Science and the Canadian Government

I watched a depressing, sad and infuriating TV program last night. CBC's The Fifth Estate devoted the entire hour to a discussion about how internationally recognized Canadian scientist are being laid off and world renown Canadian scientific programs are being dismantled by the current government. This is not a new story. Bits and pieces of it have been on the national news for the past five or six years. (Although the news that the government had closed a number of scientific libraries and dispersed/ destroyed the information only came to light this week). But it was, at least to me, incredibly sad to hear from and to see the faces of the scientists who had lost their jobs speak with such passion about their work. 

Click on the above link and watch the program. It is worth the time. We all need to know what is going on. We need to understand the consequences of the Conservative Government's decision to ignore science when it says things they don't like. But there is also a deeper perhaps more worrying aspect to the story; there is a lesson to be learned about the political strategy that this government employs to weaken the country and thereby reduce resistance to the changes that they are bringing about regardless of whether or not the majority want them.

When I was attending university about 10 years ago, there was a lot of conversation in the "Arts" part of the school. There was great concern and frustration amongst those who had a passion for the Humanities and for the Social Sciences that funding was being re-directed from their programs courses to the science departments. There was a sense that the courses that talked about the world in terms of history, literature and how people matured as societies had become less important AND that the science folks thought that that was the way it should be. I never heard anyone say that both the arts and the sciences were equally integral to the university community. Quite frankly I think most of the science departments were delighted that they had more access to funding and therefore to the power at the administrative level of the university. The very people who had made it their life's work to understand how the world worked from a social point of view were demoted to a second class position within some universities. 

Now science is being attacked or at least certain branches of it are. It makes one wonder who is in line to have their funding chopped and their research maligned.  Will the "golden programs" of economic or applied research be next? One could almost wonder why the government appears to be afraid of anyone who thinks differently from them?

This tactic of divide and conquer is not a new tactic. Mike Harris won two elections in Ontario using this strategy. One wonders when we, as a collective, will understand and stop responding to it.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
 
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
 
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
 
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
 

Martin Niemöller

Holocaust Encyclopaedia

Light Bulbs

I do not like being told what to do. I especially do not like to being lied to, tricked or manipulated into doing the "right thing".  My most recent complaint is the Canadian government's moral high ground stance on saving the planet by insisting that I need to switch to using compact fluorescent lamps, or CFLs. 

It is an absurd proposition to assume that if everyone uses a more efficient light bulb we will start to resolve the issues around climate change. It is the same sort of logic that argued that we should turn off the water when we brush our teeth to deal with the issues of water shortages. I would perhaps be more supportive of such government initiatives if that government demonstrated an equal concern about how industry uses water or electrical energy.

For example the Tar Sands of Alberta - so dearly loved by the Conservative Government - use "to produce 1 barrel of oil from the Athabasca oil sands ....., on average 2 to 4 barrels of water in the case of mining projects or.4 barrels of water in the case of SAGD projects " (Industry Report).( see also United Nations Environmental Alert Service).  Turning off the water when I brush my teeth (which I do) is not going to address the issue of the reduction of available groundwater. Far more water would be saved if the government banned the raising of beef for the simple reason that the production of meat uses a surprising amount of water. For example  "In 2010, 838 million cubic metres of water (in Canada) were used for irrigation"(Statistics Canada) . Hay was the most common crop watered (ibid)).

There are so many ways that we could save energy. Getting out of the Tar Sands is one obvious way. According the Globe and Mail, it is anticipated that the amount of energy needed to produce a barrel of oil will continue to increase. In a different article the same news service reported that "a new estimate by Ziff Energy Group, a Calgary-based energy advisory, predicts that oil sands gas consumption will rise to three billion cubic feet (bcf) a day, up from 1.1 bcf today" (Globe and Mail). To be clear -  we are using natural gas to extract oil - why don't we just use the natural gas?

