with him. And a nation in love with the father might find it impolite to turn away his beautiful, shiny son.
But Cicero, you cry, its not FAIR to criticise dauphins for this! Should they not strive? Should they live in hovels! This BACKLASH is what is truly undemocratic!!
Poppycock. Thats just the argument that gets inserted after the backlash so the Dauphin can go back to enjoying his or her inherited privileges. It's up there with "you're just jealous". The fact is, the argument stands. If you feel like backlashing something don't dismiss that intuition out of hand. There may be something to that primal instincts of yours.
So what choice do we have? It's not just a choice, it is a responsibility in a free and democratic society. We must evaluate our potential leaders and representatives as people on their own merits - not as progeny. Evaluate them as you would an employee or a house contractor or your lawyer or your doctor. Take the measure of that person. Feel it in your gut. And ask yourself how much responsibility you believe that person deserves. Because eventually that person WILL be called upon to make very tough life and death decisions. If Justin - or anyone else - proves themselves to you, then by all means - vote for them. No one should be disqualified just for being the child of a great man.
But if you look at the dauphin...and you think he might not have the mettle for the most important office in the land... offer him a hosting gig at the Genies.
I can say with conviction, dear readers, that the debate over Global Warming has never had more depth. If I can summarise the positions of the celebrity blogosphere for you:
From progressives - Boy. It sure is warm out. (Scroll down to the very bottom of the page. January 1 entry)
From conservatives - Boy. It sure is cold out.
OK so saying something with conviction doesn't mean one is telling the truth. ;-)
Seems like this year Santa's Christmas gift to the regional echo chambers was exactly the weather they needed to bolster their pre-existing beliefs! Stick THAT in your world peace, baby jesus.
Last night I attended a panel on international relations held at U of T's Munk Centre for International Affairs. entitled:
On the Speakers
On the Audience
I'm secular. I go to midnight mass, pray to God for help, thank him for my blessings, and feel compelled to say grace if I look down and see more than one fork and a tablecloth. But really, I don't truly believe in my own religion - or yours. That having been said, the Bible is one of the foundational works of our civilization and few of us would be ill served by knowing more about it, particularly since the desert God is still so central to global politics.
Slate has been running a great project for a while that might interest anyone who identifies with my point of view, as well as the more obsevant among you. The idea behind their Blogging the Bible project is simple. David Plotz, a non-observant jew, reads some bible and writes about it - not from the point of a believer, but from the point of view of a bemused first time spectator. In his own words:
My goal is pretty simple. I want to find out what happens when an ignorant person actually reads the book on which his religion is based. I think I'm in the same position as many other lazy but faithful people (Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus). I love Judaism; I love (most of) the lessons it has taught me about how to live in the world; and yet I realized I am fundamentally ignorant about its foundation, its essential document. So, what will happen if I approach my Bible empty, unmediated by teachers or rabbis or parents? What will delight and horrify me? How will the Bible relate to the religion I practice, and the lessons I thought I learned in synagogue and Hebrew School?
His comments are fun and fresh. Not at all boring. I think I'm going to start reading along (not aloud. This won't show up on the blog again.) Wanna come?
OK, OK. To entice you. Here. The first two paragraphs of the first entry:
Genesis, Chapter 1
You'd think God would know exactly what He's doing, but He doesn't. He's a tinkerer. He tries something out—what if I move all the water around so dry land can appear? He checks it out. He sees "that it was good." Then He moves on to the next experiment—how about plants? Let's try plants.
This haphazardness may be why Creation seems so out of order. If God made light on the first day, what was giving the light, since the sun doesn't appear until the fourth day? And God tackles the major geological and astronomical features during the first two days—light, sky, water, earth. But Day 3 is a curious interruption—plant creation—that is followed by a return to massive universe-shaping projects on Day 4 with the sun, moon, and stars. The plant venture is a tangent—like putting a refrigerator into a house before you've put the roof on.
Get the idea? It's all like that. I love it and he's up to Isaiah now. Have fun. :)
...and check out Simpson's response to a question on Harper's International Affairs policy. (Half way down. Question by Irving Nyman).