On a personal level we could start to turn off the lights when we leave a room and turn off all of electronic gadgets. (10% of the average electric bill is because of phantom power) 

In the meantime we are stuck with a weak law that has so many holes in it that it is not going to be very effective. For the next year "75- and 100-watt incandescent bulbs will be banned, followed by 40- and 60-watt versions on Dec. 31, 2014" (CBC News). On top of that, the aforementioned bulbs can still be sold as long as they were manufactured before January 1, 2014. Who wants to bet that there is a huge stock pile somewhere and that those bulbs will start to become more and more expensive? It is a law that will allow the government to say it cares about the environment and perhaps even worse, allow people (who can afford to purchase the far more expensive CFL bulbs) say that they are doing something useful.

It is a bad law that does little good and may in fact do harm. I believe that we all need to do our part. But we need to make sure that we are focusing our efforts in the right direction. We also need honest leadership.

Dirty Bingo

A few weeks back while I was waiting for the computer to warm up and load my PowerPoint slides for the morning's class I asked the students who were there "what is Dirty Bingo?".

I had noticed a poster advertising an event put on by the Student Association called Dirty Bingo and I was naturally curious what it was. It is not the first time that this event has occurred. In fact I think it probably is an regular event. I had just never gotten around to asking someone what it was. I suppose if someone had asked me what I thought it was I might have wondered what word could be used to replace "Bingo". If pushed harder I would have perhaps tried to imagine playing some game outside on large squares.... but  in all honesty I did not have a clue.

The answer I got from my students was simple. "It is like regular bingo except the prices are sex toys". I expressed a bit of surprise, the computer warmed up, my slides appeared and the class started. But their answer has been laying somewhere in the back of my mind - festering a wee bit. I am not too sure why but there is something about the students hosting something called Dirty Bingo that bothers me.

The easy answer is that much of my attitude around sex and all things related to sex was shaped by my upbringing. I am far more a product of my father's Baptist beliefs than anything that happened later including coming of age in the late 60s. Therefore I might be a bit of a prude and therefore naturally offended by the thought of sex toys being given to young adults. But that is not what is bothering me.

Why is it called "Dirty Bingo"? If someone decides to run a bingo game and hand out such toys - that is fine. But I don't understand why such toys are labelled as "dirty".  It would seem to me that if we are as liberated and as well educated as we think we are, then we should not need to titillate the audience by labelling the prizes in such a fashion. It is as if we still need to perceive sex as being dirty or not quite OK.

I don't understand.

Christmas Card

I mailed some Christmas cards yesterday. There were only five of them (sister, brother daughter, son and one close friend out west). I can remember my parents spending their evenings doing their Christmas cards- going through the list making sure that they had not forgotten anyone who had sent them a card, adding notes to the people who they were close to or had not seen for awhile. The cards were away of staying in touch with people - some of whom my parents had not seen in years. And of course I remember getting all of the cards in the mail and how exciting it was when I got a card addressed to me. My parents didn’t have a lot of money but they sold Regal Cards and I suspect that their sales paid for the ones they mailed out. I don’t want to exaggerate but I am sure that they mailed out well over a hundred, perhaps even two hundred Christmas cards every year

This year I mailed five. The stamps were left over from last year and the cards were free. Some charitable organization had sent me 8-9 cards along with a pen, some Christmas seals and some return address labels. There were nice cards with nice envelopes. They expected me to send them some money to support their worthwhile cause. I didn’t ask for the cards and I didn’t send them any money. In fact I never donate money to charities that send me stuff on the hope that I will send them money. I felt a bit guilty about using their cards without donating some money but I would have felt worse if I just thrown the cards away. I will donate money to another charity while thinking about them.

It may be the last year that I send Christmas cards. If Canada Post goes through with their plans to both increase the cost of stamps and to do away with house delivery, it will be too expensive to mail stuff out and everyone that I send a card to will have to walk somewhere to get their mail. I don’t think any of them care enough.

The failure of Canada Post to both make money and to provide a needed service is a classic example of Neo-liberalism. First one deregulates and de-funds a service that has traditionally been seen as a public service; when that service can no longer function and falls apart the government says “see… it wasn’t a very good service anyway and the private sector can do it better”.

It is interesting to note that the Conservatives, when they stop running from shame, will probably say that Canada Post is run as separate entity from the government and that its board is responsible for the necessary business decisions it makes. In the past the government has argued that a national postal service is a necessary service (which is why the government legislated workers back to work in 2011). Today I guess it is not a necessary service. And that saddens me.

Canada is a complicated country for numerous reason but the over riding issue that defines virtual all of its problems is its size. Politicians in the past have recognized that for the country to remain strong it needs to have national institutions that make it easy for Canadians to feel connected to each other. The national railroad, the CBC and Canada Post are three such institutions that have allowed us to stay in touch. There is no more national railroad, the CBC continues to be gutted every budget and now the postal service is on the way out. 

Do you ever get the feeling that someone would prefer if we didn't stay connected?

"right to express their opinions"

I saw Prime Minister Harper on the TV news last night. As reported on Global News, he righteously (in fact one could say almost aggressively) stood up for human rights. In particular he was making the point that Canada “expect(s) Ukrainian authorities to respect and protect the rights of its citizens, including the right to express their opinions freely” (Global News http://globalnews.ca/news/1022823/harper-voices-concern-over-ukraine-unrest/). A few weeks earlier Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird had said the same sort of thing on another world stage. 

It is wonderful that two of our leading politicians will speak out to the world about the importance of people being allowed to stand up to their government when they (the people) feel that the government is not listening or are doing things that they feel are bad for the country. Notwithstanding the fact that one wonders how the Prime Minister would react if the people of Ukraine were demanding closer links to Russia, it is important that world leaders take a stand about human rights. It might be too early in the political process to subtly threaten the government as Mr. Harper did, but then he is known for his ability to see the world in very clear black and white terms even if he risks polarizing the situation.

A few weeks ago I was showing part of a documentary to one of my classes. I Should Have Stayed at Home was produced by CBC’s The Fifth Estate and documents what happened to 4-5 individuals who chose to be part of the G20 protest in Toronto in 2010. The amount of violence and sheer aggression displayed by the police towards citizens who clearly were not anarchists and who had absolutely no desire to pose a threat to anyone or anything shocked some of my students.  They, I think, thought that we had the right to peacefully protest our government’s actions.

The juxtaposition of pictures of Mr. Harper’s speech beside the images of the police attacking people who were just expressing their opinions is striking. It is also frightening. We should all be afraid, angry and offended when our government preaches one thing and does the exact opposite. Even more importantly – we should be frightened when they don’t seem to have the capacity to recognize that is what they are doing. 

I can only hope that one day I will have the same rights as Mr. Harper says the Ukrainians have.

Cell Phones and the Canadian Government

As everyone who knows me is aware, I am not a big fan of cell phones. I am never convinced that anyone is important enough to need to be available 24 hours a day. In fact I think it is probably mentally unhealthy for us be connected all of the time. There is much to be said for down time.

On the other hand I can appreciate that they have their uses. For example when there is an accident, a cell phone ensures that help will get there quickly; when a parent needs to contact their daughter or  son who are out and about - it is reassuring to be able to reach out. But it would seem to me that those events are the exceptions to the rule. I don't need a cell to take pictures, I don't a cell to play Angry Birds and I certainly don't need a cell to send text messages to people.  But what I really don't need is to have my government spend money trying to convince the public that what we have now is bad and that what will be so much better is if there was less regulation and therefore more competition (read present Canadian companies might not be able to compete).

 CBC has reported that our government is paying 9 million dollars for ads such as this one ; to convince us that what we have now is a bad deal in part because we are being charged more than most countries. I always get concerned when the government makes sweeping statements without any documentation. For example according the the Globe and Mail we are paying less than the Americans and more than the British for similar plans. We are apparently somewhere in the middle in terms of costs. If the government is wrong about costs - what other facts are they wrong about?