Ouch! Skewer. You can bet I'll be spending some time thinking about this on the weekend.
Hey all,
Here's an internet chat I had today about the Cabinet Shuffle with Atlas Hugged. Feel free to read it - or act it out in your drama class while wearing togas. Whatever works for you.
Its basic political armchair athlete stuff. Please don't take any facts in this as gospel. This is off the cuff chatter posted here for interest's sake. We didn't fact check on the fly and weren't planning to post it at all until late in the conversation. If anyone reading this wants to correct any facts - or make any other observations about how stupid or smart we are, just post in the comments box. No reasonable entries refused. :) Also - if someone could teach me the html to hide this conversation behind an html link (like an LJ cut) I would be most appreciative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12:16 PM CIP: [ I comment that Rona Ambrose went to Intergovernment Affairs after all. I guess the Prime Minister of Canada didn't heed my blog. Oh the humanity! ]
12:25 PM Atlas Hugged: meh- this way she can fuck up the fiscal imbalance I feel sorry for baird
12:30 PM CIP: I feel sorry for Ablonczy. Why do you feel sorry for Baird. He just got one step closer to being a future PM of Canada. Im not predicting he will be by the way. He's still a gay conservative. but he's being tapped as a central performer and he can't do anything with this portfolio but look better than Rona did because he's a much better communicator.
Atlas Hugged: this file will kill him, like it killed everyone else. and he has no interest in leadership .
CIP: interesting. so what does he want to do with his life when he retires from politics at the age of 40 then?
12:33 PM Atlas Hugged: ambassador to the US or UK actually
CIP: good to know. anyway, time will tell if this slaughters him. I wish him the best of luck. Remember the good old days when David Anderson could sit in the chair, do nothing, and not take any heat? ah. good times...
Atlas Hugged: back when there were separatist in power in quebec and issues were dealt with by throwing money at the mob- I miss those days
12:35 PM CIP: lol
Atlas Hugged: and conservatives only cared about stupid issues like the composition of the family and senate reform
CIP: they still only care about those stupid issues. You can tell by how half assed their other policy initiatives are.
12:36 PM Atlas Hugged: its true- I can't wait to hear Baird blame liberal corruption for climate change
CIP: oh he will. but it will be effective when he does it. he'll blame liberal inaction. in that bold Baird way.
12:37 PM Atlas Hugged: well, I think that is a matter of opinion- I think he was brutal in the house up until now- mostly because I don't like catty/yelling/heckling
CIP: and it will have more traction than when Rona speaks and nobody listens Atlas Hugged: well, it also assumes that PM isn't going to micro-manage this file anymore- I Think this is a signal that he won't but this file is WAY harder than the last one baird had
12:38 PM CIP: yeah. I agree. I think the PM micromanaged Rona because of intangibles regarding Rona. I think he and Baird will work much more constructively. That having been said - you are right. Its a difficult file at a difficult time. Still I cant think of many choices better than Baird to be honest. maybe bad for Baird, I dunno. But certainly one of the best moves possible for Harper, in my opinion.
12:42 PM Atlas Hugged: I could think of three better choices - 1) Clement 2) Ablonczy and 3) Premier Lord
CIP: Rona in Intergovernmental is still an accident waiting to happen but at least there the PM can be his own minister
12:43 PM Atlas Hugged: I think the sec states are interesting too- I think it says a) emerson isn't running again and b) chuck is getting sicker
CIP: I dont agree with Clement over Baird. I don't agree with Ablonczy...and I don't agree with Lord. Sorry just thought them through one at a time. I still think Ablonczy deserves in but I think Baird is the perfect choice.
Atlas Hugged: I would like to remind you that Baird hasn't actually run a large ministry before. Baird will backfire because he will be too agressive
CIP: yeah - thats the concern for sure. you may absolutely be right. I dont think so but you may be right.