There might be an argument that more completion lowers the price - I have never heard of such an argument or at least an argument that remained valid a year or two after the big boys came to play, but it is conceivable that such an argument exists.  But I can think of numerous examples where deregulation destroyed competition. The argument that we can get more by paying less is absurd. It is absurd when Rob Ford says it; it is absurd when Jim Flaherty says it. I understand the concept of "economy of scale", but deregulation creates an unequal playing field. And we all know that when there is no completion and no regulation - the costs never remain low.

So if there needs to be cell phones - I can live with that, but please Mr. Harper stop wasting my money convincing me that big business always knows best. 

I have to wonder if giving the 9 million directly to Canadian cell phone users wouldn't be a better use of my money?

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

For the past few weeks I have resisted the temptation of responding to what is now called the Senate Scandal. I have been reluctant to become part of the collective outrage in part because it is just too easy to pick on people who not only lack the capacity to make morally or ethically driven decisions, but also who lack the political skills to recognize when the hole that they have dug for themselves is getting too deep to get out of. But I have also not engaged in Duffy bashing because something else was bothering me about the whole affair but I could not quite figure out what it was. Then yesterday as I was listening to news program I realized what was bothering me.

A commentator said something to the fact that he was shocked and disappointed in the Prime Minister's response; that the PM had run on a platform of being the most ethical prime minister - and now quite clearly he, or at least his office was making poor ethical decisions.The fact that a commentator was shocked should be a bit of a concern to us all for a variety of reasons but I digress. Why would any one expect our politicians to have higher ethical standards than some regular Canadians? While it is alarming that a few senators declared costs that they were not entitled to, is their behaviour that unusual? How many Canadians every year declare costs that they are not eligible to?

According to the Financial Post - there are hundreds of modest income earners in the Peace River area who have been avoiding paying approximately two million dollars in income tax; Revenue Canada found about 2,700 people in the Barrie and Sudbury area who failed to file their returns accurately. The Globe and Mail reported a single tax preparer filed 129 returns with fraudulent information saving his clients approximately $245,000.00. An organization called Canadians for Tax Fairness (its members include some people who clearly lean towards the left including Ed Broadbent) suggest that 81 billion dollars a year is lost by people not paying all of their taxes because they get paid "under the table". Of course there are also the billions of dollars that are stashed in off shore accounts so that the richest of us don't have to declare that income.

Avoiding or at least reducing the amount of income tax one pays by any means possible is, at the very least, a national sport. It is common around income tax time to hear people brag about how much money they saved on income tax by using a deduction that while it may have been sort of legal - really wasn't. I don't think I have ever heard someone brag that they paid their full tax. Of course the reason why people cheat or "fudge" their tax returns is because, as they argue, they already pay too much in taxes and the government just wastes the money anyways. I suspect that some of the people who use that argument also complain about the bad roads or the waiting time for medical help.

 I profoundly disagree with what some of our senators did in terms of manipulating their expenses so that they would have more money to spend on luxuries. I am just not sure if I have the moral right to judge them. While it would be nice to assume or to believe that our politicians will provide moral leadership - nothing in the past 20 years has given me reason to believe in that particular fantasy. Why is anyone surprised when they don't provide such leadership?  It would seem to me that our country is in serious trouble if we are waiting for our politicians to provide leadership around ethics.

If we expect (and I do) that people who commit fraud against the Canadian taxpayer should at the very least pay the money back (and perhaps a bit more), not only does that include Duffy - but I suspect it also includes thousands of Canadians. If we are going to get morally outraged at politicians who steal - maybe the next time we see or hear of someone who is ripping all of us off, we need to say something. (We are all delighted when when we pay cash and are not charged hst) Either we lead our politicians by example and therefore have the right to expect more from them, or we follow their lead and get exactly what we deserve.