Atlas Hugged: and, he has come out very strong against kyoto before- that will come up again
CIP: I think that would be what happened to ablonczy too though. Clement would be ok... but since he has been seen as lackluster at health the optics of the move wouldnt advantage the govt right now - doesnt seem dynamic - no win in it for Harper. and Lord - well, he isnt available as quick as this needs to happen without Harper pulling another Fortier. anyway - I see all those choices as less of a win for harper
12:47 PM Atlas Hugged: but that is the whole point- the election is in ten minutes-
CIP: but, as I say, time will tell. and Lord is just another rival breathing down Harper's neck btw- although I dont think he will ever win. My gut tells me to predict Jim Prentice's star as ascendent to the throne as next tory leader.
Atlas Hugged: I would like to remind you who the finance minister is
12:49 PM CIP: yep. I know. and my gut tells me to predict Jim Prentice's star as ascendent to the throne as next tory leader.
Atlas Hugged: no, I was responding to the lord comment- if harper was actually worried about that kind of shit, flaherty would be minister of whales and dolphins
CIP: ah. yes - I was more wondering how many he would want to deal with. anyway, we shall see what happens between now and the election 10 minutes from now. So far, I predict...another Tory minority!!!
12:51 PM Atlas Hugged: I think everyone does-
CIP: 65% possibility with 35% liberal minority! :)
Atlas Hugged: I think that harper is the only guy who can hold the tories together right now.
I dont' think this is going to play well in quebec- especially with Baird, who has basically called quebec "criminals" for a year now coo-coo-ing them with environmental platitudes will not work If I had more time, I would blog all this. oh well. (Edit: Looks like Atlas found time)
(Cut: discussion in which I ask to post the conversation and Atlas accepts)
Atlas Hugged: ok- so you know the sec state thing- Strahl's cancer is getting worse and emerson isn't running
CIP: yep.
Atlas Hugged: I am surprised at mills too, actually- he knows the file backwards and forwards and wrote the CAA, and he isn't even on the spec com weird
1:06 PM CIP: Don't know about that. No opinion really. I found the Solberg - Finley move interesting actually. any thoughts on it? I can only assume it has something to do with Solberg's dealings with protesters and an attempt to add a few other costless moves to broaden the shuffle. But I don't know.
1:09 PM Atlas Hugged: Honestly, it probably has more to do with the fact that finlay handles questions poorly, and gets some in her old job
CIP: you think that wont happen in immigration? :S
Atlas Hugged: monte has answered like ten questions all year- because arar questions were handled by day or the PM
1:10 PM CIP: hmmm... I guess... still... he's the one who got chased out of a hall by protestors. I don't think its a soft landing for anybody.
1:11 PM Atlas Hugged: meh- both are total non-jobs it is like shuffling the chairs onthe titantic
1:12 PM CIP: well - that was sort of my point. I wouldnt call them non-jobs exactly, but they are equivalent 2nd tier ministries for sure, in my opinion. anyway - I gotta get back to work. lunch is over. ttys.
Atlas Hugged: cheers
Happy New Year everyone! - the 1.3 billion people living on a dollar a day or less; The impacts of corporate globalization on rural communities are fracturing a quality of life that is Canada's historical identity. So, whose "standard of living" is Cory MacDonald really talking about when he extols the virtues of corporate globalization? Certainly not the majority of Canadians, but the minority of stockholders and corporate managers who stand to benefit from the endless search for increased profits that transnational corporations restlessly seek - at any cost. Canadian standards of life are an "externality" to corporate globalization and constitute a "barrier to trade" whenever they do not advance what Daly describes as "global corporate feudalism." The fact that Magna International awarded $56,000 in cash, prizes and an internship for this essay should be a chilling wake-up call. The trouble is, indoctrinated students like MacDonald now get to be "prime minister" and win huge corporate prizes for proposing to sell out the country to transnational corporations. They should be educated, not rewarded for their ideological programming. Rural Extension Studies
I'm in the midst of the January crunch at work so I'm going to leave any serious ranting for the weekend - a weekend that I will be spending in my house because, like most of you, my head and my wallet need some time to recuperate from the Christmas season.
In lieu of an original post though, I thought I would post this fun tidbit from way back in 1999. Back then I won the "As Prime Minister" essay contest that Magna International runs. Here's an abridged version that still sits on the Guelph website. My thanks go to John the commenter. Apparently, the right wing slant I put in the essay really cheesed off someone named Jennifer Sumner at the time.
I'm a fairly centrist guy who describes himself generally as economically centre-right and socially centre-left so I don't know how much of a corporate stooge I really am. I'm also contrarian enough that I know I'm not "indoctrinated" by anyone about anything, but I think I'll review that old essay soon and see how much of it I still actually believe. Should be an interesting exercise.
In the meantime I hereby give Jennifer Sumner circa 1999 the floor. If you don't much like me, you'll get along famously with Jennifer. Here ya go:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/atguelph/00-03-29/letters.html
ESSAY CONTEST PROMOTES GLOBALCORPORATE AGENDA
Cory MacDonald's "prize-winning essay" printed in the March 15 issue of @Guelph is a disturbing symptom of our times. It is a mere parroting of neo-liberal dogma with, so far as I can see, not a single fresh word in it. It does not represent a "political vision" to improve our living standards, but only the program of a global corporate agenda that the majority of people in Canada are now suffering through.
Cory MacDonald's essay represents the triumph of life-blind ideology. No thought needs to accompany the slogans, just unquestioning acceptance. But a review of the literature on globalization from a range of disciplines reveals its negative impacts in Canada as well as around the world.
First of all, the concept of globalization needs to be labelled for what it is - corporate globalization. According to Herman E. Daly, former senior economist with the World Bank, the ideal of globalization, when closely examined, "turns out to be unfettered individualism for corporations on a global scale."
Those who promote corporate globalization are working to raise the living standards of corporate stockholders and high-level corporate managers, not the living standards of the vast majority of Canadians. (And if anyone still believes in the trickle-down theory of economics, I have some swampland in Florida I'd like to sell them.)
In rejecting the nation-state, Cory MacDonald leaves behind all the human and environmental protections built up over years of negotiation. There are no laws to protect either people or the environment at the global level, only laws to protect the movement of money and transnational corporate commodities. The "supranational bodies" he wants to pass power to have no accountability to life-protective regulations, no democratic process.
While acolyte MacDonald exhorts us with clichés to "compete with the world on equal terms" and "expose business to a number of harsh realities," economist Daly understands what the slogans really mean: "The economic integration of any high-wage country with an overpopulated world is bound to lower wages and raise returns to capital, widening the gap between labour and capital toward the more unequal world distribution."
The victims of that unequal distribution have been described by a recent United Nations Human Development Report as:
- the 160 million malnourished children;
- the one-fifth of the world's population not expected to live beyond 40; and
- the 100 million people in the West who are living below the poverty line.
- The moderator of the United Church of Canada warns that people are getting chewed up by an uncaring economy: "People are dying in the process. . . . they are being sacrificed, literally, to the god of the market."
- Rural communities in Canada represent a microcosm of the devastation brought on by corporate globalization, eroding the very foundations of the rural way of life that has historically valued community, neighbourliness and co-operation.
- Economically, they have been hammered by the growth of corporate farming, poverty and debt creation, restructuring, deregulation, privatization and changes in employment and unemployment patterns.
- Politically, Canadian rural communities have been made insecure by public-sector slashing, tax and subsidy discriminations, cutbacks to rural services and an assault on shared risk policies.
- Socially, Canadian rural communities have suffered from reduced access to health services, loss of vital social institutions like schools and hospitals, and population migrations.
- Environmentally, Canadian rural communities have endured soil depletion, pesticide persistence, agricultural pollution, exhausted fisheries and reckless clear-cutting.
- Culturally, Canadian rural communities are losing their heritage of mutual help and their distinctiveness in the face of commodification, mass consumption and the invasion of big-box stores.
- In terms of gender impacts, rural women in Canada have experienced greater wage decreases than men have, more off-farm labour (in addition to their on-farm labour) and increased responsibilities as social services are withdrawn.
Jennifer Sumner
